# Dr. Reggie Kidd



## goretorade

I don't know if this is in the right forum but I read today Professor Reggie Kidd's (RTS Orlando) blog. It seems he was taking a swing at those who are protesting the federal vision and the new perspective. http://reggiekidd.com/RK/2007/09/03/favorite-quotes-herodotus-mutual-defenestration-means-self-annihilation/ Just wondering if anyone of the board had any thoughts about what Dr. Kidd has wrote?


----------



## weinhold

Good stuff. Though Kidd's exhortation is hyperbolic at points, it is entirely appropriate rhetorically. I especially enjoyed the ancient Greece analogy.


----------



## Poimen

I think his sentiments are appropriate but mis-targeted. There is great danger in the re-fashioning of biblical, covenant theology by the confusion of the NT Wright and the FV proponents and this should not be overlooked. Mr. Hutchinson, as always, responds very graciously. 

Furthermore, more than a few in Reformed churches have been severely attacked by standing up to these movements with a Bible in their hands. It's not so one sided as presented there.


----------



## MW

He is correct: a sense of proportion is needed; unity in fundamentals is important. Let's not blame erring brethren for every heretical tendency and problem in the church.

He is incorrect: one cannot portray this as a biblical v. systematic theology conflict. The biblical theology is itself being driven by dogmatic presuppositions, and leads to doctrinal conclusions which contradict confessional commitments.


----------



## SEAGOON

A few brief thoughts, if unpopular ones...

First off, way back in 1996 I took Pauline Epistles under Reggie Kidd. At the time, two things impressed me. First that he was very, very, bright, very hip and highly cultured, and that second he was much more theologically moderate than I. That worried me even then, because historically its not the screaming liberals who end up liberalizing the church, its the influential moderates who, under the flag of "tolerance," open the door for them and a host of other doctrinal errors. Kidd also tends to fly the Po-Mo flag very high and his philosophy is riddled with references to a both/and approach always being superior to either/or. This has led him to push not only for tolerance of the FV but also causes that will be the battles for conservatives in the PCA; women's ordination and the emerging church (although how a movement that emphasises personal autonomy and eschews "authoritarian metanarratives" could call itself the _ekklesia_ is still beyond me). 

He also tends in his posts to pose the well-worn "we need to stand together to fight our real enemies" argument and then poses out-and-out liberals, Mormons, and Muslims as the enemy and uses the Peloponnesian war as his parable for the church. This strategy incidentally harkens back to at least the Reformation when the Hapsburg Emperor warned that the schism caused by the Protestants would fatally weaken the ability of Christendom to face their real enemies, the Turks. Supposedly, in order to fight the culture wars, we need to stop opposing brave women who want to preach the gospel and welcome our Anglo-Catholic brothers into the PCA big-tent.

Well brothers, our real enemies are the World, the Flesh, and the Devil and historically they have always tried to focus our attention on the enemies without, rather than the enemies within who inevitably kill churches. When it comes to the death of denominations, its not Muslims or liberal governments that do them in, its a latitudinarian "whatever" spirit and ultimately a turning away from the true Gospel message of Justification by Faith Alone in favor of Moral reclamation and "winning the society." Sorry guys, while Islam is indeed a lie from the pit of hell, so is Covenant nomism, and I know which one will be more effective in beguilling Christians away to "another Gospel" in the long run.

So, while it is a well-spun yarn Kidd knits, its also an old one. It was used successfully to gut Presbyterian denominations in the 17th century in England, in the 18th century in Scotland, and in the 19th and 20th century in the USA. Be certain of this, if history teaches us anything, it is that once the forces we are supposed to "tolerate" today become entrenched, our particular scruples will no longer be tolerated and like countless conservatives in the past, we will end up being ejected from our nest by the Cuckoo that hatches from the egg we were told we had to tolerate.


----------



## fredtgreco

Paging Dr. Robert Speer, Dr. Robert Speer. Paging Dr. Charles Eerdman, Dr. Charles Eerdman....


----------



## goretorade

What do we do about profs. like Doug Green and Peter Enns from Westminster and John Frame also from RTS Orlando encouraging Kidd in his statements? These men are all professors in established reformed seminaries training future leaders in reformed churches...are the students safe at these schools?


----------



## RamistThomist

email Kidd or Frame. Ask them what they are really getting at. They are good on responding to emails. That is a lot better form than hypotheticating what ifs.


----------



## Redaimie

I read it & was quite discouraged by what he said as well as the positive feedback received in the comments. 

I pray for the church to be united it's what I truly long to see but what kind of church is it if it is united in error. I long for the day I can witness to my neighbor & than bring her to a church in the same neighborhood without having to travel miles & miles to find a church that preaches the word of God. I'm afraid that isn't going to happen with women in the pulpits , theatrical productions in the form of worship nor with a compromise of the gospel.
Compromise is not the answer nor is being called "machen's warrior children" & cannibals.


----------



## py3ak

What if his analogy is misapplied? Oh, sure, there's some big scary enemies out there. And no doubt minor internecine disagreements fueled largely by pride are not going to be helpful. But take another analogy. Shen-tzu has been challenged to battle by Li Wei, but Shen-tzu is afflicted with a debilitating diarrhea. Isn't it better to give our champion some coke and cheese _before_ the fight starts?


----------



## SEAGOON

Take heart Mary, just remember that none of this is new. There weren't 50 contiguous years in the history of the church when it was not _"by schisms rent assunder, by heresies distressed."_ The Puritans for instance, throughout the 16th and 17th centuries spent the majority of their time persecuted and villified by the majority and eventually ejected _en masse_ from their pulpits in 1662. But as I said, take heart, God always preserves His remnant in every age and even now He has His Seven Thousand in the Reformed Churches. 

Also there are blessings in all this. We learn and grow far more in the crucible, and true Christianity tends to spiritually thrive in the valley, not the mountaintop. Personally, being forever on the outside of the ecclesiastical hierarchy does wonders to subdue my cockiness and hubris. I'm bad as it is, but I'd be insufferable if I was ever as popular as say an RTS-Orlando Professor.


----------



## VictorBravo

py3ak said:


> What if his analogy is misapplied? Oh, sure, there's some big scary enemies out there. And no doubt minor internecine disagreements fueled largely by pride are not going to be helpful. But take another analogy. Shen-tzu has been challenged to battle by Li Wei, but Shen-tzu is afflicted with a debilitating diarrhea. Isn't it better to give our champion some coke and cheese _before_ the fight starts?



 I've been pondering all day whether the coke and cheese itself is a good analogy--or proper treatment. Maybe our hero should simply take imodium. In any event, it's a good idea to get him healthy and keep him that way.


----------



## wsw201

My first reaction was that it was more of the same old thing. Sort of the Rodney King approach that BE's normally take.


----------



## JOwen

goretorade said:


> What do we do about profs. like Doug Green and Peter Enns from Westminster and John Frame also from RTS Orlando encouraging Kidd in his statements? These men are all professors in established reformed seminaries training future leaders in reformed churches...are the students safe at these schools?



PRTS is the safest alternative. Superior in fact


----------



## greenbaggins

I have started to reply to his post here.


----------



## RamistThomist

Spear Dane said:


> email Kidd or Frame. Ask them what they are really getting at. They are good on responding to emails. That is a lot better form than hypotheticating what ifs.





John Frame is the most awesomest prof I ever had.


----------



## dannyhyde

Spear Dane said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> email Kidd or Frame. Ask them what they are really getting at. They are good on responding to emails. That is a lot better form than hypotheticating what ifs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Frame is the most awesomest prof I ever had.
Click to expand...


He was the worst professor I had when he was at Westminster Sem CA.


----------



## goretorade

Spear Dane said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> email Kidd or Frame. Ask them what they are really getting at. They are good on responding to emails. That is a lot better form than hypotheticating what ifs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jacob I did email Dr. Kidd about his post. I may wait for his reply before I email Frame.
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

dannyhyde said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> email Kidd or Frame. Ask them what they are really getting at. They are good on responding to emails. That is a lot better form than hypotheticating what ifs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Frame is the most awesomest prof I ever had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was the worst professor I had when he was at Westminster Sem CA.
Click to expand...


In three months with Frame (on ethics, apologetis, and philosophy) I learned more about said subjects than I had ever learned previously---and I have read widely and deeply on all three subjects for about 5-6 years now....intensely. Listened to every Greg Bahnsen tape....made liberals run in fear, and on top of all that, Frame still taught me so much, how to reason, how to spot fallacies, and how to let Scripture determine all areas of thought. 

I had given up on the value of seminary. Frame restored my hope.


----------



## Redaimie

SEAGOON said:


> Take heart Mary, just remember that none of this is new. There weren't 50 contiguous years in the history of the church when it was not _"by schisms rent assunder, by heresies distressed."_ The Puritans for instance, throughout the 16th and 17th centuries spent the majority of their time persecuted and villified by the majority and eventually ejected _en masse_ from their pulpits in 1662. But as I said, take heart, God always preserves His remnant in every age and even now He has His Seven Thousand in the Reformed Churches.
> 
> Also there are blessings in all this. We learn and grow far more in the crucible, and true Christianity tends to spiritually thrive in the valley, not the mountaintop. Personally, being forever on the outside of the ecclesiastical hierarchy does wonders to subdue my cockiness and hubris. I'm bad as it is, but I'd be insufferable if I was ever as popular as say an RTS-Orlando Professor.




Thanks Pastor Webb & welcome to the board.


----------



## wsw201

If you haven't had a chance to read Lane's response to Dr. Kidd, I highly recommend it.


----------



## Redaimie

wsw201 said:


> If you haven't had a chance to read Lane's response to Dr. Kidd, I highly recommend it.





It was very good & Dr Kidd's apology in response to at least a portion of what he wrote warmed my heart.


----------



## py3ak

victorbravo said:


> I've been pondering all day whether the coke and cheese itself is a good analogy--or proper treatment. Maybe our hero should simply take imodium. In any event, it's a good idea to get him healthy and keep him that way.



Oh, coke and cheese is just what our kung fu hero needs. It's a winning combination.


----------



## wsw201

It was good to see Dr. Kidd apologize about his comments regarding RC Sproul. Its one thing to not agree with a decision in GA but the comments about Sproul were over the top.


----------



## JohnOwen007

armourbearer said:


> He is correct: a sense of proportion is needed; unity in fundamentals is important. Let's not blame erring brethren for every heretical tendency and problem in the church.
> 
> He is incorrect: one cannot portray this as a biblical v. systematic theology conflict. The biblical theology is itself being driven by dogmatic presuppositions, and leads to doctrinal conclusions which contradict confessional commitments.



 Well said dear brother!


----------



## mvdm

wsw201 said:


> It was good to see Dr. Kidd apologize about his comments regarding RC Sproul. Its one thing to not agree with a decision in GA but the comments about Sproul were over the top.


While we're mentioning appreciated apologies, Danny Hyde might want to consider the same in relation to his tear-down of Prof. Frame.


----------



## Kevin

wsw201 said:


> It was good to see Dr. Kidd apologize about his comments regarding RC Sproul. Its one thing to not agree with a decision in GA but the comments about Sproul were over the top.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

I'm not sure what Rev. Hyde needs to apologize for. One person finds one prof one of his best another in another context one of his worst. You can agree to disagree but asking the one to apologize?

I do find it interesting though; you can really imagine the smiles of approval of the original post turn to frowns on the faces of those who don't _get_ why Dr. Kidd apologized.


----------



## wsw201

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm not sure what Rev. Hyde needs to apologize for. One person finds one prof one of his best another in another context one of his worst. You can agree to disagree but asking the one to apologize?
> 
> I do find it interesting though; you can really imagine the smiles of approval of the original post turn to frowns on the faces of those who don't _get_ why Dr. Kidd apologized.



WOW! Based on some of the responses RC has just about reached R. Scott Clark status among FV'ers.


----------



## mvdm

NaphtaliPress said:


> I'm not sure what Rev. Hyde needs to apologize for. One person finds one prof one of his best another in another context one of his worst. You can agree to disagree but asking the one to apologize?
> 
> I do find it interesting though; you can really imagine the smiles of approval of the original post turn to frowns on the faces of those who don't _get_ why Dr. Kidd apologized.


Yes, as stated it is Hyde's subjective opinion--- but that makes it no less damaging to Frame's good name, especially considering it was slung out into a public internet forum with no back up explanation or qualification. If we inverted the situation, would we just shrug it off if Frame came here and publicly expressed a similar subjective opinion about his student Hyde? 

It should not be hard to see that publicly calling someone the "worst professor" he had fails "...to defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbor." LD 43.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

wsw201 said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what Rev. Hyde needs to apologize for. One person finds one prof one of his best another in another context one of his worst. You can agree to disagree but asking the one to apologize?
> 
> I do find it interesting though; you can really imagine the smiles of approval of the original post turn to frowns on the faces of those who don't _get_ why Dr. Kidd apologized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW! Based on some of the responses RC has just about reached R. Scott Clark status among FV'ers.
Click to expand...

And he only had to make one comment at PCA GA to get there!


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Well then; perhaps we should be careful about speaking "too highly" of others as well since we're referencing LC 144/145? I'll simply leave this for Rev. Hyde to explain if he choses, or apologize if he thinks he has prejudiced Frame's good name. 



mvdm said:


> NaphtaliPress said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure what Rev. Hyde needs to apologize for. One person finds one prof one of his best another in another context one of his worst. You can agree to disagree but asking the one to apologize?
> 
> I do find it interesting though; you can really imagine the smiles of approval of the original post turn to frowns on the faces of those who don't _get_ why Dr. Kidd apologized.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as stated it is Hyde's subjective opinion--- but that makes it no less damaging to Frame's good name, especially considering it was slung out into a public internet forum with no back up explanation or qualification. If we inverted the situation, would we just shrug it off if Frame came here and publicly expressed a similar subjective opinion about his student Hyde?
> 
> It should not be hard to see that publicly calling someone the "worst professor" he had fails "...to defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbor." LD 43.
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

If I would have said Dr Kline is the worst theologian I ever read because of his views on creation and ethics, would that have been okay on this board? Not for a moment! and understandably so. 

Btw, I don't believe that about Kline for a moment. I think his views on ethics (see Lee Irons) and creation are problematic for Confessionalism, but I wouldn't say that about him.

But then again, such rhetoric might be okay. T. David Gordon called John Murray the "drunk uncle" or Reformed theology, and nobody batted an eye.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Spear Dane said:


> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose one has his right to express his _opinion_ concerning who he thinks is the worst/best professor he's ever had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True--then my hypothetical comments about Kline are valid--but isn't it kind of tacky? I mean Frame is an ordained minister in a Presbyterian church.
Click to expand...


So are many FV advocates. And I think they deserve critique as does Bishop Wright.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Since the "sin card" has been played, I think Rev. Hyde may need to elaborate in his own defense.


----------



## fredtgreco

Spear Dane said:


> If I would have said Dr Kline is the worst theologian I ever read because of his views on creation and ethics, would that have been okay on this board? Not for a moment! and understandably so.
> 
> Btw, I don't believe that about Kline for a moment. I think his views on ethics (see Lee Irons) and creation are problematic for Confessionalism, but I wouldn't say that about him.
> 
> But then again, such rhetoric might be okay. T. David Gordon called John Murray the "drunk uncle" or Reformed theology, and nobody batted an eye.



I don't know, maybe someone read Frame's intro to _Backbone of the Bible_ and was trying to be imitative.


----------



## RamistThomist

I didn't accuse anybody of sin.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Nope; you didn't.


----------



## RamistThomist

CredoCovenanter said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose one has his right to express his _opinion_ concerning who he thinks is the worst/best professor he's ever had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True--then my hypothetical comments about Kline are valid--but isn't it kind of tacky? I mean Frame is an ordained minister in a Presbyterian church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So are many FV advocates. And I think they deserve critique as does Bishop Wright.
Click to expand...


Relevance? We are talking about Frame, who is NOT FV.


----------



## mvdm

The separate issue of "speaking too highly" of someone diverts our attention from the issue. Clearly that was not my concern over Hyde's comment. Leaving it to him to decide if the comment was prejudicial is a fairly subjective standard, and would open the door to all sorts of hyperbolic rhetoric couched as "opinion". 

As it stands in it's conclusory form, it is *objectively* prejudicial, warranting clarification or apology.


----------



## dannyhyde

mvdm said:


> Yes, as stated it is Hyde's subjective opinion--- but that makes it no less damaging to Frame's good name, especially considering it was slung out into a public internet forum with no back up explanation or qualification. If we inverted the situation, would we just shrug it off if Frame came here and publicly expressed a similar subjective opinion about his student Hyde?
> 
> It should not be hard to see that publicly calling someone the "worst professor" he had fails "...to defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbor." LD 43.



After writing a long response, I deleted it. The sum of it is that I expressed my opinion and that it did not violate the ninth commandment. Any who think otherwise may follow our Lord's prescribed course of action.


----------



## mvdm

dannyhyde said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as stated it is Hyde's subjective opinion--- but that makes it no less damaging to Frame's good name, especially considering it was slung out into a public internet forum with no back up explanation or qualification. If we inverted the situation, would we just shrug it off if Frame came here and publicly expressed a similar subjective opinion about his student Hyde?
> 
> It should not be hard to see that publicly calling someone the "worst professor" he had fails "...to defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbor." LD 43.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After writing a long response, I deleted it. The sum of it is that I expressed my opinion and that it did not violate the ninth commandment. Any who think otherwise may follow our Lord's prescribed course of action.
Click to expand...

That's too bad, as the longer explanation could have shed some light on your comment, and could have hopefully removed the disparaging aspect from it.

So you believe you kept the law perfectly. 

I suppose that's a workable answer if you adopt the FV concept of "cooperation with grace". 

So if Frame were to even want to bother with this, to whom would he direct the complaint?


----------



## NaphtaliPress

mvdm said:


> So if Frame were to even want to bother with this, to whom would he direct the complaint?


Mod. Take this offlist. It will not be a subject of this thread any longer.


----------



## MW

mvdm said:


> So you believe you kept the law perfectly.
> 
> I suppose that's a workable answer if you adopt the FV concept of "cooperation with grace".



Friend, this is puerile. You made an accusation which required Rev. Hyde to respond. His response is a justification of his actions to a fellow man, not to God. I really think you should simply accept his opinion as such, and drop the matter; or better yet, in the interests of brotherly fellowship, you should think about apologising for making something of nothing. Personal opinions are just that -- you can take them or leave them.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Spear Dane said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> True--then my hypothetical comments about Kline are valid--but isn't it kind of tacky? I mean Frame is an ordained minister in a Presbyterian church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So are many FV advocates. And I think they deserve critique as does Bishop Wright.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Relevance? We are talking about Frame, who is NOT FV.
Click to expand...


Is he beyond critique of his support for his stances. The Relevance is that many critique a Bishop and other PCA Pastors. They critique Pastors who are FV and NPP. Just because a man is ordained, does that raise him above critique? So what is your point in pointing out he is an ordained Minister in a Presbyterian Church. Have you not critiqued any theologian? It is Relevant.


----------



## RamistThomist

CredoCovenanter said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are many FV advocates. And I think they deserve critique as does Bishop Wright.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Relevance? We are talking about Frame, who is NOT FV.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is he beyond critique of his support for his stances. The Relevance is that many critique a Bishop and other PCA Pastors. So what is your point in pointing out he is an ordained Minister in a Presbyterian Church. Have you not critiqued any theologian? It is Relevant.
Click to expand...


The relevance is that we should exercise care on an _*internet message board*_ regarding the Orthodoxy of a long-time friend and minister in a Reformed denomination. Frame is not in the same class as Wright et al and to suggest he is is silly.

Ok, where on justification has Frame erred, since you are putting him in the same class as Wright and Co? Be specific.

There is a difference between critiquing a theologian and questioning his orthodoxy by putting him in the same camp as others, and that without any substantial warrant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Spear Dane said:


> CredoCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> Relevance? We are talking about Frame, who is NOT FV.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is he beyond critique of his support for his stances. The Relevance is that many critique a Bishop and other PCA Pastors. So what is your point in pointing out he is an ordained Minister in a Presbyterian Church. Have you not critiqued any theologian? It is Relevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The relevance is that we should exercise care on an _*internet message board*_ regarding the Orthodoxy of a long-time friend and minister in a Reformed denomination. Frame is not in the same class as Wright et al and to suggest he is is silly.
> 
> Ok, where on justification has Frame erred, since you are putting him in the same class as Wright and Co? Be specific.
> 
> There is a difference between critiquing a theologian and questioning his orthodoxy by putting him in the same camp as others, and that without any substantial warrant.
Click to expand...


ARe you tired or something? No one has called him silly or challenged his view of justification. Now you are off the subject I addressed at first. Is he beyond criticizing because he is a Presbyterian Minister? No he is not.


----------



## RamistThomist

fredtgreco said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I would have said Dr Kline is the worst theologian I ever read because of his views on creation and ethics, would that have been okay on this board? Not for a moment! and understandably so.
> 
> Btw, I don't believe that about Kline for a moment. I think his views on ethics (see Lee Irons) and creation are problematic for Confessionalism, but I wouldn't say that about him.
> 
> But then again, such rhetoric might be okay. T. David Gordon called John Murray the "drunk uncle" or Reformed theology, and nobody batted an eye.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, maybe someone read Frame's intro to _Backbone of the Bible_ and was trying to be imitative.
Click to expand...


Granted that wasn't Frame's best tactical moment (but to his credit he apologize for the rhetoric), but when you get to the substance of his essay, it is quite unexciting. He ends up affirming, to the shock of the reader, salvation by faith alone, covenant of works, and imputation.


----------



## RamistThomist

scracth that. I see where we got sidetracked. I countered a highly subjective claim with a highly subjective claim of my own. Then came whether we should critique ministers in good standing. I urged caution. Then it seemed to be suggested that Frame is in error, although it was never specified as to what the error was. I apologize for ambiguity.


----------



## VictorBravo

Spear Dane said:


> scracth that. I see where we got sidetracked. I countered a highly subjective claim with a highly subjective claim of my own. Then came whether we should critique ministers in good standing. I urged caution. Then it seemed to be suggested that Frame is in error, although it was never specified as to what the error was. I apologize for ambiguity.



And that sounds like a good way to end the off track discussion. Thanks, Jacob.


----------

