Can VanDrunen and Wright be Reconciled?

[Myson]

I've been listening to N.T. Wright's The Day the Revolution Began and quite honestly have found it pretty good! His statements downplaying penal substitution (though in many places still holding it intact) notwithstanding. What I'm seeing though is his "revolution" is a view of the Kingdom that has a kind of whole-earth redemption that we were saved to help bring. He's so much more nuanced of course, but that's the gist.

VanDrunen in his book Living in God's Two Kingdoms takes shots at Wright because of this and seeks to give a Biblical (and I find convincing) argument that vocation and redemption are absolutely seperate and that the Kingdom isn't something brought here in this world, but something that the Church lives out in obedience to God's law, and will have little continuity into the New Heavens and New Earth.

My question is, are they necessarily in conflict? Does Wright's stuff on the "covenant of vocation" necessarily imply that we transform the world, rather than God transforming the world in the last day? Can we be saved to be a Kingdom of Priests and Kings and still be a Kingdom of Exiles? Call me naive but I love both of these works and really don't want to have to choose if I can help it!

 

[arapahoepark]

I've been listening to N.T. Wright's The Day the Revolution Began and quite honestly have found it pretty good! His statements downplaying penal substitution (though in many places still holding it intact) notwithstanding. What I'm seeing though is his "revolution" is a view of the Kingdom that has a kind of whole-earth redemption that we were saved to help bring. He's so much more nuanced of course, but that's the gist.

VanDrunen in his book Living in God's Two Kingdoms takes shots at Wright because of this and seeks to give a Biblical (and I find convincing) argument that vocation and redemption are absolutely seperate and that the Kingdom isn't something brought here in this world, but something that the Church lives out in obedience to God's law, and will have little continuity into the New Heavens and New Earth.

My question is, are they necessarily in conflict? Does Wright's stuff on the "covenant of vocation" necessarily imply that we transform the world, rather than God transforming the world in the last day? Can we be saved to be a Kingdom of Priests and Kings and still be a Kingdom of Exiles? Call me naive but I love both of these works and really don't want to have to choose if I can help it!

Wright is not at all two kingdoms. So, his view will have a little more of political taste to it especially with some of his past comments.

 

[Dachaser]

I've been listening to N.T. Wright's The Day the Revolution Began and quite honestly have found it pretty good! His statements downplaying penal substitution (though in many places still holding it intact) notwithstanding. What I'm seeing though is his "revolution" is a view of the Kingdom that has a kind of whole-earth redemption that we were saved to help bring. He's so much more nuanced of course, but that's the gist.

VanDrunen in his book Living in God's Two Kingdoms takes shots at Wright because of this and seeks to give a Biblical (and I find convincing) argument that vocation and redemption are absolutely seperate and that the Kingdom isn't something brought here in this world, but something that the Church lives out in obedience to God's law, and will have little continuity into the New Heavens and New Earth.

My question is, are they necessarily in conflict? Does Wright's stuff on the "covenant of vocation" necessarily imply that we transform the world, rather than God transforming the world in the last day? Can we be saved to be a Kingdom of Priests and Kings and still be a Kingdom of Exiles? Call me naive but I love both of these works and really don't want to have to choose if I can help it!

NT Wright has a totally bad viewpoint in regards to what actually is Justification and salvation, so would like to see him getting squared right with the scriptures first and foremost.

 

[Romans922]

Both are bad, go read the puritans.

 

[Dachaser]

Both are bad, go read the puritans.

Better yet, the scriptures themselves.

 

[RamistThomist]

No. They can't be harmonized on two kingdoms. Wright rejects it and rejects the idea of neutrality. Van Drunen's project is to champion the very idea of neutrality.

 

[Dachaser]

No. They can't be harmonized on two kingdoms. Wright rejects it and rejects the idea of neutrality. Van Drunen's project is to champion the very idea of neutrality.

Are either of their views consistent with what the scriptures teach then?

 

[greenbaggins]

Both are bad, go read the puritans.

I will, of course, not vouch for Wright, as he has so many problems. However, Van Drunen is not bad. His view of 2K is far more reasonable and less extreme than some other versions of it. You can say you disagree. But he is a far greater scholar on these matters than you or I will ever be.

 

[Romans922]

I will, of course, not vouch for Wright, as he has so many problems. However, Van Drunen is not bad. His view of 2K is far more reasonable and less extreme than some other versions of it. You can say you disagree. But he is a far greater scholar on these matters than you or I will ever be.

Yes far more reasonable and less extreme. I agree with that. I do disagree, and I think the Puritans got it right.

 

[arapahoepark]

Are either of their views consistent with what the scriptures teach then?

I am not too widely read in 2k to give a sufficient answer but, at times I do resonate with some things.
As for Wright and others, I do believe to be a Christian occupies all and it cannot be separated. But, I still do not really understand notions of redemption that seem to go beyond individuals and their need to be redeemed from sin and the Devil because that would occupy so much and everything else will naturally helped along.

 

[RamistThomist]

Are either of their views consistent with what the scriptures teach then?

Views on what, exactly?

DvD is better on justification. Wright doesn't hold to Klinean intrusion ethics, so he has that going for him.

 

[Dachaser]

Views on what, exactly?

DvD is better on justification. Wright doesn't hold to Klinean intrusion ethics, so he has that going for him.

Wright has pretty much discounted any penal substitution in the Atonement though, and he has pretty much stated that we got the theology of Paul regarding the Cross wrong since Calvin forward...

 

[Dachaser]

I am not too widely read in 2k to give a sufficient answer but, at times I do resonate with some things.
As for Wright and others, I do believe to be a Christian occupies all and it cannot be separated. But, I still do not really understand notions of redemption that seem to go beyond individuals and their need to be redeemed from sin and the Devil because that would occupy so much and everything else will naturally helped along.

To my way of thinking, Wright has spent way too much of his time getting into salvation of the world economy, and not into individual salvation, as evidenced by Him basically denying that we have understand Paul at all regarding salvation and the Cross of Christ.

 

[RamistThomist]

Wright has pretty much discounted any penal substitution

That's not true. He spends several hundred pages in Jesus and the Victory of God arguing that Jesus was the substitute for Israel. Sure. That's an inadequate approach, but it refutes the claim that he rejects "ANY" penal substitution.

Back to Wright vs. DvD.

When a Klinean sees the Psalmist cry out to God for justice, we shouldn't imagine that applying today. That's an intrusion of God's eschatological ethics. For Wright--and for the normal reading of the Bible--justice is God's rightness coming into the world.

For the Klinean creation almost appears as something we should be saved from.

 

[Romans922]

That's not true. He spends several hundred pages in Jesus and the Victory of God arguing that Jesus was the substitute for Israel. Sure. That's an inadequate approach, but it refutes the claim that he rejects "ANY" penal substitution.

Back to Wright vs. DvD.

When a Klinean sees the Psalmist cry out to God for justice, we shouldn't imagine that applying today. That's an intrusion of God's eschatological ethics. For Wright--and for the normal reading of the Bible--justice is God's rightness coming into the world.

For the Klinean creation almost appears as something we should be saved from.

Thanks for continuing to point out the horrible dangers of Klinean thought in this world!

 

[greenbaggins]

Andrew, do you know how many people Kline has convinced of covenantal theology over against dispensationalist theology? Do you know how many people Kline has convinced that Reformed theology is superior to Arminianism? Do you know how well Kline has inoculated people against the FV and similar dangers? Do you know how well Kline has taught us in biblical theology? When it comes to Kline, you seem to want to shoot with a shotgun, instead of a rifle. You dismiss his entire thought as "horrible dangers". Instead of saying simply that you think Kline has overstated his case in this area, and that area, you would have us believe that he is practically a heretic. I wish you wouldn't do this. I disagree with Kline on plenty of things. But I don't see him as being so out on the fringe that his teaching constitutes anything like the horrible dangers you propose.

 

[Romans922]

Andrew, do you know how many people Kline has convinced of covenantal theology over against dispensationalist theology? Do you know how many people Kline has convinced that Reformed theology is superior to Arminianism? Do you know how well Kline has inoculated people against the FV and similar dangers? Do you know how well Kline has taught us in biblical theology? When it comes to Kline, you seem to want to shoot with a shotgun, instead of a rifle. You dismiss his entire thought as "horrible dangers". Instead of saying simply that you think Kline has overstated his case in this area, and that area, you would have us believe that he is practically a heretic. I wish you wouldn't do this. I disagree with Kline on plenty of things. But I don't see him as being so out on the fringe that his teaching constitutes anything like the horrible dangers you propose.

Covenant Theology vs Dispensational? I don't know how many people Kline (and his followers - which is what I call Klinean) has influenced. But while klinean thought has helped get people closer to Scripture, some the aspects of his covenant theology are flawed and basically amount to a reformed sounding new covenant theology (not all klineans but some, and I actually see it as a logical effect in his system -- that to say the logical outworking of Kline's ideas leads to NCT). Lee Irons is a good example of working out the Klinean system logically in my opinion. Might not have been Kline's intention, but it is what it is.


Reformed vs Arminian - No I don't know how many people, though I am thankful if more men are reformed than arminian. But then we need to ask what kind of reformed? Are we talking a R. Scott Clark or a T. David Gordon (lots of difference there). One I would encourage to read, the other not at all (on most subjects).

FV - Yes, I truly believe Kline was helpful in terms of FV but was also an overreaction to FV (so while good / better, he went too far), and this has caused in the reformed world a sort of minor chaos in terms of understanding covenant theology (see above, plus the argument of republication, etc.).

Biblical Theology - An issue that is sorely lacking today in the Church, and thankful in that way for Kline's influence in making it more popular. I haven't done much reading on this from Kline, I have only known those who have followed him. So klineans can tend to use Biblical Theology without an understanding of Systematic Theology, and applications in doctrines can be skewed from what I've experienced. Also, Klinean preaching (again I am speaking of followers of Kline) I have found to be unnecessarily complicated in their preaching, trying to find too many rabbit trails and making passages harder than they are. But again, thankful for Kline making Biblical Theology more popular.

As for shotguns and rifles - I own both. When I see a Pastor or theologian who has great thoughts and a couple minor issues, I use a rifle. When I see others that have major issues (while in some places having a good impact), I typically use a shotgun. Kline falls into the latter category for me. With him, I see issues of Covenant Theology, Two Kingdom Theology, Intrusion Ethics, and then, experientially, seeing how other men (even well-educated men) have studied his works and then what they believe and practice based on being huge fans of Kline there are a lot of issues (perhaps more than I see especially since not enough time has passed to see the full effect of his ministry - so far to me it is concerning).

This leads me to use the shotgun. Rifles are for people like Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, Vos, Hodge, Thornwell, Beeke, etc.

 

[greenbaggins]

But Andrew, this last response of yours is far more nuanced than simply saying "horrible dangers." Except for the second to last paragraph, you were willing and able to point out many of the good things in Kline. Doesn't every theologian, including you and me, have to be read with discernment? I reserve shotguns for people like Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, Benny Hinn, the Jesus Seminar, etc., not for people like Kline. If you have to reload your rifle for Kline, that's fine. But I think that there is a VAST difference between Kline and the heretics I just mentioned.

 

[Dachaser]

That's not true. He spends several hundred pages in Jesus and the Victory of God arguing that Jesus was the substitute for Israel. Sure. That's an inadequate approach, but it refutes the claim that he rejects "ANY" penal substitution.

Back to Wright vs. DvD.

When a Klinean sees the Psalmist cry out to God for justice, we shouldn't imagine that applying today. That's an intrusion of God's eschatological ethics. For Wright--and for the normal reading of the Bible--justice is God's rightness coming into the world.

For the Klinean creation almost appears as something we should be saved from.

Wright himself states that he denies the traditional Reformed viewpoint in regards to Pauline Justification as found in Romans, for example.

 

[Dachaser]

But Andrew, this last response of yours is far more nuanced than simply saying "horrible dangers." Except for the second to last paragraph, you were willing and able to point out many of the good things in Kline. Doesn't every theologian, including you and me, have to be read with discernment? I reserve shotguns for people like Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, Benny Hinn, the Jesus Seminar, etc., not for people like Kline. If you have to reload your rifle for Kline, that's fine. But I think that there is a VAST difference between Kline and the heretics I just mentioned.

Good point, as one can be very wrong in one area, but still be very good in other areas
One that comes to mind is John Macarthur, as he has solid teachings in many areas, except for the ones that he labels himself as being a "leaking Dispensational". Kline is much better in theology than Wright is, as Wright have really deviated from reformed theology regarding the Cross and Atonement.

 

[RamistThomist]

Wright himself states that he denies the traditional Reformed viewpoint in regards to Pauline Justification as found in Romans, for example.

Which is a completely different claim than he denies *any* form of substitutionary atonement, which you originally claimed.

 

[RamistThomist]

Would viewing the ten commandments as Intrusion Ethics (since it is the covenant document of the typological kingdom) be a valid outworking of Kline's system?

 

[Dachaser]

Which is a completely different claim than he denies *any* form of substitutionary atonement, which you originally claimed.

He denies that there is a penal substitution in the Atonement of the Cross as reformers such as Calvin affirmed!

 

[Romans922]

reserve shotguns for people like Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, Benny Hinn, the Jesus Seminar, etc.

I use nuclear bombs for those.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I agree with Lane.

Kline remained an OPC minister in good standing during his entire life and Van Drunen is such presently. Differ as you like with them (and a variety of Reformed men have differences of varying degrees with these brothers), the church has not determined these men to be heterodox.

Take two kingdoms and republication: versions of this have been around for some time in Reformed theology. There's plenty to argue about in terms of the details, but these are matters in current debate in our confessional churches. Even intrusion ethics is, I believe, something worth discussing and not simply dismissing out of hand (e.g., Jared Oliphint on Reformed Forum on its value for theodicy).

I only knew Kline at a distance but I know David (and other WSC men) personally. We've differed with each other in print (as well as agreed), but I regard him as a friend (as well as others there). David, if I may say, is a godly, capable servant of the Lord, whom I like and respect. I regard whatever differences I may have with him and other WSC men as intramural. I do not regard the differences that I have with N.T. Wright in the same vein (even as my differences with Wright aren't the same as those with Bart Ehrman). We do these Reformed brothers a disservice if we don't make these proper distinctions.

Bottom line: it's easy to over-simplify and demonize these brothers. Better to have a respectful dialog and contest them charitably and thoughtfully on the points of differences.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Alan D. Strange]

An additional (quicker!) comment:

I also knew Greg Bahnsen well: a man of considerable gifts. We differed (as well as agreed) and remained good friends. Many wrongly concluded that you could not differ with Greg and be his friend. Not so.

There are brothers in the Reformed churches with whom I even sharply differ but can be charitable because we have a mutual Savior to whom we ultimately answer.

I don't think that confessional fidelity and charity toward brethren in our own communions with whom we may differ need be in such opposition, as is often, sadly, the case among us. I need to do better here, to be sure. Let's all give it a shot!

Peace,
Alan

 

[a mere housewife]

Let's all give it a shot!

... but with what kind of firearm?

Myson, when I read your post I wondered how death and resurrection figure into these different approaches? I really loved Newbigin, Signs Amid the Rubble, Lecture IV.

... Our faith as Christians is that just as God raised up Jesus from the dead, so will He raise us from the dead. And that just as all that Jesus had done in the days of His flesh seemed on Easter Saturday to be buried in final failure and oblivion, yet was by God's power raised to new life and power again, so all the faithful labor of God's servants which time seems to bury in the dust of failure, will be raised up, will be found to be there, transfigured, in the new Kingdom. Every faithful act of service, every honest labor to make the world a better place, which seemed to have been forever lost and forgotten in the rubble of history, will be seen on that day to have contributed to the perfect fellowship of God's kingdom. ...​

Newbigin convinced me that I do have an obligation to participate in the struggle of the world around me as I'm given opportunity (small as that opportunity may be, in my own calling). But he did so by fully recognising the corruptible in the whole effort, the way it has to all start over again in every generation in some sense because of the profound reality of every generation's sin, and the way it all comes to death. But the Christian does so in hope of the resurrection. I don't know how that reconciles with these books in particular, but in my own back and forth, giving full weight to both death and resurrection has made sense to me as it relates to our place in whole earth redemption.

(edit: Maybe also it is important not to lose the individual or the corporate/cosmic weight of either death or resurrection? Maybe it's easier to be overly optimistic about our 'kingdom building' here and now if we aren't really reckoning with the full reality of every individual's sin and death ... or we are too pessimistic about what God will do with our faltering endeavors to bring about justice because we think of resurrection too individualistically?)

 

[DTK]

Do you know how well Kline has taught us in biblical theology?

Lane, I do respect your thoughts regarding Kline, and I must say that I cannot be critical of him for this reason . . . When I was in seminary in Jackson, MS, he taught a course on biblical theology as a visiting professor, which I took. At the time, being the young man I once was, I listened closely to his lectures. He was all over the place in class, and was difficult for me to follow. I never understood from day one to the last what he was trying to say. Thus, I refuse to critique him since I'm not certain of what he was saying. But I am certain that I'm not numbered among the "us" whom you mention above. I am, however, most willing to put the blame for that squarely on myself.

 

[RamistThomist]

Kline's Images of the Spirit is actually pretty good and well-respected by outside scholars. God, Heaven, and Har-Magedon is okay in parts.

Still can't affirm intrusion ethics and the sneaky suspicion that the Decalogue is logically part of the Intrusion.

 

[RamistThomist]

I also knew Greg Bahnsen well: a man of considerable gifts. We differed (as well as agreed) and remained good friends. Many wrongly concluded that you could not differ with Greg and be his friend. Not so.

An ancient Presbyterian legend tells of when Bahnsen was on his deathbed, Frame came to visit him. Bahnsen started arguing with Frame about the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God!

I love both Bahnsen and Frame, though I am not a theonomist and I am iffy on presup.