I’ve seen debates on a variety of issues where conflicting sides claim Calvin agrees with them. I wonder if a similar thing could be going on with Kline. Are interpreters of Kline seeing what they want to see in accordance with their own positions?

As far as the controversy goes there are areas we are trying to look at and find agreement. If my memory serves me correctly Dr. Clark made a comment that Kline has been around for 50 years. How come this stuff has not come up before? The problem with that kind of thinking is that Kline’s later thoughts were not the thoughts of Kline in his earlier days. In fact, the books many people are referring to like his commentary on Deuteronomy is from the 60’s. His later publications are within the last 10 years of his life. It appears his views changed significantly during that time concerning the nature of the Mosaic Covenant. The process might have been slow but the changes in his nuanced Covenantal understanding had changed. So where agreement can be found depends upon what period of Kline’s life we will be looking at..

I challenged Lane about this problem at the Conference. He overly synthesized the Kline of 1962 with the Kline of 2002 and the fit just isn’t there when it comes to the nature and substance of the Mosaic Covenant. I loved Lane’s Plenary Session on Republication and his use of Kline when Kline spoke more like those who agreed with WCF chapter 7. That isn’t hard to do when you reference his book ‘By Oath Consigned’ of 1969 or his Commentary on Deuteronomy in 1962. It becomes a bit harder to that when you get to Kingdom Prologue written 30 t0 40 years later.

One thing I can find agreement on is that I believe Murray came up short in being overly reactive when it comes to the terminology Covenant of Works. I fully affirm a Covenant of Works and the bi-covenantal structure of the WCF. I believe that is harmful when people back away from good doctrinal terminology.

Right now I am going to work my way through ‘Kingdom Prologue’ again and converse with some of the prominent guys concerning this matter. Lane asked me to look specifically at the book referred to above and at this particular section. So I am and I do find it problematic as I have noted above. I have some problems with this statement not all of it. “…(the tragic history of Israel under its covenant-of-works probation) served to convict all of their sinful, hopeless estate.” I can agree with this one. “The Law thus drove men to Christ that they might be justified by faith.”

Lane also asked me to consider if some of these guys might be taking Kline farther than Kline intended to go. Jim Cassidy informed me that he believed that one particular person has done this. I am going to try my best to consider that angle also.

Does that help a little bit?

Mr. Snyder,

I’m aware of your disagreements with Kline. I’ve read your comments on other threads, and posts on your site earlier this year. I was just wanting to clarify what you thought about Kline here.

Kline is a controversial figure at present, so I’m aware of all of the problems that people have with his views. But I’m more interested in where there is agreement. Finding places of agreement will be beneficial, to the end of preventing representatives on both sides from adding more “overreaction” to “overreation”.

Justin,
Did you read the blog post where there is a response to Kline’s understanding on the Mosaic Covenant of Works Probation on that blog?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdi_HXJf1o4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSIKyRQhFH4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_wDrAOfSOo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTwPOhaEwZk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bdi_HXJf1o4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSIKyRQhFH4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_wDrAOfSOo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTwPOhaEwZk

I must note the irony that the same theological camp which tends to see Paul as addressing a “Jewish misinterpretation of the Law” now sounds as though they are accusing those of us who think Paul is giving inspired interpretation of the Law of misinterpreting Kline (who also believed that Paul is giving an inspired interpretation of the Law). Relax. I’m not claiming (or implying) that Kline is inspired. I just appreciate irony.

Do you disagree with Kline’s statement in the post above?

“The tragic history of Israel under its covenant-of-works probation…” This is where we are going to start having problems. But there is much more to the story. And I believe that the booklet Moses and Merit discusses this problem correctly. At least that is how I am understanding the situation.
A portion addressing this is linked here.
http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/klines-reactionary-theology/