Can VanDrunen and Wright be Reconciled?

[RamistThomist]

And since I always had a soft spot for biblical theology, I always found Kline interesting. Ironically, however, both Klineans and theonomists operate the same: challenge any specific point in their system, and they give you a 35 page rebuttal using other points from the same system.

 

[Dachaser]

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

The problem with NT Wright though goes into the central area of just what really happened on the Cross, what did Jesus accomplish there? As Wright has redefined it so far away from the classic Reformed view on the Atonement, can he still be considered even reformed?

 

[RamistThomist]

can he still be considered even reformed?

No one has considered him Reformed in several decades.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Andrew, do you know how many people Kline has convinced of covenantal theology over against dispensationalist theology?

Kline helped me understand why I should be a Presbyterian and Reformed because he became more Lutheran than Reformed. He was more of a Baptist concerning the Mosaic Covenant than I was. Early Kline writings were good. His later writings have much to be desired.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/?s=Kline

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...cott-clarks-7-point-summary-of-republication/

Concerning Van Drunen....

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

From his sideman and student. This started on the Puritanboard years ago.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...sitions-with-some-responses-or-counterpoints/


https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/?s=Van+Drunen

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I have quotes from N. T. Wright concerning Righteousness in Christ and imputation that are so far from good it is bad. He was also rebuking the Reformed Church for dividing and causing division with the Roman Church.

N. T. Wright the Romanist?


The doctrine of justification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavor. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in one family. (WSPRS, 158)

Many Christians, both in the Reformation and in the counter-Reformation traditions, have done themselves and the church a great disservice by treating the doctrine of ‘justification’ as central to their debates, and by supposing that it describes that system by which people attain salvation. They have turned the doctrine into its opposite. Justification declares that all who believe in Jesus Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their cultural or racial differences. . . . Because what matters is believing in Jesus, detailed agreement on justification itself, properly conceived, isn’t the thing which should determine Eucharistic fellowship. (WSPRS, 158-59)

“ggtg…the doctrine of justification is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine.” (p. 158)



impels the churches, in their current fragmented state, into the ecumenical task. It cannot be right that the very doctrine which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong at the same table (Galatians 2) should be used as a way of saying that some, who define the doctrine of justification differently, belong to a different table. (What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 158)



The doctrine of justification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavor. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in one family. (WSPRS, 158)



Paul’s doctrine of justification by faith impels the churches, in their current fragmented state, into the ecumenical task. It cannot be right that the very doctrine which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong at the same table (Galatians 2) should be used as a way of saying that some, who define the doctrine of justification differently, belong at a different table. The doctrine of justification, in other words, is not merely a doctrine which Catholic and Protestant might just be able to agree on, as a result of hard ecumenical endeavour. It is itself the ecumenical doctrine, the doctrine that rebukes all our petty and often culture-bound church groupings, and which declares that all who believe in Jesus belong together in the one family.... The doctrine of justification is in fact the great ecumenical doctrine (What Saint Paul Really Said: Was Paul of Tarsus the Real Founder of Christianity? Eerdmans, 1997, p. 158).



“Many Christians, both in the Reformation and in the counter-Reformation traditions, have done themselves

and the church a great disservice by treating the doctrine of ‘justification’ as central to their debates, and by

supposing that it described the system by which people attained salvation. They have turned the doctrine into

its opposite.” (pp. 158-159)

“Because what matters is believing in Jesus, detailed agreement on justification itself, properly conceived,

isn’t the thing which should determine eucharistic fellowship.” (p. 159)


Galatians 2 offers the first great exposition of justification in Paul. In that chapter, the nub of the issue was the question, who are Christians allowed to sit down and eat with? For Paul, that was the question of whether Jewish Christians were allowed to eat with Gentile Christians. Many Christians, both in the Reformation and the counter-Reformation traditions, have done themselves and the church a great disservice by treating the doctrine of ‘justification’ as central to their debates, and by supposing that it described the system by which people attained salvation. They have turned the doctrine into its opposite. Justification declares that all who believe in Jesus Christ belong at the same table, no matter what their cultural or racial differences (and, let’s face it, a good many denominational distinctions, and indeed distinctions within a single denomination, boil down more to culture than to doctrine. Because what matters is believing in Jesus, detailed agreement on justification itself, properly conceived, isn’t the thing which should determine eucharistic fellowship. P. 158,159

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Neither Van Drunen or Wright are Reformed Theologians in my estimation.

But if they think they are Reformed what are they Reformed from. Wright from the School of Rome and Van Drunen from the Reformed School of Abraham Kuyper?

In a 2002 review of a book on the life and work of Abraham Kuyper, Dr. Van Drunen stated:
“Readers who do not assume that there is a distinctively "Christian" cultural-political task, or that the kingdom of God is the measure for all earthly kingdoms, or that the present social order is supposed to be transformed, or that Reformed Christianity is a Calvinism consisting of a "life-principle" or worldview, will probably come away having eaten much but not finally satisfied. The book that we still need is one that critically challenges rather than promotes the Kuyperian captivity of the church.” (Modern Reformation (November/December 2002, pages 48-49).

 

[greenbaggins]

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.

Well, he is certainly not the easiest writer to understand, and I am not going to claim that I know better than you what he was saying. I well remember thinking once, "If this guy-invents one-more hyphenated word-pairing I'm-going to-go throw-up." Barth once asked, "In the classical hyphenated word pairing "historisch-kritisch," what is the meaning of 'historisch,' what is the meaning of 'kritisch,' and in particular, what is the meaning of the hyphen?" I could ask similar questions of Kline all day long. A friend of mine had a very similar experience to yours when he took Kline's classes, but eventually he did come to understand a bit more of what Kline was getting at. I have some images of his spirit, but not all.

 

[RamistThomist]

Images of the Spirit establishes the Divine Council worldview, which Semitic scholars like Mike Heiser would powerfully develop.

Kline's stuff on "cutting a covenant" has an ontological payoff.

But his stuff on Common Grace Ethic is silly and easy to refute. One can make an argument that Misty Irons was the most consistent interpreter of Common Grace. In refutation we should note:

1. we “do not see biblical evidence of an ‘order’ or ‘sphere’ of common grace” in the Bible.
2. Is this a time or sphere of common grace? But even if it is, God’s blessings fell upon elect and non-elect within theocratic Israel.
3. Is Kline talking about government? Perhaps, and a holy government is one that bears “the divine name” and “the promise of being crowned with consummation glory” (Kline, Kingdom Prologue, 96). But does Scripture ever describe a government as such? Israel is a “chosen people,” to be sure, but is the nation itself promised with consummation glory?
4. In any case, as Frame notes, nothing in Genesis 4-9 suggests a distinction between holy and nonholy governments (536). And even if it did, that wouldn’t help explain how the modern magistrate, who might happen to be a Christian, is to rule. What does it mean to rule according to common grace? How could we even determine which application of “common grace” is more “gracey” or right than the other one? General Franco of Spain probably had more common grace than either Hitler or Stalin, yet one suspects that the modern advocate of intrusion ethics wouldn’t praise Franco’s regime.

 

[RamistThomist]

One more refutation of Common Grace:

~5. As Klaas Schilder notes, it is true that sin is being restrained. But by similar logic the fullness of Christ’s eschaton is not fully experienced. Apparently, it is restrained. (and this is true. So far, so good) If the first restraining is “grace,” then we must–if one is consistent–call the restraining of the blessing “judgment.” Kline’s position falls apart at this point.

 

[mvdm]

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.

Alan, always appreciate your insight and plea for charity where it can be extended. Knowing you, I trust you won't mind a little pushback.

From my vantage point, a key problem over the years is that these brothers have not shown that same charity toward those that disagree with their project. Has Van Drunen retracted his lumping Kuyperians with N.T. Wright and the Emergent Church (making them suspect on justification) or his stated intent to challenge the "Kuyperian captivity of the church"?

If the Klineans had not insisted that they hold THE recovered Reformed position, but rather more humbly admitted they were advancing an idiosyncratic/modified minority view, I wonder whether any of this divisive debate would have happened.

It seems that as long as they hold themselves out as advancing THE reformed view of covenant/law/gospel, they will continue to receive some pretty strong pushback.

 

[RamistThomist]

Alan, always appreciate your insight and plea for charity where it can be extended. Knowing you, I trust you won't mind a little pushback.

From my vantage point, a key problem over the years is that these brothers have not shown that same charity toward those that disagree with their project. Has Van Drunen retracted his lumping Kuyperians with N.T. Wright and the Emergent Church (making them suspect on justification) or his stated intent to challenge the "Kuyperian captivity of the church"?

If the Klineans had not insisted that they hold THE recovered Reformed position, but rather more humbly admitted they were advancing an idiosyncratic/modified minority view, I wonder whether any of this divisive debate would have happened.

It seems that as long as they hold themselves out as advancing THE reformed view of covenant/law/gospel, they will continue to receive some pretty strong pushback.

That's the best summary of the issue I have ever seen. I like a lot of what DvD says, but when you lament "the Kuyperian captivity of the church," you can't really be accused of irenics.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Alan, always appreciate your insight and plea for charity where it can be extended. Knowing you, I trust you won't mind a little pushback.

Mark:

I agree that this could be handled in a more irenic fashion all around the board. I include myself in that call to irenicism.

You're also not being as dismissory of these brothers (as if they are not at all Reformed) as some are, but making fair observations.

It is decidedly unhelpful when folk wish to define what constitutes "Reformed" as something narrower or more specific than the doctrinal standards (whether the TFU or the WS).

You're right to blow the whistle on both sides (I have done so as well, both in public remarks and in print).

Peace,
Alan

 

[mvdm]

Thanks, Alan.

The challenge (in my mind, anyway) is to determine the limits of the judgment of charity. It seems the longer a discussion goes on, and if we witness identical errors have been pointed out by multiple sources, and there is no discernible course change, one wonders when charity becomes unreasonable.

I'm still struck by an article penned by the late Dr. P.Y. De Jong, in which he observed (on a different theological controversy) that the church's judgment of charity given to certain seminary professors may have been "too high a price to pay". I think he was making a valid point that it is possible to become TOO charitable.

Blessings,

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Mark:

If I may, I think that P.Y.'s remarks were in the context of moderates, or even confessionalists, extending charity to liberals, who should be called out rather than coddled.

This is not the same sort of situation. Kline and Van Drunen are not liberals departing from the confession but men who construct some things differently than others within confessional bounds (some may disagree with this--that they are within confessional bounds--but the points even here should be made theologically and not personally).

Even if I believe that a brother has not treated other Reformed brethren with proper irenicism and charity, I need to call him out on that, rather than fail to treat him with proper charity. I am to do unto others not as they've done to others (or to me) but as I would have them do unto me.

I agree with P.Y. in his context, but I don't believe that our problem on the PB is that we are in danger of becoming "too charitable." Certainly not in this discussion. Even if Kline or Van Drunen have over-argued their cases at points and disparaged Reformed brothers, we are not justified in repaying such in kind. This is not what P.Y. had in mind.

Peace,
Alan

 

[mvdm]

If I may, I think that P.Y.'s remarks were in the context of moderates, or even confessionalists, extending charity to liberals, who should be called out rather than coddled.

Indeed! I cited it only for the principle that the judgment of charity has a diminishing half-life depending on the circumstances.

This is not the same sort of situation. Kline and Van Drunen are not liberals departing from the confession but men who construct some things differently than others within confessional bounds (some may disagree with this--that they are within confessional bounds--but the points even here should be made theologically and not personally).

Totally agree with your point that these things must be argued *theologically*, not personally. Yet, herein lies the disagreement (as you note) as to whether some brothers are veering toward the edges of confessional bounds. If some are convinced (theologically) this is the case, then we should recognize that a simple plea for the judgment of charity will not answer the theological concern. I know you are not saying that, but I've seen it.

In any event, hope to catch up with you at Wheaton.