# Perspectivalism: contra Frame AND Poythress?



## Covenant Joel (Oct 21, 2009)

I quick survey of the board reveals quite a bit of disagreement with Frame on his triperspectivalism (amongst other things obviously). However, in searching for Vern Poythress, I didn't see anything regarding his perspectivalism. I have not read much Poythress, but given that he shares a website with Frame and seems to support at least a form of perspectivalism in "Symphonic Theology," I am left curious.

Is there a crucial difference between Frame's views and Poythress'? Are many Reformed folk against Poythress' views as they are against Frame's?

Note: I am not interested in fresh criticisms of Frame or anger against just views. I'm just thinking about reading "Symphonic Theology" and wondering if Poythress is in general agreement with Frame or not, and if not, why there seems to be less written in contradiction of his views.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 21, 2009)

Frame is much more controversial as a person and teacher because of the public statements he has made in the past about persons at WSC and the Norman Shepherd case, among others. But on this subject they seem to be lumped together when people blog about the subject.

And by the way you can always call Vern at WTS. If he is in his office he will talk on the phone. A very helpful sort of guy who likes helping students and non student laymen alike, and when he talks is very methodical and logical in laying out a subject ( he was a math PhD genius at Harvard before WTS). I would think he'd love to have you call and ask him about it. He is very approachable.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Oct 21, 2009)

I read Frame's "Salvation belongs to the Lord" and thought it was great. I wasn't aware there was a controversy around him.

Amazon.com: Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology (9781596380189): John M. Frame: Books

Is there anything wrong with this book? If there is I must have overlooked it.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Oct 21, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Frame is much more controversial as a person and teacher because of the public statements he has made in the past about persons at WSC and the Norman Shepherd case, among others. But on this subject they seem to be lumped together when people blog about the subject.
> 
> And by the way you can always call Vern at WTS. If he is in his office he will talk on the phone. A very helpful sort of guy who likes helping students and non student laymen alike, and when he talks is very methodical and logical in laying out a subject ( he was a math PhD genius at Harvard before WTS). I would think he'd love to have you call and ask him about it. He is very approachable.



Thanks for your thoughts. For sure, Frame is a more controversial figure on other topics, I just hadn't heard much specifically about perspectivalism concerning Poythress.

For the record, I'm not necessarily against perspectivalism. What I've read of Frame and what I've received at RTS, I've not really seen the big problem with it. But I don't really know both sides well enough to say much either way. I was just curious as to why I don't hear much about Poythress if he takes the same view.

Still, that would be great to speak with Dr. Poythress. Perhaps after I've read his book and know at least what he's said on the subject.


----------



## Grillsy (Oct 21, 2009)

Can someone please briefly explain "perspectivalism" or triperspectivalism?


----------



## lynnie (Oct 21, 2009)

Thanks CJ. He is a really nice guy and a theological genius too, with a teacher's heart. Was/is beloved by students. 

Grillsy....Its a nice way to understand why churches and people are so different, in that Jesus was a prophet, priest, and king. Different people tend to be drawn to diffferent facets of the Lord's work and nature. The Reformed churches are in the prophetic group.

It is helpful in promoting unity and acceptance among our brethren with varied gifts and burdens and callings, but unhelpful in making excuses for a heavily social action church with low regard for doctrine, or a very doctrinal church with low regard for prayer and missions.

-----Added 10/21/2009 at 04:16:14 EST-----

Here is a link FYI.....Tim Keller on how Frame's teaching helped him:

http://rcpc.com/blog/view.jsp?Blog_param=44
_
John Frame's 'tri-perspectivalism' helps me understand Willow. The Willow Creek style churches have a 'kingly' emphasis on leadership, strategic thinking, and wise administration. The danger there is that the mechanical obscures how organic and spontaneous church life can be. The Reformed churches have a 'prophetic' emphasis on preaching, teaching, and doctrine. The danger there is that we can have a naïve and unBiblical view that, if we just expound the Word faithfully, everything else in the church -- leader development, community building, stewardship of resources, unified vision -- will just happen by themselves. The emerging churches have a 'priestly' emphasis on community, liturgy and sacraments, service and justice. The danger there is to view 'community' as the magic bullet in the same way Reformed people view preaching. _

Willow Creek makes me want to barf, and emerging churches make me want to barf again. And I really like Tim Keller but this blog post makes me want to barf a third time. (None of the three groups listed mention dependency on God in prayer I notice. The Father's house is to be house of prayer). So maybe I should read the book, I might have an attitude problem. Either that or I am a prophet


----------



## Grillsy (Oct 22, 2009)

I'll have to do more reading on this. As of right now I am not seeing a Biblical defense of the multiperspectivalism.
Seems like Biblical vocabulary has been taken, redefined, and applied to worship in order to allow a violation of the regulative principle.
Not being harsh, that is just the way it seems right now. I'll do more reading.


----------



## cih1355 (Oct 22, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> Can someone please briefly explain "perspectivalism" or triperspectivalism?



Here is John Frame's article on the Web about perspectivalism:
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2008Primer.htm


----------



## ChristianTrader (Oct 23, 2009)

I think one thing to note is that Prof. Poythress voted to send Prof. Enns down the road, while I am unsure whether or not Frame would have done the same thing.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 23, 2009)

Hermonta-

Frame's review of Enn's book was highly critical.

By the way, about the vote, we heard from good sources (who work and teach at WTS) that when the majority of faculty at WTS voted "in favor" of Enns, it did not mean they supported his theology. The board had denied him due process and had not had him in to talk to them, which they are supposed to do. Does our law condemn a man without hearing him first? So the vote for Enns was more of a vote against the way he was being treated by the board. 

I would assume (my personal speculation only) that those who voted for him knew that once he did go before the board and make his defense and was examined he'd be removed, so their vote for him would not keep error at the Seminary, it would only maintain justice for proper handling of this sort of thing in the future. You have to give a man a trial. But maybe the ones who voted anti figured his book was evidence enough? I have thought about it and I don't know what I would have done if I was a faculty member. The book was so clearly wrong, but I think I would have voted in his favor to force the board to have a hearing with him. He should have been given a chance to publically repent. You must bring charges and give people the opportunity to apologize and renounce error before kicking them out. Maybe it seemed a hopeless cause, but I believe it should have been done that way, and it was supposed to have been done that way.

At anyrate, do not pass judgment on anybody's theology at WTS by how they voted unless you read a statement from them where they actually found Enn's book acceptable. 

Sorry for the thread drift.....


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 23, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Frame is much more controversial as a person and teacher because of the public statements he has made in the past about persons at WSC and the Norman Shepherd case, among others. But on this subject they seem to be lumped together when people blog about the subject.
> 
> And by the way you can always call Vern at WTS. If he is in his office he will talk on the phone. A very helpful sort of guy who likes helping students and non student laymen alike, and when he talks is very methodical and logical in laying out a subject ( he was a math PhD genius at Harvard before WTS). I would think he'd love to have you call and ask him about it. He is very approachable.



He's also very sympathetic towards the wrong people. Like FV, for example.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 23, 2009)

Making a public statement that Vern Poythress is sympathetic to error is very serious and I think you should retract it. Let me say that there are sources out there like the late John Robbins, who go so far as to say that Shepherd was off (into FV) and Gaffin was off, and Van Til and Gerhardus Vos and Hodge. The allegations being repeated and believed as fact are pretty terrible.

Just because somebody quotes a bible verse about living faith, or fruit, or being predestined unto good works that God prepared in advance for us to walk in, doesn't make them FV. It doesn't mean they think they have merit before God because of any fruit of sanctification. Saying Vern is sympathetic to error is pretty slanderous if you ask me. I am sure you read it somewhere but it doesn't make it true.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 23, 2009)

I was referring to Frame.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 23, 2009)

Oh. Sorry I misunderstood. Thanks for clarifying. 

If I had time I would write out a lengthy post with quotes about how Frame is not sympathetic to FV error, he is sympathetic to Shepherd, and there is a big difference. Green Baggins covered the finer distinctions a while ago here. Frame is sympathetic to those who resist the antinomian sounding "justification by faith" position, where any mention of fruit or obedience sends such alleged defenders of orthodoxy into fits that it is Rome all over again. Which FV is, but Shepherd is not. Or at least was not, back when Frame and Gaffin spoke up. But never mind, I haven't got time.


----------

