# Bahnsen and Frame



## Brian Kooshian (Jun 3, 2007)

Would someone be kind enough to either detail for me the differences between Bahnsen and Frame, or point me to some resources that do so?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2007)

Brian Kooshian said:


> Would someone be kind enough to either detail for me the differences between Bahnsen and Frame, or point me to some resources that do so?



Bahnsen held to a global TAG whereas Frame didn't (we can spell that out later). Frame was more critical of Van Til/Van Tillians in areas that Bahnsen didn't see the need for. 

In Bahnsen's book on Van Til, he takes Frame to task at relevant parts. In Frame's book on Van Til, he complains of the tendency of Van TIllians (all reformed people, actually) to go on "movements." 

More on this later.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 3, 2007)

Brian Kooshian said:


> Would someone be kind enough to either detail for me the differences between Bahnsen and Frame, or point me to some resources that do so?



Frame also held to Natural Theology while Bahnsen and Van Til did not.

CT


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Frame also held to Natural Theology while Bahnsen and Van Til did not.
> 
> CT



But Frame does not hold to natural law or the Klinean "two kingdoms."


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2007)

Brian Kooshian said:


> Would someone be kind enough to either detail for me the differences between Bahnsen and Frame, or point me to some resources that do so?



Take up and listen
itunes.rts.edu

Go to the "theology" section. He teaches the courses on ethics/philosophy and apologetics. Towards the end of the apologetics section he interacts some with Bahnsen.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2007)

Here are some differences, perhaps
Bahnsen at the Stein debate


> Bahnsen’s transcendental argument was carefully put together and eloquently stated: logic, the laws of nature, and the laws of morality make no sense unless God is presupposed. I confess I was not fully convinced that Bahnsen’s “transcendental argument” was as different from the arguments of Aquinas as he claimed. For I think the implication of Aquinas’s argument, too, is that at least one cannot account for the laws of nature without God. And I suspect that Aquinas would have said the same thing about logic and morality. Both Bahnsen and Aquinas believed, “without God, no logic, natural law, or moral law.” So the difference between Bahnsen and Aquinas needs to be spelled out further than was done in the Stein debate. Of course there was no time for such a methodological discussion in that context. Bahnsen and I later discussed our differences on that subject in various venues, and that discussion still continues among us years after Bahnsen’s untimely death. Before Bahnsen entered the hospital for the last time, we exchanged emails, reaffirming our friendship and mutual respect. The last words of his email to me, and the last I ever heard from him, were, “but I still disagree with you on the transcendental argument.” How typically Bahnsen, indeed.



Penultimate Thoughts on Theonomy


> 4. Both Bahnsen and Kline make broad, bold programmatic statements which they modify considerably in their detailed discussions. This happens to such an extent that in my opinion their bold programmatic statements do not really or fairly represent the views they are presenting. In actual fact, they are much closer together than their rhetoric would suggest. See my essay in the WTS volume Theonomy: a Reformed Critique.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 4, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Frame also held to Natural Theology while Bahnsen and Van Til did not.
> 
> CT



Frame is also a bit too comfy with molinism while Bahnsen was not.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2007)

ChristianTrader said:


> Frame is also a bit too comfy with molinism while Bahnsen was not.



I take your word for the moment. I will have to check that out eventually.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Jun 4, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> I take your word for the moment. I will have to check that out eventually.



Im comfortable about what I said about Frame, not so sure about Bahnsen's take on the issue.

CT


----------



## polemic_turtle (Jun 4, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Take up and listen
> itunes.rts.edu
> 
> Go to the "theology" section. He teaches the courses on ethics/philosophy and apologetics. Towards the end of the apologetics section he interacts some with Bahnsen.



What a veritable flood of Frame lectures. It's about time, I say, but this is a bit daunting! I searched the entire Internet and only found one free lecture on music at the end. Now... many!


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2007)

polemic_turtle said:


> What a veritable flood of Frame lectures. It's about time, I say, but this is a bit daunting! I searched the entire Internet and only found one free lecture on music at the end. Now... many!



Ja, I downloaded the history of philosophy course and some of the ethics. But Itunes is...well, I won't say what it is, but suffice to say it cut me off about halfway.


----------



## Brian Kooshian (Jun 5, 2007)

Draught Horse said:


> Bahnsen held to a global TAG whereas Frame didn't (we can spell that out later).



Is it "later" yet?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2007)

Brian Kooshian said:


> Is it "later" yet?



No. I tremble when I see such formidable minds debate this matter. I am unworthy.


----------



## Brian Kooshian (Jun 5, 2007)

Can you at least explain to me what a "global TAG" is, versus a "non-global TAG"?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 5, 2007)

Brian Kooshian said:


> Can you at least explain to me what a "global TAG" is, versus a "non-global TAG"?



give me a little while and yes.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2007)

Brian Kooshian said:


> Can you at least explain to me what a "global TAG" is, versus a "non-global TAG"?



I can do better later, but this is a good (if sometimes derailed) start

http://butler-harris.org/archives/71

Michael Butler holds to the strong claim of TAG. Others disagree.


----------

