# New Book by John Frame



## greenbaggins (May 26, 2008)

This book looks to be very interesting. I fully expect to be alternately enthralled and infuriated by it. It includes a nearly 500 page exposition of the Ten Commandments. The whole book is over 1100 pages. In any case, it will be a very important un-ignorable contribution to the field of ethics.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 26, 2008)

Anything by John Frame is hard to ignore.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 26, 2008)

Awesome. He is about to put ethics in a tri-perspectival light. Awesome. I listened to his lectures on this and devoured his outlines. Hooray! I hope he bashes intrusion ethics. I wonder how he will deal with current natural law debates.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 26, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> Awesome. He is about to put ethics in a tri-perspectival light. Awesome. I listened to his lectures on this and devoured his outlines. Hooray! I hope he bashes intrusion ethics.


----------



## Casey (May 26, 2008)

The entire book is available online here. I don't know what changes may have been made to the print edition.


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle (May 26, 2008)

Looks like an interesting read. Why would you be infuriated?

For those who seek to download the pdf files I found an error as some files cannot be found. The root site is wrong. Just change it to reformed perspectives: Reformed Perspectives but leave the rest of the url as is. 

Oops...that turned into a link.  I think you know what I mean though.





greenbaggins said:


> This book looks to be very interesting. I fully expect to be alternately enthralled and infuriated by it. It includes a nearly 500 page exposition of the Ten Commandments. The whole book is over 1100 pages. In any case, it will be a very important un-ignorable contribution to the field of ethics.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (May 26, 2008)

The chapter on the second commandment is off the reservation; that is probably one of the areas Lane has in mind.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 26, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> The chapter on the second commandment is off the reservation; that is probably one of the areas Lane has in mind.



Yes, I see he has a whole chapter on how the second commandment regulates worship.

On the plus side, at least we will get a good definition of the RPW, if not a good application.


----------



## Casey (May 26, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Yes, I see he has a whole chapter on how the second commandment regulates worship.
> 
> On the plus side, at least we will get a good definition of the RPW, if not a good application.


Have you not read his book on worship? Or am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 26, 2008)

CaseyBessette said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I see he has a whole chapter on how the second commandment regulates worship.
> ...



I mean he will probably define the RPW properly. However, he will then turn round and re-define it in a way that is contrary to what he has just stated.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 27, 2008)

Yes, Frame on the second and fourth commandments I expect to be infuriating. However, I am never one to throw out the baby with the bathwater.


----------



## Dogfreid (May 27, 2008)

I expect to get infuriated at those who get infuriated at Frame.


----------



## Poimen (May 27, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I mean he will probably define the RPW properly. However, he will then turn round and re-define it in a way that is contrary to what he has just stated.



No doubt due in part to his tri-perspectivalism.


----------



## greenbaggins (May 27, 2008)

Dogfreid said:


> I expect to get infuriated at those who get infuriated at Frame.



Why? Are you not aware that he defends Norman Shepherd? What's not to infuriate about that? Would you defend Frame's defense of Shepherd?

I don't mean that all I'm going to do is sit around bashing Frame all day long. I enjoyed his book the Doctrine of God. However, I do not accept his multi-perspectivalism, nor his take on Van Til, even though I think other things he does are very helpful.


----------



## travis (May 27, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> However, I am never one to throw out the baby with the bathwater.



HEY! Did you yank that from my comment on your blog!?!


----------



## greenbaggins (May 27, 2008)

travis said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > However, I am never one to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
> ...



Probably.


----------



## travis (May 27, 2008)

Very well, carry on then.


----------



## Dogfreid (May 27, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> Dogfreid said:
> 
> 
> > I expect to get infuriated at those who get infuriated at Frame.
> ...



I'm simply not interested in Shepherd. My comment came in response to yours, which was made in the context of Frame's take on the second and fourth commandments.

You don't accept tri-perspectivalism, fine, but have you argued against it? Or do you agree with others who have? Can you point me to their critique(s)?

Disagreement is fine, but when you load your comments with sensational buzzwords like "infuriated" -- your words are bound to come across to Frame sympathizers as charged and combative. Unless of course you provide counter-positions of your own and argue for them. You are free to be infuriated by someone you disagree with, I just hope you have counterarguments beyond "He deviates from the Standards!"


----------



## greenbaggins (May 27, 2008)

Dogfreid said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Dogfreid said:
> ...



I don't have the time to argue against Frame's multi-perspectivalism. I'm not sure how you can be unconcerned about Shepherd, when he is one of the main fountainheads for the Federal Vision, which should definitely concern you. 

As to the word "infuriated," can you not discern rhetorical overstatement when you see it? The very best theologians will have things wrong. At the very least, you should have taken the term "enthralled" with at least the same seriousness as the word "infuriated." Your comment comes across as something thin-skinned. I mentioned nothing about the confession, either.


----------



## Dogfreid (May 27, 2008)

Carry on.

I've seen Frame as a bit of a punching bag on these forums. And I've wondered how many here can actually argue against him on the things they find so wrong.


----------



## BobVigneault (May 27, 2008)

Dear Berny,
Welcome to the Puritan Board, I'm very glad that you are here. On the topic of John Frame, there is a long history here of discussing his views on several topics. If you were more familiar with the board you would also be aware that Pastor Keister is very able to articulate Dr. Frames strengths and weaknesses.

I appreciate that you wish to jump into the fray here but please take some time to get accustomed to the rhythm of the board and the spirit of give and take. You came off a bit contentious in your post. We love strong opinions but lets take time to get familiar with our brothers and sisters here, their styles, their levels of expertise and then let's challenge one another and learn together. Thank you sir.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2008)

I should let the skeleton out of the closet. Frame shaped much of my thinking.


----------



## ChristianTrader (May 27, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> I should let the skeleton out of the closet. Frame shaped much of my thinking.



Hence your inability to come to a firm conclusion and stick to it, on many subjects 

CT


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2008)

ChristianTrader said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > I should let the skeleton out of the closet. Frame shaped much of my thinking.
> ...



That's probably true.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 27, 2008)

I assume this is the third in his series as he's written on epistemology (Doctrine of the Knowledge of God), metaphysics (Doctrine of God), and now ethics.

I own and have benefitted tremendously from the previous works and will definitely purchase this one.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 5, 2008)

CaseyBessette said:


> The entire book is available online here. I don't know what changes may have been made to the print edition.



The links are no longer working. Is there a mirror site anywhere?


----------



## caddy (Jun 5, 2008)

CaseyBessette said:


> The entire book is available online here. I don't know what changes may have been made to the print edition.


 
Unfortunately, these links all appear to be dead....


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jun 5, 2008)

Bad for sales I guess. They were sort of working previously but I'm not sure why they wouldn't remove the index page as well and give a reason (some one should try the 'wayback' internet archive and see if they are archived)? Any way, I noticed there has been at least some editing in the book versus the files that were there, in the chapter that I compared any way. So the book is not simply a wholesale reprint of what was online, though I would suspect changes were minor.


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 5, 2008)

> I fully expect to be alternately enthralled and infuriated by it.



Sounds like one of the best kinds of books .


----------



## caddy (Jun 5, 2008)

a mere housewife said:


> > I fully expect to be alternately enthralled and infuriated by it.
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like one of the best kinds of books .


 
Kind of like watching an episode of "Dexter" !


----------



## a mere housewife (Jun 5, 2008)

caddy said:


> a mere housewife said:
> 
> 
> > > I fully expect to be alternately enthralled and infuriated by it.
> ...



Or 'Tom and Jerry'.


----------



## SRoper (Jun 5, 2008)

NaphtaliPress said:


> Bad for sales I guess. They were sort of working previously but I'm not sure why they wouldn't remove the index page as well and give a reason (some one should try the 'wayback' internet archive and see if they are archived)? Any way, I noticed there has been at least some editing in the book versus the files that were there, in the chapter that I compared any way. So the book is not simply a wholesale reprint of what was online, though I would suspect changes were minor.



I think the index page linked is hosted on monergism.com while all the individual chapters were on a different site. I already tried the internet archive, but found nothing.


----------

