# John Frame Worship in Spirit and Truth



## lwadkins (Apr 25, 2005)

Anyone read this book. It is being promoted within our worship committee and I now have to read it.  Interested in any comments on it.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 25, 2005)

It is one of the worst misrepresentations and disingenious works related to the Regulative Principle of Worship you can find.

Hint: just count how many repeated times Frame uses a certain verse as a prooftext.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It is one of the worst misrepresentations and disingenious works related to the Regulative Principle of Worship you can find.
> 
> Hint: just count how many repeated times Frame uses a certain verse as a prooftext.



Well this would seem to be consistant with our worship committee. 
This means I get to get in more trouble. I've already been told that I don't work well with others (read...I disagreed). The very first meeting after this committee was formed, the moderator (a ruling elder) brought Steve Schlissel materials to convince the committee to reject guidence from the WCF (RPW). When I objected and even had to speak privatly with the elder the issue was dropped. Looks like it wasn't dropped after all.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Apr 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It is one of the worst misrepresentations and disingenious works related to the Regulative Principle of Worship you can find.
> 
> Hint: just count how many repeated times Frame uses a certain verse as a prooftext.



Mr. Greco,
Do you have a book in mind that you would call the best?

CT


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 25, 2005)

Terry Johnson's book on worship is very good.

Jeremiah Burrough's sermons on Worship are also a good foundation for the RPW. Gillespie's Dispute Against English Popish Ceremonies is also good.

Thomas, Duncan and Ryken's Give Praise to God is a worthy modern resource.

If I were looking for a good criticism of the RPW, I would look for a good Lutheran text. 


It is really not helpful to pretend you agree with something, and then totally redefine it so that it is nothing like what the original proposition was.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 26, 2005)

For what it's worth, the forthcoming _The Confessional Presbyterian_ (at the printer now) contains a critique by way of survey of the views of both Professor Frame and Dean R. J. Gore, called "Reframing Presbyterian Worship: A Critical Survey of the Worship Views of John M. Frame and R. J. Gore, " by Frank J. Smith, Ph.D., D.D and David C. Lachman, Ph.D. Being a survey there is much bringing in of what has been said already by others about the published works of these two men, but Dr. Smith also takes a look at Frame's earlier unpublished statements, and Lachman's contribution is a first time critical look at Gore's Ph.D dissertation from which he drew his book _ Covenantal Worship._ Lachman's is probably one of the stand out pieces in my opinion. But there is other material to like in the first issue if that is not your cup of tea. Subscribe to _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal here: http://www.cpjournal.com


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 26, 2005)

Thanks Chris,

I have indeed subscribed to the Confessional Presbyterian and it appears that it will be a very informative and edifying publication. Not sure if it will arrive before the next meeting.

I am the only member of the committee resisting the push for, well I'll use the term "very liberalized," forms of worship. Also where others on the committee have been studying Frame´s book for weeks, I was just informed of the intention to study it (for ideas to incorporate into worship) yesterday. So I lack an ally on the committee to help sharpen my arguments and am very short on time. I hope to be able to construct cogent and convincing arguments (in support of the idea that God cares how he is worshiped) by the time of the meeting. I just started a quick overall perusal of the tome today.

*So gentlemen any input by Puritanboard members will be particularly welcome.*

Ultimately it will be up to the Elders to accept or reject the recommendations, but the majority of the session is essentially sympathetic to this sort of worship. Two of the members sitting on the committee are RE´s that are strong advocates of "œvery liberalized" forms of worship. So it will likely take strong arguments to sway opinion.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> *So gentlemen any input by Puritanboard members will be particularly welcome.*



Lon, if you wanted, I could e-mail you a brief primer I wrote a little while back on Reformed worship, particularly the RPW. The reason I think it may be helpful is that much of it is just looking at biblical examples.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> ...



That would be great Chris, I am trying to go over as much material as I can in the next couple weeks.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 26, 2005)

Lon,
Yea; sorry. I still am waiting on the potential due date for CPJ. Meantime, check out Carl Bogue's tract on Scritural Worship at the link below. Very introductory, but useful. Also check out Dr. Pipa's review of Frame's book.
http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/bogue.htm
http://www.presbyteriannews.org/volumes/v2/4/pipa7.htm


----------



## Poimen (Apr 26, 2005)

It's quite safe to say that if you are quite strong on the RPW (which is good) then you will be against Mr. Frame's thesis (which is bad). I read the book in seminary and I was not all that impressed since he makes a strange mixture of several traditions, with the end or goal ultimately being the exoneration of contemporary worship. His arguments are specious and will really only convince those who already want CCM in their worship service. 
In other words if your session uses any of Frame's arguments I am quite sure (if you are well aware of the RPW) that you will be able to refute them.Read up on Frame's work here (a critique by a RPCNA minister): 

http://www.reformed.com/pub/sola_b.htm 

I think that it can be genuinely stated that those who are in favor of CCM have already given up on the RPW. In other words I have never heard of anyone defending the RPW from a CCM stance.
Perhaps you have already read these, but it will help to boost your immunity against CCM: 

http://www.reformedprescambridge.com/articles/Regulative_Principle.html

In my humble opinion, the RPW is simply the principle of Sola Scriptura applied to worship. If people believe in Sola Scriptura, then they should believe in the RPW. 

Belgic Confession, Article 7: 



> e believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures.



Belgic Confession, Article 32: 



> we reject all human inventions, and all laws which man would introduce into the worship of God, thereby to bind and compel the conscience in any manner whatever. Therefore we admit only of that which tends to nourish and preserve concord and unity, and to keep all men in obedience to God.



[Edited on 4-26-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 4-26-2005 by poimen]


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 26, 2005)

Thanks for links Daniel. Normally I would have more time to collect my thoughts, but I'm going to have to do this quickly in the limited time I have. The resources will help me organize my arguments. Also I have to be rock solid for the moment I open my mouth the feeding frenzy will begin.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> Thanks for links Daniel. Normally I would have more time to collect my thoughts, but I'm going to have to do this quickly in the limited time I have. The resources will help me organize my arguments. Also I have to be rock solid for the moment I open my mouth the feeding frenzy will begin.



You're welcome. BTW, if you have a chance please read Frame's book for the sake of knowing what he actually says. I realize that you don't have alot of time before your meeting but it's always best to use the very words of the person against them. I say this because I personally struggle with books that are out there (Prayer of Jabez, Purpose Driven Life) which I know I will be against and yet isn't it true that if I haven't read them then I probably should not speak too vocally against them?

On the other hand since I understand that the men of your session have read the book, I suggest that you critique Frame via their expression of his views, not what you think his views are. In other words you could you use Schwertley's article as you interact with their views, or their use of Frame's book.



[Edited on 4-26-2005 by poimen]


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 26, 2005)

Daniel,

I agree with what you have said, but let me make one more point: I actually think that Steve Schlissel does a better job on worship than Frame. At least Schlissel is honest, saying that he does not believe in the RPW. Frame's position is analogous to me saying that I love baseball more than football, especially the parts in baseball where you kick the field goal, and sack the quarterback.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 26, 2005)

Actually Schlissel's papers on the RPW and worship were what was presented to the committee a few months ago. Schlissel begins by saying that the RPW is a good thing and seem to be supporting it and later states that it is unbiblical. After some private conversations with the Elder who brought Schlissel's take on the RPW the use of these for study was dropped. That was why I had thought this was in the past.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Daniel,
> 
> I agree with what you have said, but let me make one more point: I actually think that Steve Schlissel does a better job on worship than Frame. At least Schlissel is honest, saying that he does not believe in the RPW. Frame's position is analogous to me saying that I love baseball more than football, especially the parts in baseball where you kick the field goal, and sack the quarterback.



 Agreed.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 26, 2005)

Daniel,

I do indeed plan on reading Frame's book. I have skimmed the first four chapters already and will skim the entire book before giving it an in-depth treatment. Normally when taking something to the worship committee I would spend the entire month organizing my thoughts on the subject, I don't have the luxuary of that much time and reviewing material by others who have taken the time to organize their thoughts on the subject with help me to unjumble mine more quickly. Thanks for the advice


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 26, 2005)

Schlissel, Frame, Gore-- saying one is better is relative; none of them do what they need to do to be a serious work if one wants to overturn a long established doctrine like the Regulative Principle of Worship. Pipa's review of Frame is good at raising significant problems with the book I think, link above.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Daniel,
> 
> Frame's position is analogous to me saying that I love baseball more than football, especially the parts in baseball where you kick the field goal, and sack the quarterback.



ROTFL!!!
That was great!


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 26, 2005)

Just a quick disclaimer here, probably unnecessary as I´m sure each and every one of you would anticipate this:

The people that I work with on the worship committee are loving, bible believing, God fearing, intelligent biblically literate people. I love each and every one of them. Now for the but... I think the biggest issue we have appears in two categories:

1. Confusing Corporate Worship with Evangelistic Outreach.
2. Confusing Corporate Worship with, what I would call, personal and family worship and what John Frame evidently calls "broader worship."

So I would consider them as having the best of intentions but not thinking clearly on the subject.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 26, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> Just a quick disclaimer here, probably unnecessary as I´m sure each and every one of you would anticipate this:
> 
> The people that I work with on the worship committee are loving, bible believing, God fearing, intelligent biblically literate people. I love each and every one of them. Now for the but... I think the biggest issue we have appears in two categories:
> ...



I tried to find an excellent paper on the internet by Lee Irons that I read many years ago. It distinguishes between corporate worship and private. Although I failed to find it, I will provide an excerpt from it (which I quoted in a paper of my own): 

"A proper understanding of the Sabbath is absolutely essential in order to grasp the importance and sanctity of corporate worship. Notice, first of all, that the Sabbath itself implies a distinction between the Lord's holy day (Isaiah 58:13; Rev. 1:10) and the other six days of the week, which, by implication are not holy, not sanctified (Gen. 2:2-3). The other six days are common (Lev. 10:10; Ezek. 22:26; 44:23), and the activities of those days are worldy employments. In saying that the six days are for common and wordly uses, the Scripture is not saying that these uses are sinful or dishonoring to God. Far from it - these worldly activities "are lawful" if done on any other day than the Sabbath, and become sinful only if performed on God's holy day. But to say that they are lawful on other days is to say that they are in conformity with God's will for our lives, and therefore are part of our general duty of glorifying God in all areas of life."

I hope this helps.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 27, 2005)

Lon,

You might also want to bone up on the Standards. The Session has subscribed to these Standards and the RPW is apart of the Standards.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 27, 2005)

Lon:

I would agree with pastor Daniel as well, but I would also add to it. (Thanks Fred, I'll keep my eyes peeled at the next game. ;-) . I would be very careful not to get into a discussion/argument over Frame's or Schlissel's theses or presentations. That is really only a side issue. The topic is what is acceptable in Reformed worship, not siding with proponents of different views. As Wayne said, bone up on official Church standards. Then you can appreciate Fred's metaphor a bit better: I think he hit the bullseye.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 27, 2005)

Like WCF 20 and 21!


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 27, 2005)

Add 22 for good measure!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 27, 2005)

Certainly! Why go halfway? might as well get Lon into real trouble with his elders.


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 27, 2005)

Lon's a big boy. He can handle it


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 27, 2005)

Fred - have you dialogued with Doc Frame on your concerns with his book ?


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> Fred - have you dialogued with Doc Frame on your concerns with his book ?



No, I'm just a peon. And after all, Joey Pipa has the same concerns (see Chris Coldwell's link) that were made public.

Derek Thomas also engages Frame a bit in _Give Praise to God_


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 28, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Certainly! Why go halfway? might as well get Lon into real trouble with his elders.



Well there is good trouble and there is bad trouble.

If I am in trouble for defending what I believe to be the truest representation of God's truth (historical reformed theology). Then that is good trouble even though it is at times stressful.

Some caricatures are almost unavoidable when defending historical reformed doctrine.

1.	You read those Puritans who were nasty, prudish, narrow minded...well the best word to describe them would be puritanical! 
2.	You give credence to the WCF which is a creation of men and therefore you are unbiblical in your respect for it. 
3.	You are closed minded because you are unable to learn from other traditions. This one I find particularly humorous. It assumes closed mindedness because I believe that the reformed tradition has it right and I resist brining all kinds of practices to our church from other traditions. I came from those other traditions! If I was close minded I would never have come out of them. :bigsmile:
4.	If your worship is based on principles expounded in the WCF (and the Bible I might add) then your worship has "œcobwebs" and if you support these old fashioned, dated practices then your are living in the past.
5.	On and on and on, add your own that you have run into and many that aren´t coming to mind at the moment. 

The point is that you can´t avoid a lot of this no matter how respectful, humble and loving you are when you ask questions about peoples biases (presuppositions?  ). So I am satisfied with stating the truth of Scripture and letting God do the convincing. I do feel however that I need to be careful in brining these truths to our worship committee that I do so thoroughly and as non confrontationally as possible which means I have to have my thoughts as orderly and prepared as I am able.

This is why (although I think I could give a good defense of my positions off the cuff) I feel that I need to have all my ducks in a row. The quickest way to organize my thoughts on this particular subject is to scan the thoughts of some others (Pipa for example) and use these resources as a framework for my thoughts. 

So its not that I have no understanding of the ideas involved but I want to construct the strongest arguments possible in the limited time.

And in that vein, thank you all for your input and the links to good resources.  Don´t hesitate to pass along any thoughtful arguments which are anti-RPW (I may not be aware of them and am likely to be presented with such ) as this will help me prepare for cross-examination!

Just a quick note, our church was not always such as it is now. At the time we joined the church; the pastor was a faithful expositor of God's word and held closely to reformed distinctives. He was instrumental in helping me and my family better understand the Doctrines of Grace and particularly the covenantal nature of God's soteriology. As the makeup of the congregation changed the pastor came under increased criticism. Primarily the criticisms centered on the fact that he was not charismatic enough in his preaching, he focused too much on the law (preaching the law at all was considered legalism by his critics  ), and he quoted too much from those puritans. The criticism became intense so he did what a pastor should do, he went to his session. Their response to the problem was to issue a report with three pages of changes that he should make to his preaching methods...* three pages!* At this point he was so discouraged that he finally resigned. 

So, as all this plays out, I can't tell you how grateful I am for the fellowship and scholarship of my brothers and sisters here on the PB. The encouragement, exhortation, aid, and Christian love that reside here are a big part of God's provision and preservation of my family and myself during this time.


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Lon,
> 
> You might also want to bone up on the Standards. The Session has subscribed to these Standards and the RPW is apart of the Standards.



That was the approach I used when one Elder brought Steve Schlissel's material to support his objections to the RPW and WCF. I suggested that he go back to the session and express his objections there. It was at this point he dropped the whole issue, for at time anyway. Interestingly it was at the meeting when he introduced the Schlissel material (and indicated his opinion that the RPW was invalid and the WCF was the work of men and therefore we should not give it much creedence) that one of the members suggested that we didn't need an ordained Teaching Elder to preside over the Lord's Supper but one of our RE's could do it (we being without a TE). Just goes to show what happens when you begin to attack the standards of the chuch you give licence to others to do the same.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 29, 2005)

Lon,
And perhaps it indicates the problems with worship committees made up of church members doing the work of the elders too! That of course raises the issue of things as they should be rather than things as they are; but my  For what it's worth.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It is one of the worst misrepresentations and disingenious works related to the Regulative Principle of Worship you can find.
> 
> Hint: just count how many repeated times Frame uses a certain verse as a prooftext.



Editorial observation: Fred hates Frame!


----------



## crhoades (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Nah...it's just a Jackson vs. Orlando thing. 

Kidding! kidding!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 29, 2005)

It shouldn't be a question of hate; not sure that is appropriate to say even with a smile. Frame simply stakes out a difficult position to accept by anyone who looks seriously at this subject. Even those who do so and reject the RPW find it difficult to accept Frame at face value when he states that he holds to the Westminster Confession's view of the RPW, but rejects certain Puritan accretions (he does this I guess with a straight face all the while redefining every term in sight). From that stand point folks find R. J. Gore more credible of an RPW critic, at least on the surface, in his outright rejecting the principle, because he at least understands that the Puritan view of worship IS the Westminster view. Both Gore and Frame come in for some critical handling in a survey of their writings that will appear in the forthcoming 2005 _The Confessional Presbyterian._ http://www.cpjournal.com


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Correction #1: I do not hate, I find his writing unhelpful and at times disingenuous.

Correction #2: One of the main reasons that #1 is the case, is because I read _Worship in Spirit and in Truth_. It was the first Frame book I read.


----------



## kevin.carroll (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> ...



I was kidding, of course. Tell me Fred, would you find it helpful for me to read Frame or Give Praise to God first? The latter I have already (unread...hey, Summer is coming).


----------



## lwadkins (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by NaphtaliPress_
> Lon,
> And perhaps it indicates the problems with worship committees made up of church members doing the work of the elders too! That of course raises the issue of things as they should be rather than things as they are; but my  For what it's worth.



I agree Chris. Originally the committee was to take a look at worship and report to the session on whether we felt the session should make any changes or if our worship service was faithful and God fearing. (At least that is how I heard it). Since that time the worship committee it seems will become a permanent committee. I do not see the need for this. It is one thing to help the session by reporting on worship, quite another to have a standing committee recommending changes to worship just to justify its existence. This has become something quite different from what I was led to believe it would be.


----------



## JohnV (Apr 29, 2005)

Just my opinion, Lon, but it seems to me that once the RPW is out of the way, then the committee becomes the RPW; but you really can't not have a RPW of some sort.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by lwadkins_
> 
> 3. You are closed minded because you are unable to learn from other traditions. This one I find particularly humorous. It assumes closed mindedness because I believe that the reformed tradition has it right and I resist brining all kinds of practices to our church from other traditions. I came from those other traditions! If I was close minded I would never have come out of them.



This is exactly how I feel about it. Why would I want to integrate those practices I so desperately wanted to leave behind? It's like a hippy joining the military and trying to keep his long hair with the uniform.


----------

