# Errors of John M. Frame ???



## Mayflower (Feb 27, 2006)

Sometimes i have been reading different views concerning John M. Frame. Because i don't know much about him, can someone explain me why some don't like him, and if has some serious errors ?


----------



## Casey (Feb 27, 2006)

Disclaimer: I have not read any of his books! (But I plan to . . .)

I think at least one thing controversial about him is that he has offered criticism of the traditional view of the regulative principle of worship.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> Disclaimer: I have not read any of his books! (But I plan to . . .)
> 
> I think at least one thing controversial about him is that he has offered criticism of the traditional view of the regulative principle of worship.



I get in trouble every time I comment on John's theology publicly, so I'll be circumspect, but folks have criticized the following in JMF's theology: 

1. His s definition of theology (as application) (though this has precedent in Ames and Edwards),

2. His theological method ("tri-perspectivalism"), 

3. His claim that we can know God "in himself," (not something the Reformed have taught),

4. His claim that God is both one person and three persons, 

5. His application of the RPW to every area of life so that it ceases to have a distinct function in regulating worship, 

6. His criticism/rejection of the traditional/confessional application of the 2nd commandment to pictures of God the Son incarnate, 

7. His criticism/rejection/revision of the traditional Protestant law/gospel distinction and his support for elements of Norm Shepherd's doctrine of justification and apparent support for the FV.

He has written widely on theological method (he has a new intro to theology out), on apologetics, the doctrine of God, worship and ecumenics.

rsc


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian_
> ...



Dear Mr. Scott,

These things that you wrote, are they all things which many reformed theologions have disagree with John Frame ? So is he still orthodox reformed in his theology ? Is he still trustfull to read ?


----------



## JohnV (Feb 27, 2006)

I don't want to get you into any troubly, Dr. Clark, but could you elaborate one each of these just a bit, please? If you choose not to, it is quite understandable, and I will respect that. Thank you.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 27, 2006)

I disagree with Frame on the following:
1) Music.
2) Transcendental Argument. I sdie with Bahnsen onthis one. Do you know what Bahnsen's last words to Frame were? "John, you're just wrong on the transcendental argument!" Frame told that at Bahnsen's funeral and everybody roared with laughter!


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> ...



Well, John is always interesting to read, but I take it you mean "trustworthy," (vertrouwen in Nederlands). He is a minister in good standing in a confessional Presbyterian denomination. He is a professor at an orthodox Calvinist seminary. He is widely admired in Reformed circles.

For what it's worth, I have significant problems with some of what John proposes regarding the doctrine of God. I think he and CVT erred, for different reasons, in saying "one person, three persons." This is not an ecumenical or catholic or biblical formula. 

I think John's re-formulation of the RPW is not confessional or biblical. The RPW has never been applied to all of life indiscriminately. It was never intended to function that way.

I think John is rather confused when he says that we can know God "in himself." This is not a Reformed or biblical way of speaking. We only know God as he reveals himself to us. Accommodated revelation is not God "in himself." 

His rejection of Reformed ethics re the 2nd commandment, though very popular, does not commend itself to anyone who wants to be confessional in their reading of Scripture.

That said, I think his volume on Apologetics (to the Glory of God) was helpful and I've benefited from his work on CVT (though I realize many do not think him completely faithful to CVT's apologetics). His critique of Open Theism was helpful and generally well done, though he makes a concession to Op Th that I would not.

I think if John would write only apologetics there would be less controversy. Doubtless he would say that if I stuck to history (!) everyone would be better off. 

I think John should be read with a Bible in one hand (he would agree) and a confession in the other (which I guess means putting John's book on the bookstand in the middle).

rsc


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 27, 2006)

Thanks Mr. R. Scott Clark for the clarification ? (Ps: yes i mean ""vertrouwen")


----------



## Mayflower (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I disagree with Frame on the following:
> 1) Music.
> 2) Transcendental Argument. I sdie with Bahnsen onthis one. Do you know what Bahnsen's last words to Frame were? "John, you're just wrong on the transcendental argument!" Frame told that at Bahnsen's funeral and everybody roared with laughter!



Dear Jacob,

Can you maybe explain in a few words (if it is possible?) what his view is on music and the transcendental argument ?


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Mayflower_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> ...



His views on music have been discussed elsewhere on the board by people more competent than I am. 

Now for the transcendental argument for the existence of the Christian God (taken from _Apologetics to the Glory of God_, pages 70-74): 
The argument generally runs: Only Christian Theism (and the Christian God) can provide the preconditions for intelligiblity. In other words, if God didn't exist, knowledge would be impossible. That is an over simplified version.

Frame has a few caveats:
1) Can this work by itself apart from the traditional arguments? He says no. I say yes. The traditional arguments by and large are logical fallacies and prove a god less than the Christian one.

2) He says that the traditional arguments often work because they presuppose a Christian worldview. Of course! That is the thrust of Van Til. The problem is: They deny that they are presupposing a Christian worldview. They should admit that they are presuppositionalists. 

3) Frame says that the whole of Christian theism is not necessarily proven by one argument. This is tricky, here. Van Til says Christian theism is proven wiht one argument, because we are proving Christian theism as a unit. 

5) His next two objections follow from the above one: If we grant the transcendental argument, does that prove Trinity, aseity, etc.? Well, we go back to "Christianity as a unit, a system." But this is taking it to the next level. 

My Conclsuion: A lot of Frame's objections are to the effect: We can't expect it to be a "silver bullet" argument magically winning the day, because people will follow up with quesitons about Christianity." Good. Just because they aren't persuaded doesn't mean the argument isn't right. Persuasion =/= proof.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 27, 2006)

The heart of the matter is this:
The Transcendental argument is first a negative one: Christianity is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. All other worldviews are false. Does that therefore mean Christianity is true? Frame says no. Bahnsen/Butler say yes. 

A TAG looks like this: 
For x to be the case, y must first be the case because y must be the necessary precondition of x.
X is the case;
Therefore, y is the case.

Let x = logic; y = the existence of God

For logic to be the case, God must exist because logic must have a worldview or a network of assumptions that make it valid.
Logic is possible
God exists

In the nature of the case, no two transcendentals can be equally valid. Even non-Christian philosophers grant this point. For example, it cannot be logically true that the Christian worldview and X worldview both provide the preconditions of intelligibility.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 27, 2006)

However,
I say all of the above in the context of: John Frame has been a tremedous asset to presuppositional apologetics and Van Tillian studies. The above criticisms should not detract from the admiration and affection I have for him and his work.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 4. His claim that God is both one person and three persons,


I don't want to get into a wrestling match with you on this issue but this blurb is a little surprising. I've read _The Doctrine of God_ and that seems too pithy a way to sum up what he's saying. I confess that I don't completely follow all the arguments as my theological understanding of the history of such discussions regarding the Godhead is still growing.

That said, I cannot recall where Dr. Frame ever says: "God is both one person and three persons." His formula is stated a bit differently like God is One and God is Three.

I thought I'd have to consult my copy of _The Doctrine of God_ but then remembered that Dr. Frame was kind enough to send me a few notes he had written on the subject of the Trinity about a year ago when I contacted him and thanked him for his work.

I've attached the notes on the Trinity that he provided. The discussion is not as full-orbed as in the book but it would help me understand your critique of his understanding of the Trinity if the problems "pop out" immediately in this short treatment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 27, 2006)

This is from _Van Til: An Analysis of his Thought_

If the three persons (individually and collectively) exhaust the divine essence (are "co-terminous" with it), then the divine essence must be personal. And if God is an absolute person, and he is one, there *must be a sense* in which he is one person.
Page, 68.

Doug Jones writes,


> Van Til is not offering a novel doctrine at all, but, apparently, (NAME CHANGED TO PROTECT THE NON-INNOCENT) devotion to Aristotelian principles blinds him to this fact. Person X fails to distinguish the meaning of "œperson" in the technical sense of the Nicene Creed from Van Til´s more modern usage. Van Til never parts from the traditional formula that God is one in one sense and three in another. In Van Til´s usage of "œperson" we see that Scripture does speak of God as a person without mentioning the distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit: God thinks (Ps 33:11), plans (Gen 41:32), loves (Ps. 91:14), creates (Gen 1:1), judges (Isa. 28:16, 17) , and speaks (Ex. 20:1).
> 
> Moreover, the Westminster Confession declares famously that "œThere is but one only living and true God, who is"¦most wise, most holy, working all things to the counsel of his own"¦will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, "¦.the rewarder of them that diligently seek him"¦" (Chap. II, I---my emphasis).


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Feb 27, 2006)

Thanks Jacob. I think that's my point. He's not trying to change a Confession or Creed here. 

Likewise, I believe Frame is only trying to show *a sense* of something. He talks around the Trinity in his lengthy treatment and keeps approaching it, reverantly, from many different angles. I think his respect of the mystery is evident as his affirmation of the threeness and oneness of God. I think one of his points is that it's not always as "cut and dry" as some assume by just saying "Oh, He's One in Being and Three in Person." There is a real tension that is hard to get your brain wrapped around.

The above quote demonstrates how even the WCF uses personal pronouns when referring to the one God. Why not say "...working all things to the counsel of the Godhead's will...?" I even feel the tension when I'm praying to God. I start out praying to the Father but then address God very personally as a single "person" when I'm thanking God for what He has done for me (He who? The Father, Son, or Spirit). I don't think I'm trying to be a heretic when I pray and I think such prayers flow out naturally.

I know I'm rambling but I just see Frame as spending a good amount of time describing the Trinity and the "sense of one person" is but a single aspect of the whole thing. If you read the full treatment, his discussion on the Trinity is very edifying. I finished reading it and it just caused me to be stunned in wonder at the Godhead. I highly recommend Frame for that reason (he's also easy to read).

BTW, I wanted to agree with Dr. Clark that he does a great job of dealing with Open Theism. In fact, one of the reasons I bought _The Doctrine of God_ is because it becomes a great Apologetic resource to refute a number of theological errors. His refutation of libertine free will is superb, for instance.

[Edited on 2-28-2006 by SemperFideles]


----------



## Bryan (Feb 27, 2006)

> I think if John would write only apologetics there would be less controversy.



Since I've only read Frame on Apologetics for the most part (Apologetics To The Glory of God, and am currently read DKG) he's in my good books. 

I'm not sure if I agree with Frame or Bahnsen on a Transadental argument. It wasn't until this last month after reading the sections in Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" that I began to understand the difference so I will need to think on it more. The nice thing about that particular debate, at least as I have seen, is that both sides respect each other's position (I seem to remember Bahnsen commenting in the book that Frame offers the best critism of Van Til and Frame speaks highly of Bahnsen) and can work together...which unfortinitly isn't that common.

Bryan
SDG


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 27, 2006)

Frame's _Doctrine of God_ is supposed to have the finest refutation of libertarian free will. I have it, but haven't had the time to really dig in yet.


----------



## JohnV (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> For what it's worth, I have significant problems with some of what John proposes regarding the doctrine of God. I think he and CVT erred, for different reasons, in saying "one person, three persons." This is not an ecumenical or catholic or biblical formula.
> 
> I think John's re-formulation of the RPW is not confessional or biblical. The RPW has never been applied to all of life indiscriminately. It was never intended to function that way.
> ...


I don't read much from him, and can't say that I understand him, but you've got to give him credit for having the courage to be consistent. He and I would disagree on the RPW, but I disagree with modern Presbyterianism on that too. At least Dr. Frame takes it to its logical end. I would believe that a minister who preaches the Framework Hypothesis is in contravention, first and foremost, of the RPW; modern Presbyterianism doesn't. It believes that the RPW applies to those who are regulated, but that the regulators are exempt in as far as they are separate in their offices from the regular folk. They too are confined to singing only the Psalms, because the entire congregation is confined; they worship together, not separately. But if they choose to exempt themselves in their offices by ruling and preaching what God did not send them to rule and preach, and not be in contravention of it thereby, and also still be in compliace with their offices, then that is their right. 

Dr. Frame extends that boundary, quite logically, beyond the worship service. If it is regarded as only for the informal, the unordained, then why is the formal worship service the boundary line for it? I think he is only being consistent here. Wrong, but no less wrong than modern Presbyterianism, only more consistent.

And as far as knowledge of God is concerned, according to modern Presbyterianism, no one is saying that someone who preaches the FH is a heretic, so it is not a matter of right or wrong. Those who believe that it is in error cannot really say that God did not mean that, just as those who claim it to be the Biblical view cannot really say that He did mean that. Nor is it being said that such men have a licence to preach as what God said, whether He said it or not; the churches are not saying that he is breaking the RPW. That leaves only one option left for not judging him who preaches the FH: he has an inside track, a direct line to God. He knows God "in Himself" somehow. That is the only thing that is left that makes sense. 

So Frame is just being more consistent than modern Presbyterianism. Even if he's wrong, he cannot be any more wrong than the church he represents. He's just being more consistent, that's all.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 28, 2006)

To my knowledge Frame doesn't teach FH. Now, he might not be a full-blown Confessional Creationist, but I know he is quite critical of Meredith Kline and tries to keep his distance. But then again, if you can show me something he wrote to the contrary, I stand corrected.


----------



## AdamM (Feb 28, 2006)

Could someone define and flesh out tri-perspectivalism?

Also, are there any sources on the web where I could find Dr. Frame's lectures in mp3?

Thanks!


----------



## JohnV (Feb 28, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> To my knowledge Frame doesn't teach FH. Now, he might not be a full-blown Confessional Creationist, but I know he is quite critical of Meredith Kline and tries to keep his distance. But then again, if you can show me something he wrote to the contrary, I stand corrected.



Jacob:

I hope you didn't misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Frame holds to or teaches the FH. All I was saying is that if such things are allowed in his denomination, then his views on the RPW and on knowing God are only logical. He himself doesn't have to believe in the FH, only in the right of someone who does believe in it to preach it. If this is so, and he goes along with his denomination on this, even if he's a six-day-er, then he is only being consistent. Then he is absolutely right, the RPW does extend into the workweek, and these people who are preaching the FH do have an open channel to God Himself. Where else would they get the authority to preach their own views? It's certainly not a Reformation concept; in fact, its the opposite of what Reformation theology teaches concerning the limitations of preaching the Word. 

So, again, I am not suggesting that he holds to or teaches the FH. I'm just using the FH as an example. There are many more such issues. FV is also one right now. All I'm saying is that his denomination, which allows men to preach their own views, is using the same ruling and understanding on knowing God and on the RPW that he is, only he is being more consistent.


----------

