Kline & the NT

[zsmcd]

In a article on theonomy, John Frame mentions of Meredith Kline that he had a "view of the New Testament as the sole canon of the Christian church."

Can anyone speak more into this? Is this an accurate statement?

edit: Here is the whole paragraph. Could anyone speak to all three points (abc) that Frame makes? I am ignorant of these ideas.

Kline’s rejection of theonomy presupposes some ideas which are themselves controversial and in my opinion dubious: (a) the sharp distinction between life-norms and faith-norms, (b) the derivation from the Noachic Covenant of a religiously neutral state, (c) his view of the New Testament as the sole canon of the Christian church. We should not, therefore, assume that Kline any more than theonomy represents unambiguously the Reformed tradition.

http://frame-poythress.org/penultimate-thoughts-on-theonomy/

 

[Douglas P.]

This essay is probably what Frame is referencing:

http://www.meredithkline.com/klines...rrelation-of-the-concepts-canon-and-covenant/

From the essay:

A distinction thus arises for the Christian church between canon and Scripture — that is, between the treaty-canon that governs the church of the new covenant as a formal community (i.e., the New Testament) and the Scriptures, the broader entity-not really a book-consisting of the canonical oracles of God communicated to his people in the Mosaic and messianic eras (i.e.) the Old Testament and New Testament together). The character of all Scripture as equally the word of God and the thoroughgoing eschatological-spiritual unity of all God’s redemptive administrations command for the old canon the place it has actually held along with the new canon in the faithful church from the beginning-profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness. And much more of like force could be said. But it is also necessary to distinguish from this general concept of the authority and truthfulness of all the Scriptures the more specific authority of the covenant canon that is currently normative.

In these terms, the Old Testament, though belonging to the church’s Scriptures, is not the church’s current canon. It works both ways, therefore; canon and covenant mutually determine one another. Canonical treaty defines the covenant and the bounds of the treaty’s canonicity are in turn determined by the specific limitations of the covenant to which it pertains. Hence the church which acknowledges that the covenant de- fined by the Old Testament has now been superseded by being fulfilled in the new, may readily acknowledge also that the new canon has superseded the old canon.

 

[Mr. Bultitude]

And what does Kline mean by that?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Kline demonstrates a dispensational understanding of scripture in his first two sentences. He demonstrates his error when he rejects the OT for the New Covenant church. This is contra Confessional.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

 

[Douglas P.]

Kline demonstrates a dispensational understanding of scripture in his first two sentences. He demonstrates his error when he rejects the OT for the New Covenant church. This is contra Confessional.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

I understand the aversion to Kline on the PB, but this seems way off base. I highly doubt a dispensationalist would ever utter the words:

"The character of all Scripture as equally the word of God and the thoroughgoing eschatological-spiritual unity of all God’s redemptive administrations command for the old canon the place it has actually held along with the new canon in the faithful church from the beginning-profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness."

By definition dispensationalists see no eschatological unity.

I also don't see how you can read the above quote and come away thinking Kline is "rejecting the OT for the New Covenant church". He says and affirms the exact opposite.

I could see someone faulting Kline for being a little enigmatic with his definition of canon and scripture. Or I could see someone argue that Kline's over-reliance on ANE treaties muddies his understanding of the biblical definition of covenant. Those are agreeable points of debate, but I think we can be a little more charitable to him.

 

[JimmyH]

This mornings reading in M'Cheyne's 1 year Bible reading plan is Deuteronomy 21. This is an interesting thread for having just read that chapter.

 

[zsmcd]

(a) the sharp distinction between life-norms and faith-norms, (b) the derivation from the Noachic Covenant of a religiously neutral state

Could someone touch on these two points?

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Kline demonstrates a dispensational understanding of scripture in his first two sentences. He demonstrates his error when he rejects the OT for the New Covenant church. This is contra Confessional.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

I understand the aversion to Kline on the PB, but this seems way off base. I highly doubt a dispensationalist would ever utter the words:

"The character of all Scripture as equally the word of God and the thoroughgoing eschatological-spiritual unity of all God’s redemptive administrations command for the old canon the place it has actually held along with the new canon in the faithful church from the beginning-profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness."

By definition dispensationalists see no eschatological unity.

I also don't see how you can read the above quote and come away thinking Kline is "rejecting the OT for the New Covenant church". He says and affirms the exact opposite.

I could see someone faulting Kline for being a little enigmatic with his definition of canon and scripture. Or I could see someone argue that Kline's over-reliance on ANE treaties muddies his understanding of the biblical definition of covenant. Those are agreeable points of debate, but I think we can be a little more charitable to him.

Dispensationalism is more then just "eschatological unity". The bigger picture of Dispensationalism is discontinuity of the scriptures and Canon. Many also hold a NT onlyism mentality.

Kline's problem is congruent with many dispensational tendencies when he states:

A distinction thus arises for the Christian church between canon and Scripture — that is, between the treaty-canon that governs the church of the new covenant as a formal community (i.e., the New Testament) and the Scriptures, the broader entity-not really a book-consisting of the canonical oracles of God communicated to his people in the Mosaic and messianic eras (i.e.) the Old Testament and New Testament together).

When he says the NT governs the NC community and the OT governed the OC community, he is demonstrating a contra Confessional view. In WCF CH. 1.2, after giving all of the books that make up the Canon, it rightly states that "All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life".

 

[zsmcd]

"The character of all Scripture as equally the word of God and the thoroughgoing eschatological-spiritual unity of all God’s redemptive administrations command for the old canon the place it has actually held along with the new canon in the faithful church from the beginning-profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness."

Here he seems to be agreeing with WCF Ch 1.2, but where you quoted below he seems to be saying that the Old Testament "cannon" only goverened OT Israel.

A distinction thus arises for the Christian church between canon and Scripture — that is, between the treaty-canon that governs the church of the new covenant as a formal community (i.e., the New Testament) and the Scriptures, the broader entity-not really a book-consisting of the canonical oracles of God communicated to his people in the Mosaic and messianic eras (i.e.) the Old Testament and New Testament together).