I horse whip an ignorant or just disingenuous 'Reverend', but it's OK, because I fear and reverence God alone...(call no man 'reverend')

Rev. Winzer writes:

"Now, if you would like to revise Kline's method of argumentation, and revert to a national probation that is different in nature to Adam's probation, then you are free to do so"

Meredith Kline wrote: "This history unfolds within the framework of the national covenant ratified at Sinai and (as we have noted) under that covenant continuance in possession of the typal kingdom was governed by the principle of works. Israel's situation was like Adam's in the creational covenant of works, Israel's probation, however, being corporate and continuing through their generations."

Yes, Israel's probation, however, being *corporate*... Maybe Rev. Winzer doesn't know that corporate here is legitimately a synonym for *national*, or maybe Rev. Winzer has never really read Meredith Kline, or perhaps Rev. Winzer has read Meredith Kline but had difficult understanding him, or, more likely, perhaps Rev. Winzer has read Meredith Kline and has chosen to engage in disingenuous confusion regarding what he has written so as to further his, Rev. Winzer's, chosen demands on biblical doctrine, the motivation for which being as covert as he seems to want it to be.

The Kline extract is from page 127 of his God, Heaven and Har Magedon. Read the rest of that chapter as well. If you have an interested in and actually value Federal Theology that is. Kline didn't invent it, by the way.

+ + + + + + +

I'm not going to again expose the blather of Winzer's claim that even a corporate probation for National Israel would be different from Adam's because at that point he just throws up a lot of magic dust knowing it will impress his rather slow and obsequious audience at the Not-Very-PuritanBoard forum. (John Flavel would be banned from that forum.) Here's an example of his magic dust:

"We do not need to go the length of Kline in order to validate the elements which have the appearance of works in the covenant with Israel. It suffices to say, with the reformed tradition, that certain elements of the covenant of works were republished in subordination to the covenant of grace. Not that this makes it an altogether unique covenant arrangement because the same elements are promulgated in the gospel, as Romans 2 teaches. The fact is that man was created under a moral order, and every administration of divine providence operates in accord with this order. The modern theory of republication partially chooses when to maximise that moral order and when to minimise it. In doing so it does not rightly divide the word of truth."

You see he snuck a little concession in there, but then he wants to say that the Covenant that Jesus came to fulfill is also then put upon Christians, which is not even an ad hoc hail Mary, but just a rank ignorant statement, if not malicious. It's not that people like Winzer don't understand the two Adam mechanics of salvation, but that he despises it. His fallen nature despises it. He rolls along in covert mode, but when the spirit of disobedience calls on him to repudiate crucial biblical doctrine he's right on cue. He is not alone, of course. The Reformed world is full of his type. They teach in seminaries, and they lead churches.