I have combined my series of posts responding to the book Merit and Moses into a single document. It comes to 43 pages, single spaced. I also added this Conclusion at the end:
The authors of Merit and Moses seriously misrepresent Kline when they claim he defined merit in voluntaristic terms, as whatever God says it is, untethered to his nature as a God of perfect justice. Taking their misrepresentation of Kline’s definition of merit as their unquestioned starting point, the authors proceed to level wild and irresponsible accusations. The most egregious accusation is their claim that Kline redefined merit with regard to Adam and Christ, specifically so that he could open up the possibility of sinners (e.g., Israel, patriarchs) meriting blessings from God. But Kline never made that move. He spoke of post-Fall “merit” only as obedience invested by God with typological significance, not as true merit. Oddly, at the beginning of the book, the authors pay lip service to the architectonic role typology plays in Kline’s thought. But in the course of their argument, they ignore Kline’s typological two-layer construct and interpret him within their own ordo salutis categories. The attack missiles launched by Merit and Moses miss their target by a wide margin.