Sola Fidelity

This is an excerpt from Kline’s BY OATH CONSIGNED: A REINTERPRETATION OF THE COVENANT SIGNS OF CIRCUMCISION AND BAPTISM, which was published in 1968.

The covenantal data of historical exegesis which the dogmatic theologian has failed to do justice to in his definition will eventually have to be dealt with somehow or other, but the treatment of them will be problematic and awkward. In fact, it will be impossible to incorporate elements like correlative promise-threat or actual divine vengeance against the disobedient as covenantal elements. This impossibility may be obscured by means of a distinction made between an internal and external covenant, but what that manifestly amounts to is the use of the word “covenant” for what is by prior definition the contradiction of covenant. Other symptoms of the inadequacy of such an approach to the definition of covenant appear in the history of Covenant Theology. Among them are the separation of the so-called “Counsel of Redemption” from the “Covenant of Grace” and not a little of the debate over whether or not the covenant is conditional. Coherence can be achieved in Covenant Theology only by the subordination of grace to law. Election must be subordinated to covenant, the representative headship of the two Adams to the lordship of God, redemption to creation. Rejection of the equation of covenant with the election-guaranteed promise principle is necessary to avoid the conceptual fragmentation of the theology of the covenant. (p. 34-35)

So according to Kline in 1968:

• Covenant theologians had not done justice to the scriptures in their definition of “covenant”, making promise/threat elements of covenant impossible
• The definition of “covenant” as “external/internal” contradicts the prior definition of covenant
• Election must be subordinated to covenant (which is exactly what the FV is accused of, though they are really just trying to balance both in an environment where covenant has been subordinated to election. So Kline was more extreme than the FV on this point.)
• We must reject the equation of “covenant” with “election-guaranteed promise”.

Kline later rejected much of this work. But people are getting persecuted, er uh … I mean prosecuted for permitting such things to be said among their presbyters these days. Where were the witch hunters back in the 60s when Kline wrote this? Perhaps there was an environment where theological tensions such as that between election and covenant could be discussed freely without threat of loss of ministry and livelihood.