Kline Works-Merit Pardigm?

[JWY]

Looking for guidance and resource recommendations to study the so-called 'Kline works-merit paradigm.' What is Meredith Kline’s position regarding a distinct ‘grace principle’ separated from a distinct ‘works principle’ in the post-fall covenants? What authors/works/issues are central to this discussion?

 

[Tbordow]

Jeff,

This may help:

"Also contradicting the contention that no divine covenants have ever been governed by the works principle is the irrefutable biblical evidence that the Mosaic economy, while an administration of grace on its fundamental level of concern with the eternal salvation of the individual, was at the same time on its temporary, typological kingdom level informed by the principle of works. Thus, for example, the apostle Paul in Romans 10:4ff. and Galatians 3:10ff. (cf. Rom 9:32) contrasts the old order of the law with the gospel order of grace and faith, identifying the old covenant as one of bondage, condemnation, and death (cf. 2 Cor 3:6-9; Gal 4:24-26). The old covenant was law, the opposite of grace-faith, and in the postlapsarian world that meant it would turn out to be an administration of condemnation as a consequence of sinful Israel's failure to maintain the necessary meritorious obedience. Had the old typological kingdom been secured by sovereign grace in Christ, Israel would not have lost her national election. A satisfactory explanation of Israel's fall demands WORKS, NOT GRACE, as the controlling administrative principle." (Kline - Kingdom Prologue)

 

[JWY]

Thanks Todd

 

[brandonadams]

Here is a brief article from Kline that addresses the issue as well:
Kline’s Comments against WCF/WLC « Contrast

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

And I disagree with Kline. I think Patrick Ramsey does a good job in revealing what Romans 10:4 and Leviticus 18:5 say when considering the whole Counsel of God. In fact when we looks at Paul's references we would think that Paul is pitting Moses against Moses and the Old Testament against the Old Testament in his New Testament writings if we just lift passages out of texts without considering other passages Paul also references. Paul isn't pitting the OT against the OT or Moses against Moses when we look at the fuller context for understanding.

Enjoy this short read.

Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5


The following is (I trust) a simple but not simplistic explanation of Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5.

In 9:30-10:5 Paul explained the reason the Jews did not attain righteousness even though they pursued it. They mistakenly pursued it by works (9:32). Hence, they stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33). They sought to establish their own righteousness (10:3). Ignorant of the right way to righteousness, although they should have known better, they zealously pursued life on the basis of their own obedience to the law.

In Rom. 10:5 Paul describes this wrong way of pursuing life (righteousness) from the OT, namely Leviticus 18:5 (see also Neh. 9:29; Eze. 20:11, 13, 21): “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” Now the fact that Paul appeals to Moses to describe the wrong way, or if you will, the Pharisaical way of pursuing righteousness, is somewhat perplexing. As a result, this verse, along with its counterpart in Gal. 3, is quite controversial among commentators and theologians.

Here is the difficulty from three different perspectives. First, in 9:32, Paul had said that the law itself did not teach that righteousness was based on works or obedience to the law. The Jews pursued the law as if it led to righteousness. The Jews, as the NT says elsewhere, misread the OT. And yet Paul seems to be saying in vs. 5 that the OT did in fact teach and exhort the people to pursue life/righteousness by keeping the law. How then can Paul (or the rest of the NT) condemn the Pharisees for seeking righteousness by works if that is what Moses told them to do?
Second, in vs. 8 Paul will quote Deut. 30 and later on he will cite Isaiah and Joel in direct contrast to Lev. 18:5 to describe the right way to find life and righteousness. So then it would seem that Paul pits Moses against Moses and the OT against the OT.

Third, the context of Lev. 18:5 doesn’t seem to support the way Paul uses it in Rom. 10:5. Moses exhorts Israel to keep God’s commandments in the context of redemption and covenant. Verses 1-3 highlight the point that Israel already belongs to God as his redeemed people. These verses are very similar to the prologue to the Ten Commandments, which teaches that salvation precedes obedience. God didn’t give Israel the law so that they might be saved. He saves them so that they might keep the law. In short, the context of Lev. 18:5 speaks against the idea that it teaches legalism or a work-based righteousness. Yet, that is how Paul is using this verse!

Now some have sought to solve this difficulty by saying that there is no actual contrast between verses 5 and 6. The “but” of vs. 6 should be translated “and.” The problem with this, however, is that it doesn’t fit the context of Paul’s argument. The apostle, beginning in 9:30 is contrasting two ways of seeking righteousness—works and faith—and this contrast clearly continues in vs. 5. This is confirmed by the fact that Paul speaks of works righteousness or righteousness based on law elsewhere (Gal. 3; Phil. 3:9) in a negative way.

So then how are we to understand what Paul is saying in vs. 5 (and in Gal. 3)? Well, Paul is citing Lev. 18:5 according to how it was understood by the Jews of his day; and no doubt how he understood it before his conversion. The Jews of Paul’s day saw obedience to the law (which included laws pertaining to the atonement of sins) as the source of life and as the basis of salvation. Keeping the law was the stairway to heaven. The way to have your sins forgiven and to be accepted by God was to observe the law. Lev. 18:5 provided biblical support for this Pharisaical position. And it is not hard to see why they would appeal to this verse since it says that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

In Rom. 10:6ff Paul refutes this works-based righteousness position including the Jewish appeal to Lev. 18:5. Now he doesn’t do it in the way you or I might think of doing it. We might tend to respond to the Pharisee and say: “Look, you have completely misunderstood what Moses is saying in Lev. 18:5. The specific and general context of that verse indicates that your interpretation is incorrect…” Instead, Paul uses a technique that was quite common in his day. He counters their interpretation of Lev. 18:5 by citing another passage: Deut. 30:12-14. In other words, Paul is saying that Deut. 30 demonstrates that the Jewish understanding of Lev. 18:5 is incorrect. We of course sometimes use this type of argument today. For example, some people today appeal to James 2 to prove that we need to obey the law in order to be justified. One way to disprove that interpretation would be to cite Paul in Romans or Galatians. So Paul is not pitting Moses against Moses in vv. 5-6 or saying that Moses taught salvation by works. Rather the apostle is using one Mosaic passage to prove that the legalistic interpretation of another Mosaic passage is wrong.

Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5 | Patrick’s Pensees

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Also in light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.

(2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

(2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:


(2Co 2:16) To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?


(2Co 2:17) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Christ was Preached in Moses. In fact Jesus said as much.

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works or to those who stumble because they will not believe Moses or Christ. For they corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace in refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. As Paul mentioned, "to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death." And how do they who consider them a savour unto death do it? They do it by what Paul says he doesn't do in the proceeding verse, "For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God."

 

[JWY]

Thanks Brandon!

---------- Post added at 02:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:03 PM ----------

PuritanCovenanter,

Thanks for the information and insight. I chose this topic for a research paper and I'm quickly realizing that I have seriously 'out-kicked my coverage.' So, I'm trying to read both deeply and widely while begging for HELP to narrow this down a little bit!

 

[brandonadams]

Hi Jeff,

You've got your hands full. In case this may be of help, here are bookmarks I have made over the last couple of years in regards to "republication" (the Kline works-merit principle in regards to the Mosaic covenant)
republication - Brandon Adams on Diigo

In addition, here are relevant posts on my blog where I have tried to wade through the issue (if it helps get you a jump start on resources):
Summary of Venema’s Review of TLNF « Contrast
WCF/SDF/LBC 19.1,2 and Republication « Contrast
Kerux vs TLNF « Contrast

In my opinion, the two most helpful articles in opposition to the view are:
http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf
and
http://patrickspensees.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/in-defense-of-moses.pdf

In defense, you have:
http://upper-register.com/papers/works_in_mosaic_cov.pdf
http://upper-register.com/papers/subservient_cov.pdf
Cross-Examining Moses

and here's one from Kline:
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/34/34-4/34-4-pp433-446_JETS.pdf



Books | Meredith G. Kline Resource Site
https://patrickspensees.wordpress.com/2011/02/05/klhortonian-theology-and-the-mosaic-covenant/ (browse all of Ramsey's posts on the topic - they are very helpful)
https://sites.google.com/site/themosaiccovenant/ (opposed to Kline)


Have fun

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Jeff,
I have discussed this before on the Puritanboard but the discussion died out.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/

I was trying to get some feedback and response and learn a few things. It was based upon this article.
http://patrickspensees.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/in-defense-of-moses.pdf

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Just a small FYI. This issue has lead me to be very inclined to understand the paedo bapstim issue in a totally different light. I am now seeing that the substance of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenant are all of the same kind and that they are all very similar. I am seeing all of the Covenants after Adam as being administrations of the Covenant of Grace. I have grown in understanding the concept of Covenant Children better concerning the Covenant of Grace since this past Summer. I have been very slow in examining the substance of the Covenants. As I have noted before, it started with examining the law / gospel distinctions and seeing that the dichotomizing of law and gospel appears to be solidly Lutheran and not Reformed. I have been following this discussion for the past several years. It has caused me to see things in a clearer light I believe. I am thoroughly Reformed in my confessional understanding now I believe.

I remember making a statement last Summer that I would never change my position. I have never had a major theological change since I became a Christian in 1981. I grew in my understanding concerning the positions I held but I can't say I have ever had a major theological change. I was born into the faith being Calvinistic. I became a Christian reading a Bible in a Navy Barracks back in 1981. When I read John 15:16 I just believed it. I was a Reformed Baptist for many years and just viewed the Mosaic Covenant as a mixed Covenant of Works and Grace. I know that isn't true any longer. The Law / Gospel dichotomy teaching and the Republication of the Covenant of Works discussions have truly been eye opening for me. I believe I am seeing the beauty and continuity issue a bit more clearer. The Covenant of Grace is clearer as is the doctrine of Union with Christ and they are much more beautiful than I thought them to be. The doctrine of Union in Christ is much more clearer to me as it clearly reveals the whole gospel and not just some point of it. I believe Horton (White Horse Inn) and the ilk of their kind severely hamper the definition of the gospel and they diminish it by redefining it to only a proclamation. Salvation is of the Lord and Salvation isn't just about justification. It is about justification, sanctification, and glorification. Our justification for all of eternity is by Grace alone through the instrument of faith. It is preceded by our Election, Predestination, and regeneration which leads us by grace into a most holy faith in our Loving Lord Jesus Christ's person and work. Then (in sanctification) we are being saved and delivered daily by that same grace and faith from the power of sin which causes us to mature and act accordingly in loving God's law, even though we do it so imperfectly. This union in Christ also makes me persevere in hope for the final glorification in Him. Can you imagine what we will be like? If we saw anyone who has been resurrected and glorified it would probably confuse us and make us think we should worship them or reverence them as Peter desired to do when he saw Moses and Elijah in the Mount of Transfiguration. We will be His Shining Ones. This is our inheritance. And it is all because of the Covenant of Grace in Christ.

Anyways, I am not going to make a big to do about it and hope no one else does. I have taken a middle ground on the subject for a time trying to weigh out my understanding and what I believed as a Credo only baptist, but figured I ought to say something about why this study has been important to me these last few years and where it has led me to. I just want the beauty of Christ revealed and the Covenant of Grace to appear as glorious as it is in God's Glory and work. He is most beautiful.

 

[jogri17]

Doesn't Horton have a rather odd perspective on this subject?

 

[JWY]

Joseph,
It's my understanding (feeble opinion) that Horton, along with many at Westminster West, and others, hold to variants of the Klinean works-merit paradigm. Although I tend to disagree with some of their positions, they do have at least a palpable presence in the history of Reformed thought. Their positions are not a theological novum, but neither could they be considered, in my opinion, reflective of a conclusive, historical, Reformed consensus. Just thoughts!

 

[JWY]

Here's where I am at right now (but I am certainly open to correction): It looks to me like the Klinean works-merit paradigm is right in the middle of the tension between the three groups William B. Evans labels as the 'Repristinationist' camp (Westminster West and the Klinean works-merit paradigm folks), the 'Biblical-Theology trajectory' camp (Vos, Murray, Gaffin, Tipton, etc.) and the 'Revisionist' camp (Norman Shepherd and the FV). And this tension seems most exposed in the broader, perpetual Justification debate. I hold to (what I consider to be) the stronger Reformed tradition that sees Justification and Sanctification as distinct, yet inseparable, simultaneous realities of 'Union with Christ' (i.e., Biblical-Theology trajectory camp).

The Repristinationsist/Hortonian approach (as I understand it) 'appears odd' to many Reformed, because it projects a more Lutheran view that identifies Justification as the alpha point in the ordo salutis, and places 'Union with Christ' consequentially and therefore, subordinately, within the ordo salutis framework. This structural commitment (it seems to me) often finds expression in a doggedly myopic, rhetorical over-emphasis of Justification to the relative exclusion of Sanctification, and eventually invites accusations of antinomianism.

Kline seems to be a primary asset in the Hortonian soteriological schema, especially the Klinean argument for the Republication of the CoW in the Mosaic Covenant. Is the Klinean republication schema, which is built upon a prelapsarian, Edenic covenant, works-merit paradigm, the root argument that is driving the Repristinationist/Hortonian schema, or is it truly a derivative of an organic, Biblical-theology?

So, my new question is this: (a) Is the Repristinationst/Hortonian soteriological position a logical consequence of their commitment to a Klinean works-merit paradigm, or (b) is their affinity toward the Klinean works-merit paradigm merely a useful, argumentative tool to support their predisposition toward a Lutheranized ordo salutis, or Lutheranized hermeneutic, or (c) is the Hortonian soteriological position really closer to the ‘Union with Christ’ schema than it might appear on the surface, and only seems divergent because of the sustained rhetoric of their external polemics?

For the record, I largely agree with Horton’s recent polemical efforts (e.g., 'Christless Christianity'), but I sometimes wonder if he/they are on offense or defense, if that makes any sense. At times he/they seem to acquiesce toward a traditional ‘Union with Christ’ view, only to fall back to a more Lutheran position with a steady stream of qualifications and clarifying statements. I really want to believe that Horton and company are only appearing to lean upon a more Lutheran ordo salutis schema for pragmatic, rhetorical effect in their ecclesial and soteriological polemics, but I’m beginning to believe that this Lutheranized ordo is really symptomatic of a deeper, central dogma, one that is built upon a Lutheranized hermeneutic committed to rigid and narrow dichotomies such as Law/Gospel, Faith/Works, 2K Christ/culture, etc.

These are tough times…‘Machen’s Warrior Children’ are not only battling with broader Arminian and semi-Pelagian bastions of what can still be identified as broader evangelicalism, but they are also battling liberal theology in the academy and stubborn, residual, denominational enclaves in most mainline theological traditions. They are correcting errors in the NPP, the FV, the non TR’s (including from their perspective, the ‘Union with Christ school), the RCC and liberal Protestant ecumenism. I don’t want to throw stones at the Repristinationist/Hortonian camp, especially since I agree with and admire much of what they are doing and saying. I only want to be fair and balanced, Biblical speaking of course.

Comments, clarifications, and rebukes are hereby welcomed!