Are Kline and Mark Karlberg not Confessional concerning the Mosaic?

Status
Not open for further replies.

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
PDF download.
https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...S8wb55lvxHr2YNFHWc2hQFX9jR8lg=&attredirects=0

On the web.
https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...jnuFB2QeynHcndjH9eCrCcrkOzTzg=&attredirects=0

This is a topic I am trying to get a grasp on since so much of my understanding of the Mosaic has been more along the lines of Kline and those he has influenced. I have only started to look into these issues because I have mostly accepted a dichotomous view of law and gospel for the past 30 years or so.

Pastor Ramsey has made some pretty strong well researched arguments as far as I am can discern and I am leaning more toward his understanding on this issue of the Mosaic and the Westminster Confession of Faith.

If you have time to read this can you give me your assessment of what Pastor Ramsey has written here? BTW, this is not merely an academic exercise for me. There is a lot of application that I am drawing from this study.

Patrick Ramsey states,
It is my conviction that the historic Reformed faith, as it is expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, has essentially understood the correct purpose of the Mosaic Covenant in redemptive history. This is not to say, however, that the Reformed community has been and is agreed upon this issue. There have always been some within the Reformed camp who have departed from the position stated in the Confession. Two contemporary examples are Mark W. Karlberg and his mentor Meredith G. Kline. [7]

Although they claim to hold to the classic form of covenant theology, [8] this article will attempt to demonstrate that their view is incompatible with the Westminster Standards. In order to do so I will first summarize their view of the Mosaic Covenant, then present some reasons why this view is inconsistent with the Westminster Standards, and finally answer some possible objections.

7
Mark W. Karlberg, “Reformed Theology as the Theology of the Covenants: The Contributions of Meredith G. Kline to Reformed Systematics,” in Creator, Redeemer, Consummator (ed. Howard Griffith and John R. Meuther; Greenville, S.C.: Reformed Academic Press, and Jackson, Miss.: Reformed Theological Seminary, 2000), 235.
8
Meredith G. Kline, “Gospel until the Law: Rom. 5:13-14 and the Old Covenant,” JETS 34 (1991): 434. See Jeong Koo Jeon, Covenant Theology: John Murray’s and Meredith G. Kline’s Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1999), 237.
This seems to be a reversal of Kline’s earlier declaration that Theonomy, which is certainly at odds with his view of the Mosaic Covenant, was the view of the WCF. See his “Comments on an Old-New Error: A Review Article,” WTJ 41 (1978): 173.
 
Last edited:

Irish Presbyterian

Puritan Board Freshman
Brenton C. Ferry, "Cross-examining Moses' defense: an answer to Ramsey's critique of Kline and Karlberg," Westminster Theological Journal 67.1 (Spring 2005): 163-168.
 
Last edited:

Marrow Man

Drunk with Powder
Randy, let me know if you'd like the read the article mentioned by Keith. I'm pretty sure they carry WTJ at SBTS, and I'd be glad to get you copy of it sometime.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Just as a side note. My experience was not that of Luther's. I knew I didn't measure up to the Law and I feared God's judgment but it was the beauty of the Law that drew me towards Christ. I knew there was something perfectly good and I needed it. The Law revealed beauty to me and I wanted it. So my experience and struggle was a bit different than Luther's experience.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
I would have to agree with Keith that Ramsey has misrepresented Kline and Karlberg. That doesn't mean I would agree with everything those two theologians said about the Mosaic Covenant. However, I do not believe that Patrick Ramsey has advanced the discussion. Ferry's criticisms are well taken.

Personally, I am coming to believe the following propositions about the Mosaic covenant: 1. It is part of the covenant of grace, no question. 2. However, if this were all we said about the Mosaic covenant, then it is difficult to see why it would be given over and above the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, 3. There is a republication of the covenant of works present in the Mosaic economy. 4. The previous statement needs to be carefully defined in a typological sense, corresponding to the paedogogical use of the law (this is probably where I would disagree with Kline, incidentally: he views the republication as relating to Israel's ownership of the land, whereas I view it as setting forth the impossibility of works salvation). 5. Romans 5:20 tells us that the law (Mosaic law in this context) was added to increase transgressions. I think this is one of the most important (but overlooked) verses in this discussion. The law increases transgression by pointing sin out to us (having a standard obviously increases our awareness of sin), by making more actions explicitly labelled as sin that might have been only implicitly known as sin beforehand, and by acting as a goad to our sin nature. 6. These actions of the law in increasing sin drive us to the super-abounding grace found in Jesus Christ (cf. the rest of verse 20). 7. There is a republication of the CoW in all economies, since Jesus came to fix the CoW. His fulfillments of the terms (both obeying and suffering) of the CoW renders it a CoG to us, by virtue of His obedience imputed to us. All those who do not participate by faith in this CoG are still bound by the terms of the CoW. Hypothetically, the way of obtaining heaven by works has always been open. Practically, however, it can't be obtained by us, since we made ourselves incapable of obeying, and we have the debt of our sin, as well.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Lane,

Would you say that Pastor Ramsey is accurate here in his description?

According to Kline and Karlberg the Mosaic Covenant is to be interpreted as a covenant of works, although not exclusively. As Mark Karlberg writes, “The Mosaic
Covenant is to be viewed in some sense as a covenant of works.”
9
In fact, sound biblical
exegesis requires that one “not reduce the Mosaic Covenant to a covenant of ‘pure grace,’
with no element of works in its administration.”
10

To understand properly the role of works one must divide the Mosaic Covenant
into two distinct spheres or levels.
11
There is a foundational level, which deals with the
spiritual or eternal salvation of Israel. According to this aspect of the Mosaic Covenant,
the Israelites were saved by grace through faith. The Mosaic Law was never offered to
Israel as a way to earn or receive eternal life. Spiritually and eternally speaking, the
Mosaic Covenant was part and parcel of the Covenant of Grace. Hence, Karlberg writes,
“According to the Scriptures, OT religion is one in substance with the New. There is no
other name under heaven whereby one must be saved from wrath and condemnation that
is coming.”
12
The second, or upper, level of the Mosaic Covenant refers to the temporal life of
Israel in the Promised Land. This aspect of the Mosaic Covenant operates according to a
“works” principle. Hence, God related to Israel differently in spiritual matters than He
did in temporal ones. Furthermore, this temporal relationship came to an end when the
New Covenant was inaugurated, thereby prohibiting its application to the church today.
13
The promise of the “upper level” is temporal blessing and prosperity whereas the
threat is temporal cursing and removal from the Land. The promises and threats of this
temporal relationship are found in such places as Lev 26. Thus, the blessings and curses
of the Mosaic Covenant refer to the “upper level.”
The condition of the “upper level” is “work” or “obedience to the law.” In this
sphere the Israelites, both individually and corporately,
14
lived under a works/law/meritinheritance principle. Israel would prosper in the Promised Land if they obeyed the law
but would be removed if they transgressed. As Karlberg writes, “Under the Sinaitic
arrangement obedience to the law (i.e., ‘work’) was the means of inheriting temporal
reward, prosperity in the land of Canaan.”

I would also like to know how Pastor Ramsey misrepresented Kline and Karlburg. Do you believe he would acknowledge that now years later?
 

MW

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The basic problem with the new scheme is the way it makes the covenant of works co-ordinate with the covenant of grace in the Mosaic economy. They refer to the Abrahamic promise and the so-called "works principle" of the Sinaitic covenant functioning side by side. The older divines would speak of the covenant of works as subordinate to the covenant of grace. It was serving in the way we see it in action in Romans 7, for example, bringing conviction of sin and driving the people to the promised Christ. (Incidentally, the same is true with respect to the law-gospel relationship now.) Besides this ordo salutis aspect, there was also the historia salutis aspect. The outward service of weak and beggarly elements bound the people to the faith of Christ until Christ came. This was a temporary "addition" which had respect to their minority as sons and had all the appearance of making Israel look like they were servants in bondage. This has been abrogated in Christ and the son has come to maturity in the Spirit. But as to the essential nature of the Sinaitic covenant, it was always looked upon as an administration of the covenant of grace. The catechetical teaching on the preface to the ten commandments drove this point home in an experiential way which could not be easily forsaken.

Further problems arise once this basic departure is discerned. One begins to see a metaphysical reworking of the categories of grace and justice in relation to the "covenant of nature." Instead of a providential dispensation (see Shorter Catechism question 12), the covenant of works is turned into a creational entity which characterises the natural relationship between God and man. Human morality is, in its very essence, made a covenant of works. Grace is only operative where sin abounds.

Other problems might be mentioned but I believe these suffice to alert us to the fact that this is a new scheme and that it introduces harmful deviations into the reformed system of theology.
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
I would have to agree with Keith that Ramsey has misrepresented Kline and Karlberg. That doesn't mean I would agree with everything those two theologians said about the Mosaic Covenant. However, I do not believe that Patrick Ramsey has advanced the discussion. Ferry's criticisms are well taken.

Personally, I am coming to believe the following propositions about the Mosaic covenant: 1. It is part of the covenant of grace, no question. 2. However, if this were all we said about the Mosaic covenant, then it is difficult to see why it would be given over and above the Abrahamic covenant. Therefore, 3. There is a republication of the covenant of works present in the Mosaic economy. 4. The previous statement needs to be carefully defined in a typological sense, corresponding to the paedogogical use of the law (this is probably where I would disagree with Kline, incidentally: he views the republication as relating to Israel's ownership of the land, whereas I view it as setting forth the impossibility of works salvation). 5. Romans 5:20 tells us that the law (Mosaic law in this context) was added to increase transgressions. I think this is one of the most important (but overlooked) verses in this discussion. The law increases transgression by pointing sin out to us (having a standard obviously increases our awareness of sin), by making more actions explicitly labelled as sin that might have been only implicitly known as sin beforehand, and by acting as a goad to our sin nature. 6. These actions of the law in increasing sin drive us to the super-abounding grace found in Jesus Christ (cf. the rest of verse 20). 7. There is a republication of the CoW in all economies, since Jesus came to fix the CoW. His fulfillments of the terms (both obeying and suffering) of the CoW renders it a CoG to us, by virtue of His obedience imputed to us. All those who do not participate by faith in this CoG are still bound by the terms of the CoW. Hypothetically, the way of obtaining heaven by works has always been open. Practically, however, it can't be obtained by us, since we made ourselves incapable of obeying, and we have the debt of our sin, as well.

But surely there is a problem of confusing terminology here. A hypothetical republication of the covenant of works isn't a (real) republication of the covenant of works because it is hypothetical. It is only graciously highlighted by God in order that the Israelites may seek salvation by grace, because they see more clearly that the way of the covenant of works is hopeless.

Therefore it is God's gracious provision - in a special way under Moses, but also under Christ, viz. His hypothetical presentation of the CoW to the Rich Young Ruler - as part of the Covenant of Grace to drive men to Christ.

A (real) republication of the CoW would involve God encouraging people to seek salvation by works. That would be a lie and would be cruel, apart from anything else.
 

timmopussycat

Puritan Board Junior
...There is a republication of the CoW in all economies, since Jesus came to fix the CoW. His fulfillments of the terms (both obeying and suffering) of the CoW renders it a CoG to us, by virtue of His obedience imputed to us. All those who do not participate by faith in this CoG are still bound by the terms of the CoW. Hypothetically, the way of obtaining heaven by works has always been open. Practically, however, it can't be obtained by us, since we made ourselves incapable of obeying, and we have the debt of our sin, as well.

But surely there is a problem of confusing terminology here. A hypothetical republication of the covenant of works isn't a (real) republication of the covenant of works because it is hypothetical. It is only graciously highlighted by God in order that the Israelites may seek salvation by grace, because they see more clearly that the way of the covenant of works is hopeless.

Therefore it is God's gracious provision - in a special way under Moses, but also under Christ, viz. His hypothetical presentation of the CoW to the Rich Young Ruler - as part of the Covenant of Grace to drive men to Christ.

A (real) republication of the CoW would involve God encouraging people to seek salvation by works. That would be a lie and would be cruel, apart from anything else.

I think the republication Rev. K refers to is not hypothetical but actual. Although instituted in the garden, it remained in force after the garden, but because of human sinfulness, its fulfillment by mortal man has always been impossible. And any formal republication of the CoW in any of the subsequent eras is neither a lie nor cruel, nor an encouragement to people to seek salvation by works. Rather it points out the fullness of our misery and our need of a redeemer.
 

mvdm

Puritan Board Junior
Of course, subsequent to Ramsey's article the Klinean disciples published "The Law is Not of Faith" as their magnum opus to Klinean covenant theology. But as demonstrated by Kerux, Venema, and Mark Jones in their respective reviews of the "Law is Not of Faith", the Klinean disciples not only failed to refute Ramsey's analysis, they confirmed it.


Here's more from Ramsey:

Confusing Law and Gospel | Patrick’s Pensees
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Tim
I think the republication Rev. K refers to is not hypothetical but actual. Although instituted in the garden, it remained in force after the garden, but because of human sinfulness, its fulfillment by mortal man has always been impossible.

But this isn't a republication. The CoW was published once and for all to Adam and us in him in the Garden. By nature - even although we may be born under the administration of the CoG -we are born as breakers of the CoW and with obligations to it which we can't meet.

Tim
And any formal republication of the CoW in any of the subsequent eras is neither a lie nor cruel, nor an encouragement to people to seek salvation by works. Rather it points out the fullness of our misery and our need of a redeemer.

It is purely hypothetical and therefore not truly a republication of the CoW. It is a teaching aid of God's grace to those who have broken the CoW and have demerited God's goodness. It is of God's goodness to sinners and therefore part of the CoG.

Therefore it's just plain misleading and bamboozling to talk about a republication of the CoW.
 

Tbordow

Puritan Board Freshman
As someone who believes Kline's covenant theology, no one has yet pointed out to me how Kline was teaching anything different than Charles Hodge. Hodge sees the covenant of grace in the Mosaic, as well as a national covenant, which we sometimes call typological, and the hypothetical idea that Lane mentions above. Here is what Hodge taught, and as far as I know nobody questioned whether it was confession or not, though he admits there is much disagreement on this subject. It would be helpful if someone pointed out the difference between Hodge and Kline, because I don't see it.

"Besides this evangelical character which unquestionably belongs to the Mosaic covenant, it is presented in two other aspects in the Word of God. First, it was a national covenant with the Hebrew people. In this view the parties were God and the people of Israel; the promise was national security land prosperity; the condition was the obedience of the people as a nation to the Mosaic law; and the mediator was Moses. In this aspect it was a legal covenant. It said, ‘Do this and live.’ Secondly, it contained, as does also the New Testament, a renewed proclamation of the original covenant of works. It is as true now as in the days of Adam, it always has been and always must be true, that rational creatures who perfectly obey the law of God are blessed in the enjoyment of his favour; and that those who sin are subject to his wrath and curse. Our Lord assured the young man who came to Him for instruction that if he kept the commandments he should live. And Paul says (Rom. ii. 6) that God will render to every man according to his deeds; tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doeth evil; but glory, honour, and peace to every man who worketh good. This arises from the relation of intelligent creatures to God. It is in fact nothing but a declaration of the eternal and immutable principles of justice. If a man rejects or neglects the gospel, these are the principles, as Paul teaches in the opening chapters of his Epistle to the Romans, according to which he will be judged. If he will not be under grace, if he will not accede to the method of salvation by grace, he is of necessity under the law." (Hodge - Systematic Theology)
 

jwithnell

Moderator
Staff member
it was the beauty of the Law that drew me towards Christ. I knew there was something perfectly good and I needed it

What a wonderful statement. This is not an astute theological comment on my part, just a heartfelt response :)
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Now I am not as up to snuff on this but from what I understand about the Ferry article is that when Ferry was discussing Pastor Ramsey's critigue he was using Kline's old view instead of Kline's mature view which was the one that Pastor Ramsey was critiquing. From what I understand the Kerux journal points this out.

From what I am seeing Ferry did a poor job.

Kerux Journal article
"Since the Irons trial, debate and discussion over the republication issue has continued from a variety of voices. Perhaps the most noteworthy has been D. Patrick Ramsey’s article in Westminster Theological Journal (66:2 [2004] 373-400) entitled, “In Defense of Moses: A Confessional Critique of Kline and Karlberg.” Ramsey argues that Kline and Karlberg contradict the Westminster Confession in their mature teaching regarding the republication of the covenant of works in the time of Moses. His key historical-theological argument is that Kline and Karlberg articulate a position that is essentially identical to the “subservient covenant” view of John Cameron, Moise Amyraut, and the later “Amyraldians”—a view he maintains was explicitly rejected by the Standards.

A few months later, a response was written by Brenton Ferry, one of the contributors to this present volume, entitled “Cross-Examining Moses’s Defense” (67:1 [2005] 163-68). In it, Ferry defends Kline and Karlberg, arguing that they are not guilty of contradicting the Westminster Confession. Ferry’s key point is that in the 1968 publication, By Oath Consigned, Kline argues that the Mosaic covenant is renewed in the new covenant. As Kline writes:

Hence, for Jeremiah, the New Covenant, though it could be sharply contrasted with the Old (v. 32), was nevertheless a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant.22 Thus Kline is vindicated from the charge of teaching an “Amyraldian” view of the covenant.

The problem with Ferry’s argument is that what Kline taught in 1968 is not what Kline taught twenty, or thirty, or fourty years later. No less than Mark Karlberg himself (whom Ferry proposed to defend in his WTJ article) has critiqued Ferry for his failure to recognize this point. And with respect to the Westminster controversy in particular, [Ferry’s] failure to acknowledge change and development in Kline’s thinking on the covenants only distorts an accurate reading of the history of Reformed interpretation,
past and present.23

Karlberg points to an important principle in reading Kline’s works: the later works correct and revise the earlier works. Kline’s student, Lee Irons, has also noted this important principle, arguing that Kline’s position on the relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and the new covenant in By Oath Consigned is revised in his later work, Kingdom Prologue. Irons argues:

In other words, in KP [Kingdom Prologue] he no longer defines the New Covenant as a renewal of the Old/Mosaic Covenant (i.e., as a law covenant) and instead stresses the contrast between the Old and the New Covenants. The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works and was breakable. The New Covenant is a covenant of grace and is fundamentally unbreakable (although the sense in which it is unbreakable must be carefully defined).24 In other words, in Kingdom Prologue, Kline revises the position he articulated in By Oath Consigned, by arguing that “The New Covenant is not a renewal of the Mosaic Covenant but the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.”25

But Ferry ignores this development, and (in Karlberg’s words), “distorts an accurate reading of the history of Reformed interpretation, past and present.”26

In fact, prior to the publication of Ramsey’s article, Lee Irons had argued (both in his General Assembly defense and on his weblog) that the “subservient covenant” view of Amyraldianism does in fact provide the best precursor of the mature Kline’s position on the Mosaic covenant. Irons argued that the Amyraldian “Subservient Covenant” is “A 17th Century Precursor of Meredith Kline’s View of the Mosaic Covenant.”27

In this respect, Irons argues that “Kline’s understanding of the Mosaic Covenant has significant links with 17th century developments in covenant theology.”28

This is exactly what Ramsey argued in his WTJ article. In other words, when Kline’s mature view on the Mosaic covenant is precisely articulated, both friend and foe alike have argued that it bears striking and substantial similarities to the Amyraldian view of the Mosaic covenant. The only difference is that the “friends” have argued this to support Kline’s version of the “republication” thesis, while his “foes” have used it to critique it in terms of its confessional fidelity.

But Ferry ignores this development, and (in Karlberg’s words), “distorts an accurate reading of the history of Reformed interpretation, past and present.”26

22 By Oath Consigned, 75
23 JETS 52/2 (June 2009): 410
24 http://www.upper-register.com/blog/?cat=26
25 Ibid.
26 Karlberg, 410


http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf
"Merit or 'Entitlement' in Reformed Covenant Theology: A Review."
James T. Dennison, Jr., Scott F. Sanborn, Benjamin W. Swinburnson
pp.22-24


Edited to add references
 
Last edited:

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
I think the point about Hodge is a mute point actually. I believe Rev. Winzer called me on that at one time when I used it in a discussion against paedo-baptism. Besides, Hodge can be wrong also. Especially if he is looking like Kline or Kline looking like him. Maybe he just hasn't been called on it. I don't know.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
"Now back to our regularly scheduled programming." When was the last time you heard that after breaking news was forthcoming?

So far I am inclined to think that some in the Modern Reformed Church have confused us with their thoughts. I know I have been capable of it and still am. Just because someone is a well respected theologian doesn't mean that they are above being incorrect. I sense that the topic of the Mosaic Covenant is one of the hardest to digest because of the various views on it. I also believe that Kline and his thought has been a bit off kilter. Just my 2 cents worth.
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
Thought this was interesting also and applicable to the conversation.

WCF and Republication | Patrick’s Pensees
WCF and Republication


Posted on December 28, 2009 by DPR
Following the book The Law Is Not of Faith (see pp. 10-11, 43), R.S. Clark believes that chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith “clearly suggests” that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai. The argument goes something like this: Westminster Confession of Faith 19.1 states, God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works. Paragraph 2 begins with “This law,” obviously referring to the law described in paragraph 1. Since the law in paragraph 1 was described as a covenant of works, the law of paragraph 2 must be as well.

This argument is nothing new as it is one that I addressed in a journal article back in 2004, which you can find here. Its appearance in the book TLNF, however, may well be the first time it has appeared in print. And quite frankly I am surprised to see the editors using it because it is such a poor argument and one that is easily answered. Chapter 19 does not say that the covenant of works was delivered or republished at Mt. Sinai. It says the law was delivered at Mt. Sinai. What law? “This law” of paragraph 2 does refer to the law in paragraph 1, i.e. the one given to Adam as a covenant of works. But what the editors of the book TLNF and Clark fail to see is that “This law” is further defined in paragraphs 3, 5, and 6. In these sections we learn that “this law” is the moral law (paragraph 3), which is the perfect rule of righteousness (paragraph 2) binding on all persons in all ages (paragraph 5) and is given to true believers not as a covenant of works (paragraph 6). Therefore, WCF 19 clearly does not clearly suggest or indicate that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

Now since the law that was delivered at Mt. Sinai was the moral law, it is the same law that was given to Adam in the garden. Indeed it is the same law that binds all men in every age as the Confession rightly says. Consequently, it is correct say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

Notice in 19.1 of the Confession that the law given to Adam is qualified by the phrase “as a covenant of works.” This qualifier is missing in paragraph 2 and it is replaced with “a perfect rule of righteousness.” In the garden the law was a perfect rule of righteousness and the condition of the covenant of works. But at Mt. Sinai the law no longer serves as the condition of a covenant of works though it does continue to be a perfect rule of righteousness. It is this Puritan and Confessional distinction that Clark and the editors of TLNF fail to incorporate in their reading of chapter 19. As a result they completely misread the Confession.

If we would follow the Confession’s teaching on the law as explained in chapter 19 it is imperative that we distinguish between the law as given to Adam from the law as given to Israel. James Durham explains:

Then you would distinguish between this law, as given to Adam, and as given to Israel. For as given to him, it was a covenant of works; but, as given to them, it was a covenant of grace; and so from us now it calls for gospel duties, as faith in Christ (1 Tim. 1:5), repentance, hope in God, etc. And although it call for legal duties, yet in a gospel-manner; therefore we are in the first commandment commanded to have God for our God, which cannot be obeyed by sinners but in Christ Jesus; the covenant of works being broken, and the tie of friendship thereby between God and man made void. So that now men, as to that covenant, are without God in the world, and without Christ and the promises (Eph. 2:21-13). And so our having God for our God (which is pointed at in the preface to the commandments) and Christ for our Savior, and closing with his righteousness, and the promises of the covenant (which are all yea and amen in him) must go together.[1]


I might also add that I find it quite ironic that Klineans appeal to Fisher and Boston for support of the republication of the covenant of works. The position advocated by Fisher and Boston is one that is repudiated by Kline. Furthermore, their (mis)reading of chapter 19 would support the position of Fisher and Boston but there is no way it could support Kline’s republication view. Perhaps this is why they tend to argue for republication in general (“in some sense”) and not for specific views of republication. But of course it is fallacious to argue that since republication in some sense is found in the Reformed tradition that therefore a particular view of republication is Reformed. I have previously argued that the particular view espoused by Kline and Karlberg, like its closest predecessor, namely the view held by Samuel Bolton, is incompatible with the Westminster Standards (see here).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top