Bill Wilder on a Klinian’s View of N. T. Wright
My dear friend Dr. Bill Wilder, who helped me understand Reformed theology and kept me baptist while doing it, has been interviewed on N. T. Wright, the New Perspectives on Paul, and Meredith Kline’s covenantal theology by Pastor Greg Strawbridge of WordMP3.com. Bill, who studied under Dr. Kline at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, has a set of audio classes on the theology of N. T. Wright that has become famous across the Christian web. He is director of Educational Ministries at the Center for Christian Study in Charlottesville, VA (where I once served as librarian).
Share on Facebook
January 30th, 2007 at 12:43 am
Best Klinean ever.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Thanks for posting this. I’m intrigued by Wilder’s midler critique. I’m curious though about how Kline is being portrayed or, perhaps, how Kline portrays his own position. I haven’t looked everywhere, but the one refernece I was able to find to Kline citing somethign about how Jesus fulfils what Adam doesn’t hardly looked like a life of accumulated legal merit offered to God to buy salvation. It looks more like a suffering servant as Wilder allows for
“By rebuking Satan and driving him away from the holy hill the second Adam performed the judicial assignment that had figured critically in the probation-temptation of the first Adam. The probation of Jesus, too, involved the accomplishment of a particular act of obedience; specifically, the gaining of a decisive victory over Satan.”
Where’s the merit via lawkeeping in that? I appreciate how much it pays attention to the literary homologies, but it doesn’t seem like accumulating merit as bookkeeping entities. Does Kline ever express himself more traditionally elsewhere?
January 30th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
I’m hoping someone can answer your question, pduggie. The only extensive reading I’ve done of Kline was huge portions of Kingdom Prologue for a class last semester. However, the reading was for a digest that included thousands of pages from several works, so frankly I remember almost nothing.
I can tell you that the professor teaching the class, who is a thorough-going Klinian trained at Westminster West, seemed to emphasize merit a great deal.
February 2nd, 2007 at 1:03 pm
Well, all I’ve been able to find from Klines “mature views” is this:
“The active obedience of Jesus is his fulfilling the demands of the covenant probation. By the passive obedience of his atoning sacrifice he secures for us the forgiveness of sins. But he does more than clear the slate and reinstate us in Adam’s original condition, still facing probation and able to fail. Jesus, the second Adam, accomplishes the probationary assignment of overcoming the devil, and by performing this one decisive act of righteousness he earns for us God’s promised reward. By this achievement of active obedience he merits for us a position beyond probation, secure forever in God’s love and the prospect of God’s eternal home.”
I notice there is NO mention of the role of the Moral Law in this active obedience. It’s all fighting the devil and (heh) “Christus Victor”.
And I notice that Kline’s student Lee Irons was drummed out of the OPC for failing to affirm that there was a Moral Law, related to the decalog, that was still binding. I guess if even Jesus active obedience didn’t consist in obeying the 10 commandments, requiring Christians to obey the 10 commandments would be out of the question.
Its just very interesting with all the yelling going on that Kline isn’t subjected to more criticism.
May 21st, 2007 at 1:21 pm
pduggie is quite incorrect about Lee Irons’ case. Here again we observe how the impersonality of blogs tempt Christians to imprudent and harmful speech toward brothers in the church of Jesus Christ. We note how in this case a Christian maligns a Teaching Elder in good standing with careless comments - - contrary to the Word of God - - and without possession of the facts of the case or insight as to the theological arguments in the case as presented to both presbytery and the General Assembly. Fortunately, this blog doesn’t get many hits.
Here are the facts, should pduggie care to dispute my rejoinder:
The Irons case hinged upon a very fine distinction about the place of the Decalogue in this present covenant administration. Mr. Irons believed that we were not under the decalogue per se, but under the moral law of God, as was Adam, who was not under the decalogue per se. Mr. Irons agreed that the moral law of God is summarily comprehended in the Decalogue. Mr. Irons had no problem with its recitation in his worship services, and had no real issue with the three uses of the law. Mr. Irons did not believe at the time that Adam had received the Decalogue per se, but only the moral law of God. Furthermore, I suppose that he may understand that the Decalogue per se was peculiar to the Mosaic administration, and is given consistent with a typological republication of the original covenant of works. He would say that the Decalogue is to be seen now as through the lense of Christ. Mr. Irons definitely said that there was a moral law of God related to the Decalogue that we must be obedient to, but not understood as “that Law (per se) as given to Adam.” It is a confessional question regarding that fine nuance of the law.
Joe
May 21st, 2007 at 1:21 pm
pduggie is quite incorrect about Lee Irons’ case. Here again we observe how the impersonality of blogs tempt Christians to imprudent and harmful speech toward brothers in the church of Jesus Christ. We note how in this case a Christian maligns a Teaching Elder in good standing with careless comments - - contrary to the Word of God - - and without possession of the facts of the case or insight as to the theological arguments in the case as presented to both presbytery and the General Assembly. Fortunately, this blog doesn’t get many hits.
Here are the facts, should pduggie care to dispute my rejoinder:
The Irons case hinged upon a very fine distinction about the place of the Decalogue in this present covenant administration. Mr. Irons believed that we were not under the decalogue per se, but under the moral law of God, as was Adam, who was not under the decalogue per se. Mr. Irons agreed that the moral law of God is summarily comprehended in the Decalogue. Mr. Irons had no problem with its recitation in his worship services, and had no real issue with the three uses of the law. Mr. Irons did not believe at the time that Adam had received the Decalogue per se, but only the moral law of God. Furthermore, I suppose that he may understand that the Decalogue per se was peculiar to the Mosaic administration, and is given consistent with a typological republication of the original covenant of works. He would say that the Decalogue is to be seen now as through the lense of Christ. Mr. Irons definitely said that there was a moral law of God related to the Decalogue that we must be obedient to, but not understood as “that Law (per se) as given to Adam.” It is a confessional question regarding that fine nuance of the law.
Joe