A Dialectic Inquiry Concerning Meredith Kline’s Covenant Theology as Architectonic Substructure of the Reformed Two-Kingdom Project

Abstract

The emergence of the Reformed Two-Kingdom project has generated a great deal of discussion. However, in this discussion, it is often assumed that Kline was the founder and architect of the project. The problem is that there has been very little examination of this point. In response, the following study investigates Kline’s covenant theology as it stands in relation to the current proposals of the Reformed Two-Kingdom doctrine.

Due to the nature of Kline’s contribution, this research falls within an overlap of systematic theology and biblical theology. The data to be evaluated is obtained through the means of a dialectic inquiry—a research methodology that allows for the legitimate exploration of Kline’s thought in the light of competing perspectives within the Reformed tradition.

After presenting the preliminaries of the study, as well as a robust literary survey, Kline’s covenant theology is itself described. His system is then put into discourse with three differing covenantal models. The primary dialogists in view at this point are (1) Greg Bahnsen, (2) John Frame, and (3) Herman Dooyeweerd. These represent the Theonomist, Perspectivalist, and Dooyeweerdian schools, respectively. The responses to Kline from these differing schools are analysed according to their central concerns. As a right understanding of the cultural mandate is a central concern for all the above perspectives, this issue is examined separately through the means of a biblical-theological study.

The collected data of the preceding chapters is used as the means of a final evaluation. The findings of this study show both that Kline is able to withstand the critique of his interlocutors and also that his covenant theology has a clear bearing upon current discussions between Two-Kingdom and transformationalist groups.

His model not only challenges monocovenantal conceptions of Reformed thought, but in so doing, shows important connections between soteriology, missiology and culture engagement. Further, it is seen that Kline’s protological eschatology, along with his insistence upon a basic level of post-fall structural duality, prevents a conception of the cultural task that falls prey to triumphalism and over-realized eschatology.

In regard to the above, while the key differences between Kline and his interlocutors are clarified, the often-overlooked points of nuance in these differences are also highlighted. As these nuances prove important in their potential to lessen frustration and impasse in the ongoing dialogue, it is here that the value of the study is most clearly observed.

The study shows that while Kline’s work can be seen to support contemporary expressions of the Reformed Two-Kingdom doctrine, it is anachronistic to understand this as though he himself advocated all the details of these proposals. Further, although Kline is typically spoken of as the father of the Reformed Two-Kingdom project, it is not as readily acknowledged that Kline himself stood in tentative alignment with some important features of Kuyperian and Dooyeweerdian thought.

By providing clarity on this point, this study assists in reducing facile and overstated argumentation. More positively, it takes focus off of simplistic labels and instead directs future inquirers to the more central substructural issues that are at play. Further, it suggests that intra-Reformed polemics will lack productivity if the undergirding covenantal elements of the discussion are not given greater attention.