# New Book Coming Out: Theology of John Frame



## Marrow Man (Oct 16, 2009)

A new book dedicated to John Frame is coming out (or has just come out). It is available here (over 1200 pages!).

You can read the table of contents and the introduction by Frame in PDF here.

There are a few "interesting" things in the introduction as Frame reflects on the men he's known over the years. He praises Norm Shepherd and Jack Miller. He is mildly critical of Jay Adams. He is very critical of Meredith Kline. He is also critical of what he calls "Reformed traditionalism." 

I suppose that would mean us...


----------



## Grillsy (Oct 16, 2009)

It will be an interesting read.


----------



## TimV (Oct 16, 2009)




----------



## Grillsy (Oct 16, 2009)

-----Added 10/16/2009 at 04:18:07 EST-----



TimV said:


>


----------



## lynnie (Oct 16, 2009)

_What I learned best from Murray was his theological method. At
Princeton, my PEF friends urged me not to study at Westminster. In their
view, Reformed theology was more a celebration of its own tradition than a
serious reading of Scripture. When I came to Westminster, I was armed by
this criticism. If Westminster had defended its teaching mainly by referring
to its confessions and past thinkers, I would not have been persuaded. But
Murray focused on Scripture itself. His classes were almost entirely spent in
exegeting the main biblical sources on each topic. In this, he was not afraid
to differ from Reformed tradition, even the confessions, when he believed
the biblical text pointed in a different direction. He described his method in
his essay “Systematic Theology,” which I have read again and again, and on which every young theologian should deeply meditate. Here he condemns
traditionalism and advocates a concentration on biblical exegesis._

That may be controversial here but it sure sounds like sola scriptura to me.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 16, 2009)

lynnie said:


> That may be controversial here but it sure sounds like sola scriptura to me.



It is the acceptance of a private Confession of Faith over a public Confession of Faith. It just sounds better romantically.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 16, 2009)

I still don't get this: HE ISN'T EVEN DEAD YET!

Personally, after reading him and add to that his sympathetic nature to false teaching. Well, where is that thread about the book burning....?


----------



## DMcFadden (Oct 16, 2009)

Wow! He certainly speaks negatively of the WSC experience! 



> Another major division at Westminster in California was between those who saw theology as primarily a republication of Reformed confessions and traditions and those who saw it, as I did, as an application of Scripture to human life in the present. The traditionalist emphasis seemed to me to encourage ministries to be inward-facing rather than outward, to deemphasize evangelism and social action, and to emphasize denominational distinctives. As I interpret the situation, traditionalism came to prevail at Westminster in California*. . . After the trouble at Westminster Seminary in California, my move to RTS Orlando was like dying and going to heaven* . . . Most of all, RTS has convinced me that it is possible to have a genuinely, unapologetically Reformed seminary in which believers cooperate peacefully and enthusiastically to prepare students for ministry, without partisanship or rancor.



I know I"m an outsider. But, that sounds a wee bit strong. My friends who have gone to WSC have loved it. I guess you have to be in the inner circles to get the "inside baseball" references.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 16, 2009)

Adam, let me put it like this, as a female who will never be a preacher, but has sat under both good bible teaching, and also bible teaching where there were more quotes from confessions and Reformers than there were quotes from the bible......

When I got saved in college it was into Arminian- practically Pelagian-charismatic dispensationalism. I met my man I've been married to for over 30 years now, three years before we got engaged or romantic. He was a student at WestminsterTS. He slowly and methodically answered questions and objections one by one over the years with scripture. Amillenialism was one I particularly remember, it was just so amazing and different than anything I'd ever heard. Paedo Baptists were, well, not quite really Christians, almost Catholics, but he laid out (as a Baptist) the whole subject of Covenant theology, circumcision, and sprinkling such that even I was able to accept those Presbyterians as brethren (even if they didn't really quite have the holy spirit much at all  ). Every bit of it was bible carefully exegeted. No confession, no authors, nothing but bible. I would not have listened to any of the Calvinists at that time anyway.

Scripture won me over. It is so clear when you lay it out. I struggled a long time with P (I knew an apostate) but eventually I embraced Calvinism ( and we ended up married!!!).

We have four sons age 21-28 now, a girl of 13 who comes up with some good questions, and 22 nieces and nephews. Lots of other kids here especially in summer. Some heathen. Heavy conversations at times. Tough questions.

Appealing to confessions is just not helpful. You have to be able to show them scripture. That is what they really want anyway. That is what really fills that ache and hunger inside.

I myself now will try and align my thinking with the great Reformers of the past. I will listen to appeals based on say Owen or Edwards or the WCF and have rethought many things on that basis. But I do it because I know they were studying the bible with probably much more wisdom and insight and holiness than me. 

WTS and guys like Frame are supposed to be training pastors, right? They want to be teaching young guys how to preach, right? Well, I think Frame is right- teach them how to lay out scripture, don't teach them to exegete the WCF. It might work for the old guard in the pew but it won't work for the starving masses caught up in rotten dying charismatic churches, or evangelical seeker friendly church growth technique, who are slowly being drawn to sound doctrine. They have got to hear good bible preaching.

That's my take on it anyway. I like Frame. Hub was at WTS in the 70s and Norm S was a truly great teacher, Frame is right. It is sad what happened later. Jack Miller was the greatest prof at WTS of all when it came to understanding dependency on God in prayer; he was so influential in raising up praying men, and those with a heart for evangelism. Praise God for him. Adams was openly contemptuous and belittling of others such that many students were disillusioned by it; a great loss considering the influence of his books. I would not be so quickly dismissive of Frame, he has much insight.


----------



## Christusregnat (Oct 16, 2009)

Lynnie,

Thank you for sharing your experience and thoughts.

A unified church is based on a unified confession; a unified nation is based on a unified church. Although helpful in the shortrun, Frame's method (as outlined above) is ultimately fragmentary and disunifying.

As far as practically reaching individual person, particularly the current generation raised in government schools, you are absolultely right! We have to begin with the milk of the word. This is what I needed after 17 years as a Nazarene. I am not disputing that. However, when the Confession is openly criticized because of some seminary professor's private Confession, I will not choose to be swayed by such childish appeals. It is the gall of a private Confession, and the pride that inspires such which I find most unhelpful, and the most destructive.

Cheers,


----------



## lynnie (Oct 16, 2009)

I didn't think he was criticizing the confessions in this introduction so much as he was criticizing focusing on, or appealing to them, to the detriment of serious bible study. Although to be very fair, I posted this a while back here and in #3 he comes off almost anti confessional. I had forgotten about it when I posted but it came to mind while I cleaned up the kitchen....

Response to Jeremy Jones, Renewing Theology

This is just my very speculative and possibly very stupid guess, but I'd guess he is the way I get sometimes. That is to say, sometimes I just love being in a confessional church and I love having a confession when it is used wisely. Then I get around somebody who is ready to practically excommunicate a confessional brother who happens to disagree with their interpretation of the confession, and you just get this "ugh, shut up about the confession already" feeling. JF obviously had a bad experience at WSC. And I am not sure you should say the motive is pride, it might be a sincere desire to be biblical above all else. 

To use an analogy, I like the doctrine of husband headship because my husband takes the pressure off me as head. I know women that HATE that doctrine because they are married to control freaks who add pressure. So sometimes our emotional reactions to experience color our thinking. I guess we should all be very careful to use the confession in a way that is helpful so as not to turn folks off. When I struggled with perseverance I found people who just threw TULIP at me to be so unhelpful. I didn't want some theological confession quote, I wanted to figure out the verses on falling away and getting your name blotted out of the book of life. And I found that some people have never done the hard thinking and bible study demanded.

By the way, I know this is a confessional board and I don't mean to criticize people here. The intensity of the bible discussions and word studies can be remarkable and often way over my head! But that is how I think it should be!!!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 17, 2009)

Lynnie,

it isn't sola Scriptura, but solo Scriptura. There's a difference. The folk who gave us "sola Scriptura" confessed it in confessions! They didn't set bible against confession.

I understand what you say about the importance of being taught by Scripture but what Frame is advocating (see his essay on "Something Close to Biblicism") is "biblicism." 

As I argue (see link below), Frame is arguing for a radical subjectivism. If anyone will take the time to read this massive, perhaps even revolutionary festschrift, they will see what I mean.

Peace (with Evangelicalism) in Our Time Heidelblog

Mr Murray would not be entirely pleased with the direction his legacy is taken by John.

-----Added 10/16/2009 at 10:58:33 EST-----

Yes, but as one who lived through that experience and who earned the title "One of Machen's Warrior Children" for his efforts, I can say that WSC was considerably more peaceful after John's departure. We are at peace with one another, happily, even joyfully serving Jesus in the unity of the faith, keeping in step with the Spirit, by his grace. We are zealous for the salvation of the lost and for the training of men for pastoral ministry. In short we exist, as we say, "For Christ, his gospel, and his church."

Westminster Seminary California - Home

As to John's unhappiness. it came on rather suddenly as far as I could tell. We we're willing to tolerate his eccentric approach to Reformed theology (God is one person), his idiosyncratic view of worship, his tacit support for Norman Shepherd (on full display in the festschrift where Shepherd lauds his "defender"), his criticisms in class of other faculty members, and other matters but he was not willing to tolerate those of who were more committed to that understanding of the Word confessed by the Reformed churches. 

I'm glad that he's happy where he is but I'm a little tired of his revisionist history about an unhappy episode that was largely of his making.



DMcFadden said:


> Wow! He certainly speaks negatively of the WSC experience!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



-----Added 10/16/2009 at 11:01:33 EST-----

Lynnie,

Don't you think that there could have been some connection between the sort of biblicism that John remembers (others dispute his account of old Westminster) and the direction that Norm Shepherd's doctrine of justification took? From where did it come? Did it just drop out of the sky? Actually, it didn't. If one looks at his ThM thesis from c. 1959 one sees the seeds of what would become his later view. I know that Norm Shepherd was beloved by many, but so was Pelagius.


----------



## Marrow Man (Oct 17, 2009)

Dr. Clark, what was the subject/title of Frame's Th.M. thesis?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Oct 17, 2009)

I'm referring to Norman Shepherd's 1959 ThM thesis accepted by WTS in 1959:
"Man in the image of God."

There he takes some fairly radical positions but what unites this work with his later conclusions is probably biblicism. He does survey other views (something that Frame does not always do) but his method of handling Scripture and of relating it to the confessions his suspect. 

In the discussions at WTS that began in 1974 Shepherd consistently claims and continues to believe that he made a new breakthrough in understanding Scripture. He sees himself as a misunderstood prophet suffering for the Lord. He seems utterly unaware, despite repeated attempts to make him aware--including extensive private conversations with some of our faculty members--that he is repeating ancient errors. 

What is perhaps most remarkable is that the studied rejection by the URCs (2004, 2007, and in the 2009 Study Report for Synod next year), by the OPC, and by the PCA, of his views as contrary to the Word of God has only hardened his resolve to press on.

If you want to see a careful analysis of the trajectory of Shepherd's career, see the essay by Guy Waters in the festschrift for Palmer Robertson: _Hope Fulfilled_.

There are also resources (books, pamphlets, articles, web essays, study committee reports, synodical decisions) here:

Westminster Seminary California clark

I'm giving a series of talks on the FV in our adult class at Oceanside URC. The audio is here:

http://en.wordpress.com/tag/nine-points-of-synod-schereville/

There's more audio on the FV here:

The Heidelcast Heidelblog


----------



## lynnie (Oct 17, 2009)

Dr. Clark, I read your blog. Admittedly you are a lot smarter than me and know a lot more theology than me! But one area I might be waaaaay ahead of you is knowing personally a lot of ex-crazy charismatics! (might be wrong even there!). And you say this: _"The Word is sufficiently perspicuous and the Spirit is sufficiently gracious to his church such that we are able to hear the Word, understand the Word, believe it, and put it into practice." _ 

I have seen this, over and over. My husband and I have a little joke that the holy spirit is Reformed. We have seen people with zero confessional exposure talk about what is going on at their church and what they are reading in the bible, and you realize with this amazing delight that they are being led into truth, with nothing but the Word and the holy spirit. (This is why so many Catholics came out of the RCC in the 60s-70s.)

I can't tell you the number of people who I know who started out in stupidity ( like me!) but by grace ended up with better theology. I believe we are elected and predestined not only to be justified, but to be sanctified and to have our minds renewed. I would suppose the normal means of grace for that is exposure to good Reformed theology, but what if you live overseas and don't speak English? I just hesitate to limit the Holy Spirit's ability to lead us into all the truth if you don't have a set of Calvin's and Owen's works on the shelf. 

I try and read theology all the time myself as I know it is a great privilege to be an American with all these wonderful books. But when I pray for missionaries I think differently. Maybe it is like healing....you hear of these wonderful miracles in the third world, but in the west, the normal means is doctors. So maybe the normal means of grace is more confessional in some places? I don't know. But to go back to the original subject, I am 100% in agreement with at least the John Murray approach of laying out doctrine with impeccable biblial scholarship, not a bunch of quotes from anything or anybody. 

Regarding Shepherd, no, I do NOT blame anybody at all for any subtle FV tendencies that any infused righteousness that happens in our sanctification gives us any merit before God. I do not believe this "bible first" type position leads to that. I believe the opposite. When one grasps grace, and the suffering of Jesus on the cross, one does not end up FV. (and I am not saying by the way that NS is FV, he does not completely say what they say and has some reasonable points to make about what does living faith look like and what is dead faith. But he is vague enough now to not be another John Murray, OK!).

Lastly, your cafeteria complaint. Ironically, you catch me at a time in my life when I am disgusted with confessionalists and am not sure I even want to stay in a Presbyterian church. Surprised? Well, I happen to think that confessionalists pick and choose scripture, and the confession is their ace in the hole to say they are orthodox. They have justifcation by faith down solid, so anything goes. Titus 2 speaks of sound doctrine and women at home, but Mom can leave the babies and toddlers for the career even if they don't need the money.( yes, I know that many things women used to do have been removed from the home, and it is appropriate for a woman to be a nurse or school teacher or various other jobs....but I am talking about a feminist mindset that is just not biblical). Theistic evolution is fine; Adam was born to a primate. They can believe in self esteem psychobabble (admittedly most but not all are more influenced by say CCEF) and be on all manner of antidepressents for their "medical" condition. I happen to think the real cafeteria line is with the confessionalists. And politics and being Republican...don't even get me started.

This is a public board and I don't know who sees it or figures out where I go to church, but I better add that my pastor personally is solid and I am NOT whining about him!!!! But I am whining about the PCA  Please pray for us!!!

By the way, I am a bit nervous in retrospect about any of us criticizing brethren who are still alive, and perhaps the negativity about your seminary was better left unsaid by Frame. And I apologize for my critical remarks about a former WTS prof in my post before.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 17, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Well, I happen to think that confessionalists pick and choose scripture, and the confession is their ace in the hole to say they are orthodox. They have justifcation by faith down solid, so anything goes.


Yikes! I think you have over generalized a wee bit here, no? 

AMR


----------



## lynnie (Oct 17, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> lynnie said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I happen to think that confessionalists pick and choose scripture, and the confession is their ace in the hole to say they are orthodox. They have justifcation by faith down solid, so anything goes.
> ...



Who, me 

I am admittedly in the middle of processing through some things...... A friend whose husband is in leadership in a very large PCA church where things are going on with money and wealth that just don't square with the book of Acts and remembering the poor. Not at all. It is horrible. But they have the confession straight.

A lovely woman I know who has been doing seminars for women at some PCA/OPC churches where there are so many people who feel so dry, so hungry, and the prayer life of the individuals and church seems minimal at best. But they have their vows to the confession straight.

My pastor started a monthly prayer meeting...two of the last five meetings consisted of my husband, me and the pastor. Others were minimally attended. We had a great meeting with the three of us in unity, no doubt about it, and people are busy and have kids, but why is there such a good turnout for banquets and not for prayer meetings? Is that biblical? 

I want the confesion as far as it goes, but does it go to Darwin? Feminism? Modern wealth and retirement at age 65 and what you do with your money? Modern psychology theories of mental illness as disease needing meds? Does the word and sacrament mentality always translate beyond going to services with good liturgy and sacraments and a sound doctrine sermon, to understanding prayer as dependency on God and a means He has ordained (we ask, we petition, we give thanks, He answers). Jack Miller really understood prayer like few others and he got ripped to shreds by some confessionalists. Didn't Jesus say His Father's house was to be called a house of prayer?


I live in admittedly a very cold, hard, liberal area of the USA, so says nearly everybody. I apologize for anything I think that stems from personal, narrow, over generalized experience. But I have to admit I am disillusioned with so called confessional church life to some extent. I don't know what else to do but to keep praying for another great awakening.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Oct 17, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > lynnie said:
> ...



You do realize that PB is a confessional board, no? I am not sure how much leeway one is given to question the confessions, or imply that they are irrelevant to contemporary matters. I believe the confessions are very much relevant to modern affairs. You seem to be struggling with some personal crisis that has brought all these emotions to the surface. If you can, it would help for you to describe what has triggered your angst against the confessions in another thread so as to not derail this one.

AMR


----------



## TimV (Oct 17, 2009)

> But I have to admit I am disillusioned with so called confessional church life to some extent.



Hey, Lynnie. My experience in the PCA was even worse than yours (as I think you know) but the cold hard logic of the case is that if you can find a non-confessional church that displays some of the negative characteristics of the confessional church you go to, then you have to allow that confessionalism is not necessarily related to those negative characteristics.

The OPC here is even more confessional than the local PCA, and the difference is like night and day with those other things. But it would be unwise for me to say that because the OPC is more confessional than the PCA there are less of those negative things.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 17, 2009)

Tim...yes, you are right. I do think as a church in general we need revival. I have wondered aloud at home if we might be better off in the OPC for some reasons given our conservative bent in some areas. For other reasons there is an independent, sort of Baptist (the pastor went to WTS and you don't need to be rebaptized if paedos, and they have drawn in a number of former PCAs there) church to the south of us we had briefly considered. Lots of prayer and missions vision there. But the best thing would be revival in the PCA. 


AMR, I am sorry for any thread drift. I merely meant to sympathize with what seems to be the Frame emphasis that ultimately our appeal when teaching theology is to scripture alone. I am in a confessional church and I do appreciate the confession!! I also agree with you that some things in the confession are relevant to modern affairs, but believe me, not all Presbyterians would agree with the supposed relevant conclusions you or I might draw. 

Yes I have a lot of angst, and I already vented it all to my pastor. He is trying to be faithful in word and prayer and believes that our sovereign God will move if we are faithful. I lack his confidence and am more cynical about the PCA. But perhaps my angst does not belong online here so I apologize for any inappropriate posts. On the plus side I have gotten 3 PMs here with enough book recommendations on this subject to keep me going for a while


----------

