----- Original Message ----- 
From: "H Dorrington" <hjdinfl@...>
>> Chad: "I'm tempted to have him explain Meredith Kline within the context 
>> of Covenant Theology."
> Harry: Tell us more...

For starters, here are a couple of websites with a lot to read on how some 
Vosian/Klineans are working out their covenantal theology: 
http://www.covopc.org/ralotzer.html
http://www.upper-register.com/
http://members.surfbest.net/pages@.../bible/papers/threeuses.htm. 
You'll notice at the Robert Lotzer site that he is using Moo quite 
extensively, even as a Presbyterian paedobaptist.

There are only a handful of credobaptists that I know of that consider 
themselves Vosian.  And only two of us identify with Kline (the rest w/ 
Gaffin or Carson).  And of those two, I'm alone in preferring to label 
myself NCT (my buddy is in the SBC and is content to drift aimlessly... 
:-)).  It really is a lonely world.  :-)

While Kline is a paedobaptist, his understanding of the Mosaic Law as it 
relates to continuity/discontinuity is quite compatible with NCT because his 
Mosaic Covenant is a Covenant of Works (building off of Charles Hodge). 
And although there have been many in covenantal theology who have affirmed 
the Mosaic Covenant as a CoW, Kline is virtually alone in allowing that view 
of the Mosaic to inform how he formulates his "third use of the law".  In CT 
circles, touching the "third use" sacred cow is tantamount to declaring war 
on the confession.  Having seen this play out as an observer of the OPC and 
PCA (and some in ARBCA), it would seem that the "third use" has been 
elevated at least to "gospel status" if not higher in the level of passion 
and emotion with which it is defended.  One can make all sorts of exceptions 
to the confession and no one bats an eye.  Take an exception to the "third 
use" clauses and opponents start spitting bullets and the tag 
*unconfessional* is slapped on your pulpit.  It's as if the WCF (and the 
LBCF) were written primarily as a defense of "third use".  It's in the way 
this CT of Kline's is developed that there are many similarities, if not 
common elements, with NCT.

A Kline disciple, Lee Irons, was defrocked in the OPC last summer for 
challenging the third use sacred cow (you'll see a link to his trial papers 
at the Upper Register).  The sermon that got him into trouble was later 
posted and circulated as "Married to Another" 
(http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/married_to_another.html).  In that 
paper, Irons commits the fatal CT sin when he says: "Believers have been set 
free from the Law by means of their union with Christ in his death."  It 
doesn't matter that he still retains the law as an ethical standard.  The 
moment he posited that Christ has fulfilled the moral law and is now THE 
authority is the moment he was deemed antinomian.  There were some other 
problems contextualizing the Irons trial that aren't relevant here... just 
to note that there are others still in the OPC that have been preaching the 
law of Christ that have yet to be charged, and it could well be that the 
Irons incident is a one-time affair not to be repeated.  Let's hope so.

What the Irons trial proved was that a "third use" exception is considered 
as much a violation of the confession as the gospel itself.  And that's the 
tragedy.  In engaging the traditional confessionalists on other lists, I've 
been amazed at the heat generated when one starts tip-toeing around the 
"third use".  But only Irons has been defrocked.  Kline and the others 
remain as members of good standing in both the OPC and the PCA.  Which is 
*why* when guys like the DataRat start pooh-poohing NCT's discontinuation of 
the OT moral law, it's fun to remind them of Kline.  Here's someone who 
affirms the WCF (and, btw, another nuance to this discussion is that the 
confession itself doesn't delineate *what* it means by the continuing moral 
law... it's the Catechism that does, and depending on which denomination one 
is a member, the Catechism may or may not be officially tied to the 
confession itself), and yet agrees with NCT that the OT moral law as binding 
on believers in the OT form has been discontinued.  If DataRat were familiar 
with Kline, rather than respond like he did (well he must not agree with 
Calvin), he'd start spitting bullets from the confession... mention Kline 
and traditional CTers have a coniption.  If they had their way, he'd have 
been defrocked a long time ago, I think.

What Kline, Irons, and the others have *not* done yet is develop, from a 
biblical theological perspective, Christ himself as the third use of the 
law.  Irons comes very close when he says: "we have been raised with Christ 
and are thus under a new commanding authority - the authority of Christ 
himself...under the law of Christ."  But much more could be done in the area 
of positing Christ as THE revelation of the moral as THE standard himself. 
The Klineans are content to speak of the moral law within the realm of 
ethics in informing the law of Christ... I would prefer to push that 
envelope a little further in suggesting that the moral law (if we grant the 
traditional three-fold use, which is helpful in some respects, but totally 
unhelpful in others) was a shadow of the reality to come and that the Law 
written on our hearts is Christ himself.

The sabbatarian and paedobaptist views of the Klineans, IMHO, are totally 
inconsistent with what they affirm about the third use of the moral law... 
but that's another issue.  The bottom line is this: Klinean Vosians view of 
the law of Christ doesn't necessarily negate the moral law in informing our 
Christian walk, but it certainly denies the fallacy that one can carry the 
moral law into the New Covenant unaltered.  And that is a significant 
commonality with NCT.

I could go on, but I feel like I'm rambling at this point.  Hope this helps.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH