« Merit and Moses: The Merit of Christ, Part 9 | Main | Merit and Moses: Flawed Typology? Part 2 »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jesse Cook


Is it fair to say that Kline made significant effort and contributions in order to clarify how grace and the works principle function together in his principle of eschatological intrusion?

If I am following your flow of thought correctly, I am seeing how Kline would formulated the interplay between both the revelation of the gospel of grace and the works principle. some time back you said .... "The Mosaic covenant is the eschatological intrusion of the actual works principle into a post-Fall historical situation, thus creating the typological context that makes it possible for us to “read” the accomplishment of Jesus Christ in his obedience and death as the satisfaction of divine justice and the fulfilling of the actual works principle." Just prior to this you pointed out how the "core" of the intrusion was grace revealed within the outer "shell" of the typological works principle.

Thank you for continuing to clarify these things!


Yes, I think that is fair to say. Thanks for bringing up the "core" vs. the "shell," a conceptual scheme that is important for understanding Kline's view of typology. See this post for more: http://upper-register.typepad.com/blog/2015/03/third-misrepresentation-of-kline.html

Bill Baldwin

This may be the oddest argument of the bunch. Types are imperfect by definition. What would it even mean to have a "perfect" type? If it's perfect, why would we need an antitype? I'm concerned for these brothers who, it would seem, no longer count us as friends. In their zeal to expose our error, they have seriously compromised their own teaching.

The comments to this entry are closed.