DR.KLINE'S SON after growing up in an obscure OPC church in Ringoes, NJ moved to Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary where he taught for over 20 years. His son ran tge Boston, Massachusetts and South Hamilton Campus. And BTI international library loam. He was excellent. Much less obscure than Van Till and influential for: Gordon Hugenberger, David F.Wells , Jud Carlberg ( President if Gordon College in 1980's and tge mid 90's, amd ofcourse Garth Rosell and Dick Lovelace and Phil Ryken if not James Montogery Boice, Mark Noll , Bob Myers John Marcott, Moises Silva and Greg Beal and Gordon Fee.
He preached in Ipswich and Falmouth Massachusetts and Taunton, Nassachusetts at Reformed Baptist Churches on Cape Cod Massachusetts.His son ran The Librsry at Goddard Library at GCTS not Gordon College which is in Wenham, not Hamilton.
Kline made a deal with the editor of the Westminster Theological Journal that Bahnsen would not be allowed to respond to Kline's critique. Absolutely shameful behavior and this has forever left a marr on Kline's reputation for me. The slander of a minister and WTS's response to Bahnsen's book illustrates to me that they have not picked up Machen's mantle in civil interests.
@@hadeswhereisyourvictory Your ignorance of the events that took place and the positions of Bahnsen and his Biblical refutation of Kline is glaring. Why not read them instead of bearing false witness against him like Kline did? I have personally debated Kline and Bahnsen on different issues and I was shocked by Kline's disgust of God's Law. His distaste was clear in how he misrepresented my old teacher.
@@hadeswhereisyourvictory I guess you had a problem with Paul’s carnality when he used a boxing analogy in 1st. Cor. 9:26? “So I do not run aimlessly; I do not box as one beating the air.”
@@hadeswhereisyourvictory Jeez, This guy is contentious...Is there anything you don't want to debate about that isn't a hill to die on? You seem unbalanced, my guy. As to Kline's backroom deal, it's well known and he never denied it. It's been alleged in print and Westminster omitted Kline from their response to Theonomy. "In a court of law?" Haha, you are something else. Also, read Kline's "Old/New Error" article to get a sense of his views of the Westminster Divines and Theonomy. He calls it "a grotesque twisting of the Scriptures." Slander was Kline's game. And he was a coward for blackballing Bahnsen and never responding to him in print.
Kline hated the Law of God and the Apostle Paul, Knox, Calvin and the Puritans would vehemently oppose him as do I. His student, Van Drunen furthered his anti-theonomic stance even more zealously. There is no relevance for such who lawyer away the Law of God for today. They should be condemned as such!
As someone who has a read quite a bit of Kline and Van Drunen my gut response to your comment is that you likely haven’t read Kline. Do you have a citation for this?
@@hadeswhereisyourvictory You slander me to accuse me of slander. Wow! The hypocrisy abounds in your own sophistry. Are you familiar with the two-kingdom theology that both men erroneously uphold? They are both Amil, correct? What do Amils say about the Law? Are you aware of how they use sophistry to try to prove that the state shouldn't be accountable to the Law of God and be in subjection to the King of kings and Lord of lords? Did you know there are pluralists towards the Law? How could one trust in a court of law that out rightly rejects the Law of God? By what standard should they or you judge? You claim that you follow the law and yet your own slander and venomous hatred is apparent. Satan loves his false accusations and you, sir, are his willing servant. Repent, snake!
@@Matt-Pursley Look up Covenanted Reformation with Brian Schwertly and he gives a thorough review on Van Drunen who draws his erroneous, and false doctrines of civil law in his book on Natural Law. Plenty of citations and direct quotes are provided. I know that you won't.
@@Matt-Pursley Explain to me their views on Two-Kingdom theology and you will have all the information needed that it is very unorthodox and antinomian.
