However there has been considerable debate over the nature of
the prelapsarian arrangement as well as disputation over what is the
signification of the Mosaic Law.
Are we to understand the Old Testament and in particular the
Mosaic epoch as being antithetical and in opposition to the New Testament?
Covenantally are they operating under two different principles, one of works
and the other of grace?
Are we to understand the Old Testament including Moses as
being substantially united to the New Testament? Does it represent a seamless
continuity in terms of the plan of God and how He has revealed salvation to the
world?
Or does the Bible present to us a mixed picture, containing
some elements of continuity and other elements of discontinuity?
Most people, particularly those in Reformed circles would
answer the latter but there is little agreement on this point. There are
numerous factions and considerable nuance within the various camps.
And yet for all that we can say that Pipa represents the
branch of Reformed theology that tends to emphasize unity at the expense of
disunity. Most importantly to him he believes the Westminster Confession
teaches this. This of course adds a rather frustrating element to the
discussion because in Presbyterian and Reformed circles it is the Confessional
heritage that is the real source of the struggle. It's not simply a matter of
what the Scriptures teach. There's a tradition to be considered and wrangled
over. And there are denominational politics always in play which determine
where the lines are drawn.
But even those who emphasize unity will acknowledge that
certain aspects of the Old Testament are indeed obsolete. In Presbyterianism this
is accomplished through the theological construct known as the Three-Fold
Division of the law, that identifies the eternal 'Moral Law' with the Decalogue,
creates a division called 'Civil Law' which they believe to be obsolete. But it
is a qualified obsolescence. They believe its equity persists and is both
applicable and employable by the Church vis-à-vis society. So in one sense it
is not obsolete and this has been the source of considerable debate, especially
in light of rising secularism.
Finally they create a division called the 'Ceremonial Law'
which they believe to be abrogated.
Others like this author find this schema to be artificial,
unsupported by both Old and New Testament data, out of synch with
Redemptive-History and in fact harmful.
Despite these aspects of abrogation they insist there is a
unity between the covenants and Pipa argues this viewpoint in a consistent and
fairly thorough manner, in particular focusing on the fact that the calling of
Moses was specifically tied in with the story of the Patriarchs. It is viewed
as a continuation of that story which seemingly presents difficulties for those
who wish to present the Mosaic epoch as a parenthesis or even digression within
the larger narrative.
In no way does Kline (or those who broadly would identify
with him) suggest otherwise. The Mosaic period is certainly part of the
continuing story and one of the covenants of promise, fulfilled, affirmed and
confirmed in Christ.
Yet, Kline and others have also insisted that there is
another layer to the story, another theological dimension that must be
considered. There are too many verses in the New Testament which contrast the
glories of the New Covenant with the Mosaic order.
Pipa would insist these contrasts are not theologically
inherent but are New Testament criticisms restricted to Jewish abuses and misunderstandings
of the Mosaic arrangement.
In Reformed circles the debate has not been helped by the
fact that over the past century Dispensational theology has taken the place of
ascendancy in American Protestantism, a system built on covenantal dis-unity
and an essential contrast between the Old and New Testament periods. In fact
under Dispensationalism it's not even proper to refer to the present age as
that of the New Testament or Covenant. It is yet future and part of a separate
plan concerning the Jewish nation.
Re-working older theological formulae Kline argues that
individuals are saved by Grace through Faith Alone in all post-lapsarian
epochs. Yet, on a typological level the corporate body, the Hebrew nation of
Israel was given another covenantal arrangement that echoed the Edenic
framework. Israel, corporately speaking, had to exhibit obedience in order to
retain their hold on and presence in the land. Again, the threat of
disobedience was to be removed from the Holy Land of milk and honey and to be sent
(like Adam) into exile, into the unholy world a picture of Hell itself.
Kline utilizes this works-principle in explaining the
contrast between the Old and New Testaments, seen so plainly on the pages of
the New and as also illustrative of Christ/the True Israel's role in being the
Second Adam. Unlike the First Adam who failed and pedagogical Israel/Adam which
also failed, the True/Second Adam/Israel succeeds in obedience and thus
securing the Holy Land/Kingdom.
Many in Reformed circles have balked at this interpretation
because it introduces aspects of disunity between the covenants. It creates an
aspect of the Old Testament that is in effect antagonistic to the New and also
indicates that great portions of the Old arrangement are in no way applicable
to this present age. Or to put it differently, the Klinean view posits the whole
of the Old Testament and specifically the Mosaic order is theocratic but rooted
in typology and thus being fulfilled is no longer applicable to the New
Testament age. This is devastating to the Dominionist/Constantinian programme
embraced by many Calvinists.
That said not a few of Kline's appreciators are yet able to
embrace a form of de facto Dominionism
while at the same time rejecting the explicit de jure Dominionism that fuels a more formalized and overt
Constantinian framework. On a practical level the 'equity' of the Old Testament
order is not really applicable. The 'equity' ends up becoming a spring-board
for a theological synthesis often identified as 'Christian Worldview' being
applied to everything from the arts to politics and war. Far from being
'Biblical' it is in reality the fruit of philosophical speculation and
rationalization.
This also plays out in terms of the doctrine of
Sanctification and the place of obedience in the life of the believer. Rather
than an open mandate applied by a broad range of Spirit guided wisdom, most Reformed
believe the Old Testament law is specifically applicable to the lives of
believers and that the law is not only a rule for society but also plays a part
in the believer's personal ethics.
The Klinean system as well as some nuanced expressions of this
theology eschews anything that smacks of 'works' and certainly any ethical
appeals to Old Testament norms. The law-paradigm was specific to Eden and the
Adamic arrangement and repeated typologically under Moses. For us to look to
law as a guide would be to embrace the Adamic-merit paradigm and to reject
grace.
Practically speaking for some of them the grace principle is
so magnified as to all but eliminate ethical imperatives and/or any measure or
elaboration on the doctrine of Sanctification. At this point it overlaps with
aspects of Lutheran theology and the Law/Gospel hermeneutic which places all
imperatives under the auspice of 'law', a category believers are not to try or
endeavour to fulfill. Once again any such attempt or obligation is decried as a
rejection of the gospel of grace.
Despite some difficulties with the broader Klinean outlook, Pipa
fails to do justice to the full orb of Scripture and the various New Testament
passages which clearly contrast the New and the Old Testaments. His theology
won't accommodate these concepts and embracing them presents logical tangles
compromising the integrity of his overall system. Besides the fact the
Confession itself would have to be questioned and for Pipa the appeal to Sola
Scriptura is de facto an invalid approach
in a post-Confessional paradigm. As a Presbyterian, Westminster is given the
final word.
At the same time while emphasizing unity he is hemmed in by
concerns that have arisen due to the Federal Vision controversy and the
teachings of Norman Shepherd. These sometime overlapping schools of thought
teach the works principle is not incompatible with grace. In fact they would
argue the law was never meant to be understood as operating in terms of a works
principle at all, but that obligation and conditionality have always been
inherent in the grace-based covenant arrangements and that remains true today.
One means of escaping the charge of works oriented salvation
is to re-cast and re-think the concept of merit. They argue that to think in
terms of merit is a mistake. No one can merit anything with regard to God, but
obedience is called for and can be rewarded. This casts the whole of the
Covenant of Works principle into doubt and represents a significant
modification of Scholastic Reformed theology. This opens up a host of
historical-theological questions and really begins to touch on more fundamental
hermeneutical and prolegomenical issues. Perhaps without meaning to they have
struck at the foundations of Confessionalism and Scholastic theology, a point
on which they are to be awarded accolades even if one does not subscribe to the
whole of their outlook.
I'm sure this is all somewhat frustrating for Pipa as he is
forced to navigate these rather complicated waters. And yet for Pipa and many
others I would imagine they find a certain comfort in viewing the Klinean
theology so often associated with Westminster California and the theology of
Federal Vision as extreme and opposite positions. Pipa and many affiliated with
Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS) and Westminster East (Philadelphia) believe
they are holding the proper historic middle ground that maintains the right
balance between covenantal continuity and discontinuity. They are avoiding the
errors of Monocovenantalism while at the same time avoiding extreme disunity.
In truth, the extreme versions of Monocovenantalism end up
leading toward Rome both in terms of theology and social ideal. The extreme
emphasis on disunity has led to Dispensational theology and it's veneration of
Judaism and certainly the downgrade of ecclesiology as a whole.
Not a few critics of Pipa and the mainstream Confessionalism
he seeks to represent, view his positions as essentially reflecting nineteenth century interpretations of Reformed theological heritage. It is a Calvinistic
version of Aristotelian Scholasticism with all its systemic nuances and at its
speculative worst.
Some (Amyraldians for instance) would argue the Confessional
heritage detracts from the Renaissance Humanism of the Protestant Reformers. They
believe Protestant Scholasticism actually represented a departure from Calvin
and the other early Reformers. I still think this an accurate assessment, but since I have no stake in
the Reformed label, heritage or any kind of denominational affiliation, I
abandoned that fight long ago.
History is full of false claims and anachronisms.
A small minority believe that historical Calvinism is itself
defective and have sought to rework the whole of Covenant Theology. I'm
thinking of some within the New Covenant Theology movement and even some who
have been identified with New Calvinism. We could also speak of Dutch
inspired Neo-Calvinism which is not unrelated in certain ways to some concepts
adopted by Federal Vision but that is outside the scope of this discussion.
They (and this author must be included) insist Scripture
presents dynamics and tensions and in order for us to be faithful to Scripture,
we must submit to Divine revelation and embrace all perspectives presented to
us even if they are perceived as extreme and seem to defy logical systematic expression.
Synthesis must be subjugated to the text.
In addition it also must be pointed out that Pipa stumbles on the issue of typology. This is systematics at its worst and most
deficient. We see this typically when we hear preachers talk about the
analogies with regard to the river Jordan etc...
Typology is symbolic. It can be pressed too far or teased out
too literally. If this is done it will always break down.
To Pipa, the fact that under Kline's Republication view the corporate
works arrangement present in the Mosaic order did not require 'perfect'
obedience to him is decisive and demonstrates the fallacy of the structure. God
always requires perfect obedience therefore the model is simply and patently wrong.
Though he views this argument as conclusive it actually
demonstrates his own somewhat impoverished and rather rigid understanding of
Scripture and in particular typology. It's a real expression of the difference
between Grammatico-Historical hermeneutics or method versus
Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics, sometimes (to the confusion of some)
referred to as Biblical Theology. Many in Reformed circles have laboured to
demonstrate that these approaches are not antagonistic but in fact
complimentary. In fact it would seem that most who follow Kline embrace this
view. Confessionalism in fact demands some sort of synthesis. Pure
Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics doesn't really harmonize with the
philosophical commitment to coherence that undergirds Systematic
Confessionalism.
I am of the camp which would severely subjugate any attempt
at Systematics to the dictates of Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics.
Commentaries and Theology are indispensable. But it must be said that
ultimately Systematic Theologies and Confessionalism rest on hermeneutical and
authoritative commitments that undermine Sola Scriptura.
Ironically it is some in the Federal Vision camp who actually
are determined to elevate Scripture over the Confessions. Sadly in their case,
their Biblical-Theology, their understanding of Redemptive-History is inverted.
The Old Testament is not subordinated to apostolic interpretation and their
subsequent Postmillennialism and the Dominionism that fuels their theology ends up
generating a corpus of extra-Scriptural concepts and commitments.
Or to summarize the preceding statements in a slightly
different way, it is the author's opinion that in most cases Biblical Theology
is effectively and practically subordinated and while helpful to presenting a
more truly Biblical (Bible-based) theology, still falls short. The
Grammatico-Historical method is almost inherently wed to Systematics and it is
the commitment to coherence that ends up dominating Scriptural interpretation.
Pipa's Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary (GPTS) embraces
the Grammatico-Historical method and is actually somewhat hostile to
Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics, despite their Biblical Theology classes and
utilization of figures such as Vos.
I clearly recall a discussion with a Greenville professor who
understood Biblical Theology as a way to unify Scripture and to integrate the
whole. For example, he said that Biblical Theology could be employed to defeat
the arguments of someone who would dare to suggest that choirs are not valid
for the Church Age. Choirs are found in the Bible and therefore they can be
utilized.
While I'm sure some of his colleagues might have cringed at
such an explanation, it was clear to me that the professor had virtually no
understanding of the topic.
The case against choirs is in fact a deeply rooted Redemptive-Historical
argument. The Levitical order has been fulfilled, superseded and in fact
abrogated. To simply 'flip' to the Old Testament and argue for the continuity of
choirs is akin to arguing for the continuance of sacrifice, the priesthood or
the Temple itself. It is to sew up the rent veil and to act as if the work of
the Messiah is 'not' finished. For the professor, Biblical Theology is a tool for rationalization of a Monocovenantal scheme and in his case a Decretal dominated
system.
Already thoroughly put off with Presbyterianism that
discussion was the nail in the coffin. I wasn't going to continue to invest
money for such an education and to apply myself to an ecclesiastical system I
viewed as patently unbiblical. I was gone in short order and within a few years
had blissfully washed my hands of the Presbyterian system. Praise be to God.
Finally a word must be said with regard to Kline's employment
of Middle-Eastern Suzerainty treaties in his explanation of Biblical covenants.
This has greatly upset a lot of folks and I remember not a few people at
Greenville (and elsewhere) decrying such a utilization as something akin to theological
liberalism.
Studying other Middle-Eastern Suzerainty treaties is helpful
for contextualization. Concepts and ideas that are difficult for us to
understand are indeed illuminated by a study of the cultural milieu.
By way of example we might say that to understand the
founding documents of the United States it is both helpful and perhaps even necessary
to study Locke, Montesquieu and other Enlightenment thinkers that dealt with
issues of personal liberty and limited government. That said, it's a mistake to
take any of these authors and read their ideas directly into the text of the
Declaration or Constitution. Jefferson and Madison were their own men and
though borrowing from the ideas of others were not slavish devotees.
When it comes to the Bible we must be even more cautious. It
is a revelation from God and yet God accommodates His people, condescends and
speaks in terms they can understand. The Covenants of the Old Testament were
birthed in a venue 3500-4000 years previous to our own. It was a different time
and words and symbols would carry different meaning and connotation. Studying
the context is necessary and helpful but we must be very careful not to impose
the historically discovered cultural norms on the text. We can supplement but
not supplant - something all too common in contemporary Evangelical scholarship.
Have Kline and his disciples been faithful in this regard?
They would think so. Others aren't so sure. But many of their critics seem to
miss the point altogether.