Category: R2K Virus (Radical Two Kingdom Theology)

“Although we acknowledge that certain points of similarity between the covenant of works and the Mosaic covenant can be found in previous writers, none of them argue a works-merit formula for Israel as a “corporate Adam”, as Kline and his disciples propose. Instead, in our view, the evidence shows that Meredith Kline is the architect of the contemporary Republication Paradigm described above.”

Elam, Van Kooten, Berquist
Merit and Moses; A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication — pg. 37

The importance of this quote lies in the demonstration that the kind of Klinean Republication that is so commonly pushed today is as completely innovative and novel as … well, …. as completely innovative and novel as the whole R2K project for which it serves as the theological foundation. We could be polite and say that this Escondido Theology is both “good and original,” but we’d have to press on to qualify by noting that what is good about Escondido Republication is not original and what is original about it is not good.

One has to understand that this innovative doctrine (this theology with absolutely ZERO historical legs) could well completely eviscerate what little remains of the Reformed Churches witness in the West if it is not stopped.

Our assessment, in a nutshell, is as follows: TLNF’s (Book — The Law is not of Faith) doctrine of republication represents a reactionary pendulum swing against the views of Norman Shepherd and the Federal Vision (FV) theology. Although advocates of the republication view properly recognize many of the deviant formulations in the Shepherd/FV theology, many of the alternatives they propose are also problematic, and warrant careful evaluation….

In the estimation of TLNF, the OPC needs the one and true remedy for ridding the denomination of the bad fruits of “Shepherd-ism” (in all its varieties), by laying the proverbial axe to its root in “Murray-ism.” Of course, according to TLNF, that axe is the doctrine of republication. However, it will become clearer how the republication
viewpoint, following Meredith G. Kline, is itself a reactionary theological pendulum swing away from the plumb line of the Confession….

Kline’s Reactionary Theology

As noted above, Kline and the authors of TLNF are correct to point to dangerous imbalances in the theology of Norman Shepherd and FV. But is it possible that even as Shepherd and FV represented a pendulum swing away from the WCF in one direction, Kline’s reaction to it might constitute a swing in another? We may identify three components of Kline’s teaching and writings intended to counteract the teaching of Shepherd and FV. In our view, these components also swing wide of the plumb line of the Westminster Standards.

Elam, Van Kooten, Berquist
Merit and Moses; A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication, pg. 3, 16, 17

So just how did Kline’s theology end up being a reactionary pendulum swing to Shepherd and putatively Murray?

Well, what Shepherd did was to fold grace into law so that there was not enough discontinuity between grace and law with the consequence that the covenant of works was seen as a gracious covenant, on the other hand, er hand went all reactionary by folding law into grace and strangely enough also found himself, like his nemesis Shepherd, with not enough discontinuity between law and grace with the consequence that the covenant of Grace is described as “being a covenant of grace except when it’s not.” Shepherd made a legal covenant gracious. Kline has made a gracious covenant legal.

For Shepherd’s folding of grace into the legal covenant the result was a confusion of faithfulness and faith for justification. For Kline’s folding of law into the gracious covenant the result is a confusion of law and Gospel for the Old Testament saints in the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. If Shepherd make the mistake of making the Covenant of works, gracious, Kline has made the mistake of making the covenant of grace, legal so that the covenant of grace in the Mosaic covenant is described as one that includes “works.” In Kline’s covenant of Grace one can earn merit, via law-keeping, to stay in the land. Shepherd and Kline agree that law and grace must be folded into each other. The only difference is that Shepherd folded grace into law (Covenant of works is seen as being gracious) while Kline folded law into grace (Gracious Mosaic covenant is seen as being legal).

We continue with our “Recapitulation blurb” series. Keep in mind here that what is being exposed as ruinous is not the idea of Mosaic Covenant Recapitulation in general, but rather what is being exposed as ruinous is the Mosaic Covenant Recapitulation that is coming from the pens of men like the authors of “The Law Is Not Of Faith.” Many of these men have connections to Westminster Calif. Seminary and to Dr. Meredith Kline specifically.

Our Republication Ruin quote of the day,

Note again what is being claimed: the idea of a works principle in the Mosaic covenant is a necessary teaching which is integrally connected to the doctrine of justification. The term “integral” refers to something that is essential and necessary to a thing’s completeness—that which serves as a constituent or foundational part of something else. In connecting the two doctrines in this way, the editors are asserting that the republication doctrine is thus essential and necessary for the completeness of justification….

Please note again what is inferred about those who do not hold to the doctrine of republication as presented
in TLNF. A failure to teach the republication position “will only leave us necessarily impoverished in our faith” and “We will see in only a thin manner the work of our Savior….”

However, the editors of TLNF seem to imply that the doctrine of republication (complete with a meritorious works principle) is the doctrine upon which justification stands or falls.

Moses and Merit; A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication — pg. 9, 20
Elam, Van Kooten, Bergquist

Note, what is happening here is that the Klinean Republicationists are trying to read everyone out of the Reformed movement who does not agree with their completely innovative reading of the Mosaic Covenant. It is almost as if they are saying …“Agree with us or you are no friend of the Reformed faith.”

The idea of the nature of the “covenant” has been debated for centuries by many Luminaries in the Reformed faith. Disagreements among Theologians of significance are plentiful. It is obvious that it is an important doctrine. However, for a bunch of neophytes to show up in the late 20th – Early 21st century and tell all of us that it is their way or the highway is laughable in both its hubris and its cheek.

I continue with pulling, what I consider to be choice quotes from “Merit & Moses.”

In Part 1, we will seek to show that the TLNF-Klinean version of the doctrine of republication is the result of a modern day debate concerning the doctrine of justification which began at Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia) in the late 1970s. In our judgment, this debate ultimately resulted in a reactionary pendulum swing against the teaching of Professor Norman Shepherd. Shepherd’s teaching eventually deviated from historic Reformed covenant theology in that the doctrine of the covenant of works was compromised. This ultimately led to a deficient view of the doctrine of justification in which the imputation of the active obedience of Christ was explicitly repudiated. In response to Shepherd, Professor Meredith Kline sought to preserve the church’s teaching on the covenant of works and justification through Christ’s active obedience. However, Kline did this by making several of his own modifications to traditional Reformed theology, especially the doctrine of merit. In the end, we believe both sides have embraced and affirmed concepts that significantly differ from the confessional Reformed tradition.”

Elam, Van Kooten & Bergquist
Merit and Moses; A Critique of the Klinean Doctrine of Republication — pg. 3

I note this quote because, for those who have known me and who have followed Iron Ink know that I have been insisting for years now that the error of Federal Vision (Shepherd) and the error of R2K (Kline) are mirror errors. They are to one another what Nestorianism and Monophysitism were to each other. When the debate about Federal Vision was hot and heavy I wrote against the extreme of Federal Vision and when R2K (and now it’s sister doctrine Mosaic Recapitulation) became the ecclesiastical debate du-jour I have been inveighing against them. I take delight in this quote because others are now reinforcing the idea that these two errors are related.

Note that the authors of MM insists that “both sides (Shepherdites and Klineans) have embraced and affirmed concepts that significantly differ from the confessional Reformed tradition.” This is important for the conservative confessional Reformed Church to pay attention to because much of that church is being given the Hobson’s choice that insists that we must choose either Federal Vision or R2K and Mosaic Covenant Republication when in point of fact they are each options that are promissory of unraveling the Reformed faith.

Federal Vision gives us the option of giving up Justification by faith alone for the sake of a sanctification that becomes a kind of covenantal moralism upon which our Justification depends, and this no matter how subtle and convoluted the FV lads are able to mask it. R2k and the Mosaic covenant Republication chaps gives us the option of a Justification that is denuded of sanctification. R2K and the Mosaic covenant Republication view so much wants to protect Justification that it is willing to give up public square sanctification. Federal Vision so much wants a active faith that it wants to make Justification dependent upon faithfulness of the believer (a sanctification category).

They both are errant and finally others are starting to see it.

I just finished “Merit and Moses,” which is an analysis of the R2K-Klinean Covenant Republication innovation. I am going to post, over the next few days, sundry quotes with some limited analysis.

“In light of the concept of “simple justice,” it is very difficult to see how the Republication Paradigm helps Israel discern the necessity of someone else performing perfect obedience to merit a reward on their behalf. If their imperfect obedience can be constituted as the meritorious ground of reward, where then do we find the ground for the necessity of the absolute perfect obedience of Christ to merit our salvation? By redefining the traditional view of merit, it seems that the Republication Paradigm has actually destroyed a significant portion of the traditional theological basis for the necessity of Christ’s perfect, active obedience.

In the traditional paradigm, the definition of justice and merit absolutely necessitates the perfect obedience of Christ to merit our salvation. In the Republication Paradigm, the definition of justice and merit no longer requires moral perfection. According to this system, Israel is able to truly merit blessing through an obedience that is only relative and imperfect (i. e., sinful). This revised definition of merit no longer absolutely requires perfection to meet the bar of Gods justice, either for Adam, for Israel, or for Christ.”

I post this quote first because it cuts the legs out from under the premise of the need for this Westminster West innovation. A large part of the whole idea of Republication was arrived at because the thought was that by providing innovation on the Mosaic Covenant one could more securely protect Justification. The thought by the Westminster West mavens was that other lesser forms of the Reformed movement were surrendering Justification. The innovators of Klinean covenant recapitulation thought they could rescue Justification from the clutches of their terrible opponents.

And yet we see by the above quote that the whole idea of Christ’s active obedience imputed to us in Justification is called into question by this covenantal innovation. In the words of the Authors of “Merit and Moses,” “Ironically, the republication teaching which was intended to preserve and protect the doctrine of justification, may (when consistently worked out) actually undercut this doctrine by which the church stands or falls.”