# John Frame's way of "doing theology"



## Me Died Blue (Oct 8, 2004)

In another thread, it was recently stated that:

[quote:a010215776="openairboy"]In the long run, I believe, that Frame will be considered one of the greatest minds of our generation and his works, assuming he continues to build on his foundation, will be standard reading for a long time. The more time I spend with the man (his writings) I find him to be an absolute genius, gracious, charitable, and thoroughly reformed. He is truly example to everyone on how to do theology.[/quote:a010215776]

Out of true concern, I must respond by saying that John Frame is one of the most dangerous men in modern Reformed Christendom. He seeks to further the tolerant, anti-confessional spirit that is taking over the PCA (and even the OPC) more and more today. Keith, if you think he is "thoroughly Reformed" and a true "example to everyone on how to do theology," please read his article, "Machen's Warrior Children," which can be found at http://www.christiancounterculture.com/40615/machen.html.

While narrowly dividing and acting uncharitably over details that truly are minor in nature (e.g. John Robbins) is couter-productive to the Christian spirit and aim, theological relativism and tolerance is the equal danger on the opposite end of the spectrum, which is just what Frame continually pushes. If you think this characterization is too extreme, after reading the above article, explain how such doctrines as the covenant, justification, law and gospel, worship, preaching and election can rightly be called "relatively minor differences" in comparison to external unity.


----------



## Scott (Oct 8, 2004)

I like Frame on some things (such as large parts of his ecumenical writings on the unity of the Church), but his writings on Worship are terrible. They are very unreformed and on a topic (worship) that Calvin listed as more important to the Reformation than sola fide. Frame can't even rule out juggling as an element of worship. 

Frame is charitable and does have a kind spirit, which I appreciate.


----------



## openairboy (Oct 8, 2004)

[quote:f7f06232fe="Me Died Blue"]In another thread, it was recently stated that:

Out of true concern, I must respond by saying that John Frame is one of the most dangerous men in modern Reformed Christendom. He seeks to further the tolerant, anti-confessional spirit that is taking over the PCA (and even the OPC) more and more today. Keith, if you think he is "thoroughly Reformed" and a true "example to everyone on how to do theology," please read his article, "Machen's Warrior Children," which can be found at http://www.christiancounterculture.com/40615/machen.html.

While narrowly dividing and acting uncharitably over details that truly are minor in nature (e.g. John Robbins) is couter-productive to the Christian spirit and aim, theological relativism and tolerance is the equal danger on the opposite end of the spectrum, which is just what Frame continually pushes. If you think this characterization is too extreme, after reading the above article, explain how such doctrines as the covenant, justification, law and gospel, worship, preaching and election can rightly be called "relatively minor differences" in comparison to external unity.[/quote:f7f06232fe]

Chris,

First, I just read that article yesterday and found it great, but I guess that explains the nature of our potential differences. Second, I only found one reference to Robbins and I am unaware of any broader squabble between these two men. I will, however, state that I believe John Robbins to be an extremely contentious fellow...I have emailed him on one occassion and believe I was assured of his contentious spirit through this interchange. Third, I don't believe the reference to "relatively minor differences" is explicitly about the 22 items outlined in the article. Fourth, even if it were, I would contend that we clearly have a diversity of opinion within the Reformed tradition on these matters, which the article outlines, and that we should listen to his "unrealistic dreams". 

If you have not, please read "The Doctrine of God" and I think you will find hom thoroughly Reformed (Well, I guess "thoroughly Reformed" is open to debate from Greenville to Jacksonville to St Louis, b/c this often deals more with 'spirit', a la Machen's children, than actual belief). Is he still reforming? Yes, in the right direction. If you think all theology and discussion ended with the WCF, then I can understand why people would have a big ol' gripe with him. If, however, one is willing to admit (count me in) that that 17th century document can be (and is) with error, then that doesn't represent a giant threat to one's beliefs. 

I still maintain that his works are tremendously important and moving theological discussion in the right direction. 

openairboy


----------



## openairboy (Oct 8, 2004)

[quote:8424a1db5d="Scott"]I like Frame on some things (such as large parts of his ecumenical writings on the unity of the Church), but his writings on Worship are terrible. They are very unreformed and on a topic (worship) that Calvin listed as more important to the Reformation than sola fide. Frame can't even rule out juggling as an element of worship. 

Frame is charitable and does have a kind spirit, which I appreciate.[/quote:8424a1db5d]

Scott,

Are you sure you aren't tapped into my thinking? I have enjoyed every post I have read by you...

I absolutely agree that Frame's book on worship is terrible, but, unlike many, I don't see it as a reason to cast him out of the kingdom. I had to read this book in seminary and was very disappointed.

openairboy


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 8, 2004)

Keith,

My reference to John Robbins was only to illustrate what I don't like about Frame, in that he makes the opposite error Robbins usually makes: Robbins is too divisive and intolerant, whereas Frame is too tolerant and relative. I think his mention of "relatively minor differences" was indeed referring to the issues he mentioned above, since right before mentioning that phrase, he spoke of "the remedy for the divisions above." And many of those issues are far more than minor, non-essentials of the faith.

I certainly agree with you that the WCF is not a perfect document and we should always be open to reforming it if such action is biblically demonstrated to be necessary. However, being open to reforming the standards if necessary is completely different from advocating loose subscription to the standards as they are. Indeed, we should be "always reforming," but through the proper means of reforming the standards themselves, not lowering the bar of subscription to them as they still are.

The main issue I have with Frame isn't even about his work on worship per se, but about his overall advocacy of a high level of tolerance and "doctrinal relativism," and his loose-subscriptionist tendencies.


----------



## openairboy (Oct 9, 2004)

[quote:cbcc649025="Me Died Blue"]Keith,

My reference to John Robbins was only to illustrate what I don't like about Frame, in that he makes the opposite error Robbins usually makes: Robbins is too divisive and intolerant, whereas Frame is too tolerant and relative. I think his mention of "relatively minor differences" was indeed referring to the issues he mentioned above, since right before mentioning that phrase, he spoke of "the remedy for the divisions above." And many of those issues are far more than minor, non-essentials of the faith.

I certainly agree with you that the WCF is not a perfect document and we should always be open to reforming it if such action is biblically demonstrated to be necessary. However, being open to reforming the standards if necessary is completely different from advocating loose subscription to the standards as they are. Indeed, we should be "always reforming," but through the proper means of reforming the standards themselves, not lowering the bar of subscription to them as they still are.

The main issue I have with Frame isn't even about his work on worship per se, but about his overall advocacy of a high level of tolerance and "doctrinal relativism," and his loose-subscriptionist tendencies.[/quote:cbcc649025]

Well, I won't fight over exegeting John Frame's article, but the only reference to "the remedy for the divisions above" is in the final paragraph of the article and the "Unrealistic Dream" section seems to me to be "maxims" of sorts. Also, he points out that the answer to the divisions above isn't "MERELY better theological formulations." Are they a part of it? Yes, but that's not the end of the issue. You can have "doctrine", but ignore your life (including tone, manner of speech, etc.) and "not save yourselves or those who listen." He is just suggesting that theology isn't MERELY doctrinal formulations, and I wonder who could disagree with that? Now, in the final "maxim" I don't believe he is referring to all of the above mentioned items, but that we excercise grace in our "relatively minor" theological differences. That doesn't mean that all of the above items are "relatively minor", but acknowledge that there is a diversity of opinion in the Reformed tradition. The reality of it is that we don't all agree on "worship", "the covenant", etc., and you can still fit in the pale of Orthodoxy, especially if you consider the chruch prior to the Reformation and the Ecumenical Creeds. I do think that the Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, and Chalcedon are our beginning points of unity. No, I don't expect people to only stay there, they must go on to maturity, which includes a better understanding of worship, the covenant, "law & gospel" (hopefully rejecting the Lutheran paradigm), but I would hopefully treat a Lutheran with great respect and grace. Basically, I hope I would follow Frame's advice.

Historically I don't believe the Church has done a great job with epistemology and in light of Van Til's developments, which is a denial of the Gospel in some 'conservative', 'reformed' corners, I believe it calls for a greater discussion on many issues. The reality that all of life isn't simply 'objective' and that the Scriptures, like "science", can simply be disected and set into certain classes, genus, and species is very important. 

In light of that, I realize more how my epistemology shapes my understanding of the world and how so many of these issues are related to ones epistemology. I'm sure our differences is found here and why this leads to wanting to interact on these issues with great patience and gentleness.

openairboy

P.S. I wish he would've called "hyper-preterism" heresy, but at least he used "unorthodox".


----------



## Me Died Blue (Oct 10, 2004)

Simply put, I'm not at all claiming that Frame is an outright heretic. Furthermore, I don't deny that he has contributed some positive light to Reformed theological discussion, and has something to offer. Even so, I think we need to beware especially of his loose-subscriptionist tendencies, and his high level of tolerance, because though they may not be the most visible things at any given time, it is that very same type of tendency that is subtly and slowly causing many Reformed denominations and churches to become more and more like contemporary "pop-Christianity." I'm not even claiming that that is Frame's goal at all, but many of his attitudes and tendencies nonetheless leave the door wide open for that to happen. Again, the reason it's so subtle and non-visible is because he's not horribly off on most individual doctrines, but it's just that whole collectively loose mindset that paves the way for outright anti-subscriptionism to come in later.


----------



## openairboy (Oct 16, 2004)

Will the other posts be added?

openairboy


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Oct 17, 2004)

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> Will the other posts be added?
> 
> openairboy


Any posts after the 11th were probably lost in the transition.


----------



## FrozenChosen (Oct 19, 2004)

MDB, right on.

I'm not sure if anyone is aware of a kind of college phenomenon, but a lot of people are taking a look at Calvinism and trying to understand it. That's how I became a real Calvinist, anyway. More and more people are looking at it, so this is certainly not the time to be anything less than dead-on precise in our language and writing.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 19, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Simply put, I'm not at all claiming that Frame is an outright heretic. Furthermore, I don't deny that he has contributed some positive light to Reformed theological discussion, and has something to offer. Even so, I think we need to beware especially of his loose-subscriptionist tendencies, and his high level of tolerance, because though they may not be the most visible things at any given time, it is that very same type of tendency that is subtly and slowly causing many Reformed denominations and churches to become more and more like contemporary "pop-Christianity." I'm not even claiming that that is Frame's goal at all, but many of his attitudes and tendencies nonetheless leave the door wide open for that to happen. Again, the reason it's so subtle and non-visible is because he's not horribly off on most individual doctrines, but it's just that whole collectively loose mindset that paves the way for outright anti-subscriptionism to come in later.



I don't know enough about Dr. John Frame to say whether or not this is true about him, but I would certainly agree that there has been a chipping away at the foundations by a loosening of some norms by focusing in on some other aspects. Personally, I would target a wider group within the Presbyterian system, of which Frame is a part. There is no grounds for any kind of authority or influence by University professors in the ecclesiastical framework. There are ruling elders and teaching elders, and in my esteem deacons too. To have spiritual influence come from outside the church, where ideas get planted inside the church, and these cause disunity or polemicism, is bordering on being schismatic. 

In the CRC a physics prof. at Calvin College started the Thesitic Evolution ball rolling, which eventually, along with other things, led to some of the denomination withholding their dues from the College fund, and later to a church split. It did not come from a need within the churches. And in the CRC the university and seminary is funded by the church, and is seen as a wing of the church. 

But a class prof. is not in the position, if he holds office too, to dabble in speculative theologies, if he remembers his position within the church. He's got to keep the two separate. Its not just that he's teaching things that he personally believes, because he should do that, its his job. But he has tobe careful how he puts things, so as not to plant division for the sake of propagating his own views.

I think my generation has failed miserably in that area. I mean the 70's and 80's generation of sudents and teachers. We are reaping their harvest now. The interest was too much on polemical issues. We were like the Athenians on Mars Hill, waiting for any new thing to come along to discuss, and didn't consider what that was doing to the church. Look at some of the things that we discussed, things that make us blush now: Theistic Evolution, women-in-office, inclusive language, etc. All of them discredited, all of them foolishness, all of them introduced or advanced from the outside through the influence of Christian Colleges and Universities and church periodicals. And my generation and I were in the middle of it one way or another.


----------



## johnny_redeemed (Oct 20, 2004)

hum?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Oct 20, 2004)

John, 

What is your view of the office of teacher or doctor as prescribed in the Westminster Form of Church Government?

Teacher or Doctor.

THE scripture doth hold out the name and title of teacher, as well as of the pastor.

Who is also a minister of the word, as well as the pastor, and hath power of administration of the sacraments. 

The Lord having given different gifts, and divers exercises according to these gifts, in the ministry of the word; though these different gifts may meet in, and accordingly be exercised by, one and the same minister; yet, where be several ministers in the same congregation, they may be designed to several employments, according to the different gifts in which each of them doth most excel. And he that doth more excel in exposition of scripture, in teaching sound doctrine, and in convincing gainsayers, than he doth in application, and is accordingly employed therein, may be called a teacher, or doctor, (the places alleged by the notation of the word do prove the proposition.) Nevertheless, where is but one minister in a particular congregation, he is to perform, as far as he is able, the whole work of the ministry. 

A teacher, or doctor, is of most excellent use in schools and universities; as of old in the schools of the prophets, and at Jerusalem, where Gamaliel and others taught as doctors.


----------



## Nomos (Nov 7, 2004)

*Frame and Machen\'s Warrior Children*

I saw the reference to Frame and his Machen's Warrior Children article. Frame was recently a particpant on Keith Plummer's Pensees forum on paltalk where that very article was discussed. For those that might be interested on that particular topic, the audio can be found at:

http://hometown.aol.com/penseesfsu/myhomepage/index.html

Blessings,
Ryan
http://radioapologia.com


----------



## cupotea (Nov 8, 2004)

I have read all of these comments with much interest. I have read Frame's "The Doctrine of God" and also his "Cornelius Van Til: The Man and His Thought."

I would say that the various things that you have pointed out seem to be valid, though I guess I have in some ways adopted Frame's "laid back" approach ("This argument doesn't convince me... I'd rather someone use Scripture... etc..."). I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have an approach like this, and I find that it enables me to engage in a dialogue with others, much more easily. Also, because I consider myself a novice in many philosophical and theological endeavors, I am much removed from a position where I may be prone to defending a position I don't even believe in simply to win an argument.

I want to be strong on the beliefs I have certainty of, but to be honest about it when I say, "I don't have a clue." I guess this is the thing I see in Frame that I like the most.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JesusFan_
> I have read all of these comments with much interest. I have read Frame's "The Doctrine of God" and also his "Cornelius Van Til: The Man and His Thought."
> 
> I would say that the various things that you have pointed out seem to be valid, though I guess I have in some ways adopted Frame's "laid back" approach ("This argument doesn't convince me... I'd rather someone use Scripture... etc..."). I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have an approach like this, and I find that it enables me to engage in a dialogue with others, much more easily. Also, because I consider myself a novice in many philosophical and theological endeavors, I am much removed from a position where I may be prone to defending a position I don't even believe in simply to win an argument.
> ...



And this is an excellent expression of modern, American, low ecclesiological view of the Church. The problem is that it does not represent Westminsterian Presbyterianism and its view of the Church's teaching and authority, which Frame has vowed to uphold.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Fred,
> 
> How does your quote, and comments about Frame, play with what you wrote above. he is an ordained teaching elder in your (our) denomination and you have sworn to respect these men. I have never seen a post (though I may be wrong) where you treat Frame with the respect he deserves. Remember, our Church HAS NOT deemed Frame to be unorthodox and has deemed him to be orthodox. You should (and all of us, me included) submit to the Church in this instance and wait until they file any public charges before ripping a brother.



While I see the validity in the principle to which you're referring, I can't help but think about how the church (PCA) hasn't yet forced, say, AAPC to leave yet either - so are we just supposed to sit back and say that their teaching is fine? There seems to be a fine line, but I don't think simply keeping silent on undisciplined heresy in the church is an answer any more than is total unsubmission to the church. I'm not really sure where I would draw the line. But I do know, however, that even if speaking out against Frame when the church has not _was_ inconsistent with submission to church authority, Frame himself has certainly gone much farther down that road of unsubmission himself by minimizing the authority of the confessions to which the church holds.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Fred,
> 
> How does your quote, and comments about Frame, play with what you wrote above. he is an ordained teaching elder in your (our) denomination and you have sworn to respect these men. I have never seen a post (though I may be wrong) where you treat Frame with the respect he deserves. Remember, our Church HAS NOT deemed Frame to be unorthodox and has deemed him to be orthodox. You should (and all of us, me included) submit to the Church in this instance and wait until they file any public charges before ripping a brother.



Paul,

I really am going to have to think about this. You raise a good point, I am not sure what I think yet - and that is not a dodge, just to let you know I appreciate the concern you have for me and any sin in my life, but I have to think about it.

The main reason that I do not say "you're right" right away, is that I think there is a difference between being critical (even very critical) of a man's public writings and calling him seinful. I may have done the latter, and if so, I need to reasses and repent. But I am not sure, especially since I did in fact defend Frame from someone on the board (who is since gone) who called Frame a heretic (in so many words).

But rest assured, I will think this through.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> ...



Paul,

Point well taken. Often (especially on the internet, where one writes before thinking long), my tone is bad. I need to work on that. I agree with you about Frame - I don't think I have said he is a heretic in any respect, b/c I don't believe he is. Even my point about ecclesiology above is one of my disappointment in his unwillingness to be fervent for the Confession and its theology. I don't think (for example) that congregationalists who hold an even more strident view of that ecclesiology are heretics.

So, if I have given the impression that he is outside orthodoxy, I need to retract that. But that doesn't mean that I think he is right - far from it.

Still thinking.... (while grading Greek papers, writing a couple of papers... sigh...)


----------



## JohnV (Nov 8, 2004)

Although I recogize the need to uphold the responsibilities of office, even on discussion Boards, we also should remember that this is a discussion Board. It isn't only elders who will have every word used against them. We owe respect to whom respect is due, but in a forum like this one, which does not really fall under any ecclesiastical oversight, the rules are a bit looser. I say things on this Board that I wouldn't say in the same way in a church setting. 

We also live in a milieu in which office-bearers are freely using the press to propagate ideas that cause divisions or friction. Religious leaders are weighing in on controversial issues, taking sides, and that's not as it should be. We tend to look to certain popular speakers to champion a cause, but we shouldn't do that. We should let the church deal with it. Do we think we can sway GA by popular vote? If we can, then there is something wrong. Why do we need all these 'isms' to keep us interested? A sharp rebuke in a forum such as this is not wholly wrong all the time. 

On the one hand, someone who popularizes his views is "fair game". But I don't like that approach at all. On the other hand a popularized view is fair game to a forum such as this, and that will involve the principles (main characters), in a legal sense. In this sense, a sharp rebuke of the issue, and the principles involved is unavoidable. 

If you are searching you heart, Fred, keep this in mind as well.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 9, 2004)

Paul, by my analogy, I didn't want to give the impression that I was lumping Frame and Wilson in the same camp at all - I was simply using them as two examples of people with some dangerous tendencies and/or teachings whom the church has not yet disciplines. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. That being said, as I said very early in this thread, I am not claiming that Frame is an outright heretic, but I do see many of his tendencies on Confessionalism and the like as being very dangerous as they could eventually pave the way for the spread of outright anti-subscriptionism in the future, even though Frame's own intentions do not go that far.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 9, 2004)

Being on the same level as those of John Robbins, that alone tells me that my accusations must have been too extreme! Seriously, though, I acknowledge that that original wording was faulty on my part. As I think I clarified in my later post to which I referred above, though, I still do think that some of his key leanings have very dangerous potential for creating anti-subscriptionism in the future, despite the fact that that is not even his direct intent. When the PCUSA first started in the direction that have now followed, I'm sure it was not initially full-fledged opposition to confessionalism, but began as subtle tendencies like those I see in Frame. And in that sense, I think that some leanings of his are similar in nature to a danger that would indeed be one of the most dangerous things in Reformed Christendom if further developed. But I acknowledge that he has not developed it into such himself, does not intend to, and that his lesser tendency of a similar nature, while dangerous, does not place him outside of orthodoxy.


----------



## crhoades (Nov 9, 2004)

Would this be a fair statement? There are different ways of going about doing theology. Vos was a Biblical theologian. People approach it from a systematic way such as Berkhof. Then there are confessional/historical theologians such as Horton. We can't forget the more exegetical theologians such as Murray. The last group are people that approach theology from a philosophical category such as Van Til and perhaps say...John Frame?

If you've read Frame's Doctrine of the Word of God as well as his Doctrine of God books you'll see that he is dealing with Epistemology and Metaphysics. His next book in the Theology of Lordship Series is the Doctrine of the Christian Life. Here he is tackling ethics. How many times do you see Van Til quoting the WCF or for that matter Scripture. The latter was admitted by him as his greatest weakness. This was an area that Bahnsen sought to remedy. Most of us would say that Van Til was one of the most brilliant men of the faith in the 20th century. 

What I'm driving at is that one of the reasons that people have missed Van Til has been a lack of Philosophical background. I can attest to this personally. The more I am studying philosophy the more he makes sense and the more I see the brilliance. The same with Frame. The more I am studying the various ethical schools of thought the more I appreciate his emphasis on the normative, situational, and existential perspectives.

Worship issues aside and the works on them, I don't think you'll find Frame quoting the WCF at every turn or doing massive historical exegesis of the divines. What you will find in most cases is an emphasis on thought, logic, and Scripture. Was Van Til a dangerous (hyperbole - sorry Chris - I know you've already retracted...) theologian who was heading down neo-orthodox paths and was anticonfessional? I don't think Frame was either.

And as a corrective to us all - and this might catch me some heat - when was the last time any of us yearned for the church to come together as one? I know that we are to be one in truth. But I'm addressing more the spirit of it. Frame actually would like to see healing to come within reformedom. Maybe some disagrees with his methods or the choices of doctrines that he is willing to come together on. But should we not first do an examination and not see if we are quick to separate, quick to cast "stones"? If you understand this you will see why he wrote Machen's "Warrior" Children. He would rather see everyone put down the stones for a second and come to the theological table in love. (I'm saying this but yet he did refer to other men as stupid etc... which I acknowledge.)

Food for thought. I may not be on the money 100% but at least think through these things and offer corrections where needed. (like that needs to be said! )


----------

