Kline’s curious conclusion and other stories - 10 October 2011 |
|
Part 1 of some highlights from today’s Study Day on the Doctrine of Scripture at London Theological Seminary’s John Owen Centre with Garry Williams:
- The “BRIE” (Bible, Reason, Institution, Experience) taxonomy, which says “Bible=evangelical; Reason=Liberal; Institution=Catholic; Experience=Charismatic” is flawed in that it concedes “reason” to Liberal theology, whereas in fact any particular “Liberal theology” is simply the reflection of culture of the Protestantism that produces it.
- GW: “Scripture presents itself as God’s covenantal word, his covenant treaty with his people.”
- Michael Horton: “the scriptures do not simply contain a covenant or covenants, but as a whole can be said to constitute the covenant document itself.”
- The other ancient near-eastern cultures which also made covenants got the idea from God via Adam, Noah, Abraham and so on, with whom God made (guess what?) covenants.
- Kevin Vanhoozer: “The logos of Scripture is thoroughly covenantal. The Bible is the God-ordained means of communicating the terms and the reality of the covenant whose content is Jesus Christ.”
- Prisca theologica – distorted echoes of biblical truth in non-Christian religions, which arose as God’s special revelation influenced the idolatrous religions of the world.
- Timothy Ward: “Every literary genre and form within Scripture is linked directly to Scripture’s basic covenantal form and function.”
- Meredith Kline: “Our contention is not, of course, that the Pentateuch as such is a treaty form.” GW: Distinguish the literary character (covenantal) of the elements from their arrangement (which in Scripture does not follow the pattern of a S-V covenant).
- Demonstrating the covenantal character of the NT may seem to be more difficult. Indeed, critics of covenant theology point out the comparatively few instances of explicit covenant terminology in the NT. Is not covenant replaced by kingdom? Nope.
- Kline: “The passion of Christ … is presented as the inauguration of the new covenant.”
- Gospels as covenant inauguration texts.
- Meredith Kline: “Underlying and unifying factor in the portrayal of Jesus’ mission in the gospels is his role as the mediator of the new covenant and that the controlling and cohesive motif of the passion narratives is the ratification of the new covenant.”
- Because kingdom language is held by some to replace covenant, it is worth pausing to note how the two are related in Luke 22:29: “I assign to you, as my Father assigned (diatithemai) to me, a kingdom.” Cf. v. 20 “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant (diatheke) in my blood.” GW: “The kingship of Jesus is given him in covenant by the Father.”
- GW: There is no contradiction between covenant theology and the kingdom theme in the Gospels.
- GW: Why then the change to a predominance of kingdom language in the Gospels? Surely the answer is obvious: because the Gospels describe the arrival of the king.
- Kline’s curious conclusion, that the Gospels are witness documents, not to the world but to the church: “It is not a kerygmatic but a legal witness, not kerygmatic-evangelistic proclamation of Jesus Christ but legal attestation to God’s covenant.” GW: But it must also be possible for a covenant treaty to stand as an invitation/command that summons people from outside into the covenant.
- There is a connection between (a) the way in which analogical predication works and (b) the Protestant principle of comparing Scripture with Scripture. The latter tells us, for example, not to interpret the analogical statement “God is a rock” to mean that God is dead, but rather that God is stable, strong, our foundation, and so on.
| Tweet | Post comment via Facebook |
Posted by Steve Jeffery · Topics: Minister's Blog