In what sense is it accurate or fair to be concerned that reading law/gospel NT distinction in this way (hyperbolic, relative contrasts) may do damage to NT soteriology? It seems to me that one of the critiques of New Perspective on Paul regarding “works of the law” is that it flattens law/gospel distinction too much and is this a concern now with this view taken by the committee?

Any help or thoughts on this would be much appreciated!

Is it just me or is there no link to the report on that page?

“It is not a correlation between pre-fall Adam in Genesis 2 and the demand for flawless obedience relative to eschatological inheritance that comes into view when Kline makes the comparison between Israel and Adam. Rather, it is the correlation between post-fall Adam in Genesis 3 and the consequence of his sin leading to exile east of Eden that comes into view when Kline makes the comparison between Israel and Adam. Rather than thinking in terms of a republication of the covenant of works with pre-fall Adam, Kline brings into view a redemptively qualified recapitulation of post-fall Adam and the loss of inheritance. That is the point to grasp when it comes to the correlation of Israel and Adam in light of the works principle. Therefore, embedded within the redemptive intrusion of the typal kingdom in Canaan, Kline detects the presence of a works principle that applies to national Israel and occasions a reenactment of Adam’s sin and exile in forms adjusted to the realities of sin, grace and redemptive typology.”

“Kline does not advocate a republication of the covenant of works with Adam within the theocracy of Israel; rather, he advocates a works principle adjusted to the realities of sin and redemption. This principle is redemptively recalibrated through Abraham and ends up reenacting the sin and exile of Adam when applied to (apostate) national Israel.”

“Kline’s viewpoint is perhaps best described as an administrative re-enactment within national Israel of the outcome of the covenant of works with Adam, adjusted to the realities of sin, grace and redemptive typology, resulting in exile from the inheritance-land of Canaan.”

So, is Kline’s view (on the admin repub reading of it) truly a species of administrative republication, or isn’t it?

Kline was required reading in Frame’s Introduction to the Word of God. His Structure of Biblical Authority was most helpful to me. Murray’s covenant views were taught but the theology profs made clear when they disagreed with him.

Richard Lindberg, because in the late-70’s, Kline was teaching at Gordon Conwell and Murray’s covenant theology ruled the roost. Republication (of any flavor) had such a ‘minority’ status that there was no reason to make a stink about it. What’s changed? A lot more people in the OPC and other NAPARC denoms have been taught by Kline since 1980.

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/a-critique-of-r-scott-clarks-covenant-theology/

From what Tipton said, it seems they were sloppy in their interpretation of the WCOF 7.6. If you note the scriptures the the divines appealed to were ones relating to the Abrahamic covenant, not the Mosaic. Also, we are told in Galatians that the law was a prison, shutting all up under sin, and a tutor leading to Christ. It was those who looked to the Promised Messiah (Abrahamic covenant) who were saved. Hebrews told us that it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin, and that God was not pleased with those sacrifices. Remember, they were a mere tutor leading to grace. It’s like burning your hand in the fire and being taught by it. The fire is not grace, it’s law, it’s consequence. If your burn a bull in fire, and are told, this Bull is what you deserve, that’s not grace, that is teaching you something. It’s teaching you your need of a savior. The law by shutting all up under sin is not grace. Grace comes outside of that system, and we escape its curse. This is the law and gospel distinction. It is no accident that people like Tipton and the rest who buy into the “it’s all grace” view have all but abandoned a law and gospel hermeneutic. It is also not an accident that pastors and teachers from that view often mix law and gospel in their sermons and teachings. It is because they have a confused view based on theological innovations of the last century, and not found in the classical reformed faith.

Kline says on the basis of Gal. 3:10ff and Rom. 10:4ff that the Mosaic law order was a works principle in contrast to the promise-grace-faith promise of the gospel. He says that Paul “saw a principle operating in the law that was ANTITHETICAL to promise-faith.”

He also bases this antithetical (and not relative) contrast between the works principle and the grace-faith principle on Gal. 4 and 2 Cor. 3. He writes: “It was only because Paul thus recognized the presence of this works principle in the law that he could identify the old covenant as an administration of bondage, condemnation, and death in contrast to the new covenant, which he characterized as one of freedom, righteousness, and life.”

So the remarks in the episode about the report being available should be taken, as of August 19, 2016 14:00 Eastern Time Zone, are a proleptic indicatin of the report’s availability!

-=Cris=-
Ruling Elder, Trinity OPC
Hatboro, PA