# John Frame - saving faith is an obedient faith



## biblelighthouse (Apr 9, 2006)

This may be old news to the rest of you, but I just stumbled across this article by John Frame:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2004SandlinForward.htm


In this article, Frame affirms that saving faith is an *"obedient faith (James 2:14-26), not a dead faith"*.


I do not think it is a problem for Frame to say this, any more than I think it is a problem for Wilson to say this. Nevertheless, I grant that many people have falsely mistaken this type of language for a sort of RC soteriology. But of course, all this language really says is that saving faith can be _identified_ by its good works, even though those works themselves did not contribute to salvation. This is Protestant through and through.

But, enough of what I think about Frame's article . . . what do the rest of you think about it?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts about John Frame.


Would you agree with me that Frame is a dear brother in Christ? 

Or are there some of you on this board who are prepared to call John Frame a heretic?

I'm curious . . .


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 9, 2006)

> That phrases like "œanother gospel" and "œdenial of the gospel" are slung around so recklessly in our circles these days, I think, brings great grief to our Lord and greatly damages the cause of Christ.



Ditto. Heretic is a meaningless term nowadays. Frame has the audacity to think that he knows better than self-appointed internet heretic hunters.


----------



## turmeric (Apr 9, 2006)

Less Internet, more book-larnin' folks, especially from the Bible! I need to heed my own advice!


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 10, 2006)

> Would you agree with me that Frame is a dear brother in Christ?
> 
> Or are there some of you on this board who are prepared to call John Frame a heretic?
> 
> I'm curious . . .



I don´t know from that piece whether Frame can be thought of as a false brother and/or a false teacher along with Norm Shepherd whom Frame defends, but I do know that Frame should be publically and forcefully rebuked for his defense of such men. Paul opposed Peter to his face for his tacit support of the Judiazers. Frame´s defense of Shepherd is explicit and unambiguous. It is disgraceful. 

Frame writes:


> There is room for debate as to whether the New Testament teaches this doctrine [the imputation of Christ´s righteousness to believers] explicitly.



I can see this didn´t even cause Joseph pause. So what if the doctrine of impuation is not taught explicitly? Is there room for debate whether the NT teaches the doctrine of imputation implicitly? Aren´t Christians commanded to believe not only what is explicitly set down in Scripture, plus all those things necessarily deduced and implied in Scripture too? Of course, Frame is wrong. The doctrine of imputation is _explicitly_ taught in a number of places in the NT, including in James; "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." Can there really be any room for debate that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ´s active obedience is clearly taught in Scripture? Frame thinks so, which, frankly, makes everything else he has to say suspect. Perhaps Frame thinks there is room for debate concerning the doctrine of the Trinity too? 

Frame asserts:


> If we believe that someone is excluded from the kingdom of God, we had better be prepared to make a strong case.



Perhaps Frame in his arrogance believes that only he and whomever he sees fit is able to make such a determination. Well, contrary to Frame´s pathetic and shameful apology of Shepherd, the case has been made many times against Shepherd and only a blind man could fail to see it. 




> That phrases like "œanother gospel" and "œdenial of the gospel" are slung around so recklessly in our circles these days, I think, brings great grief to our Lord and greatly damages the cause of Christ.



The great grief and damage to the cause of Christ is that men of power and influence like Frame continue to make excuses when confronted by the false gospel of men like Shepherd and continue to lead men into inaction and doubt. The immediate affront of Frame's piece is that he thinks the doctrine of imputation is even up for debate. No wonder he defends Shepherd. Shameful.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 10, 2006)

Whatever we think of Frame, a public message board is not the proper place to rebuke (if needed) an ordained minister in good standing of a bible-believing denomination.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Whatever we think of Frame, a public message board is not the proper place to rebuke (if needed) an ordained minister in good standing of a bible-believing denomination.



Great care should be taken before publicly rebuking any person. However, that Frame is a "minister in good standing of a bible-believing denomination" makes it all the more important that he be rebuked publicly. He is a public person, presuming to be a leader in God's Church, responsible for preserving the doctrine of Christ. If he teaches any false doctrine, then everyone should be made aware of it in as public a fashion as possible, especially if his denomination is not inclined to discipline or correct him.

Should we hesitate to speak out against the teachings of the Church of Rome? What about those in the PCUSA? Should we be less diligent when it comes to teachers in reformed circles, or more?


----------



## turmeric (Apr 10, 2006)

This is WAY too bad! We should pray for him.


----------



## bradofshaw (Apr 10, 2006)

> I look forward to hearing your thoughts about John Frame.
> 
> 
> Would you agree with me that Frame is a dear brother in Christ?
> ...



I agree with Frame that we need to stop slinging the term "heretic" around so carelessly.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by bradofshaw_
> 
> 
> > I look forward to hearing your thoughts about John Frame.
> ...



I agree. Can you give an example of the careless use of the term?


----------



## bradofshaw (Apr 10, 2006)

I believe this has been posted here before. Not saying I stand by all of it, but he has a good point.

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2003Machen.htm

It is one thing to be critical of someone's theology. It is another to pronounce someone a heretic. I feel that is the responsibility of a church court.


Edit: I should preface this by saying I'm neither terribly learned on the issues involved, nor am I in the trenches fighting this battle intellectually. I understand and respect those who are earnestly seeking to uphold truths on this issue, and I don't have much more to add on the topic at hand. It's not my position to upbraid anyone here. However, I do find Frame's mindset a to be a reasonable starting point to any discussion of orthodoxy.

[Edited on 4-10-2006 by bradofshaw]


----------



## rmwilliamsjr (Apr 10, 2006)

*Perhaps Frame in his arrogance believes that only he and whomever he sees fit is able to make such a determination.*

as one who has had the great pleasure of being in a classroom with John Frame teaching, i am amazed to see the word arrogance in the same sentence with his name. For in many ways, he is the mildest, most self-effacing brilliant man i have ever met. how anyone gets arrogance from either his writings or his demeanor is well beyond my imagination. all i can think is that this poster doesn't know either the man nor his thinking.


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 10, 2006)

> how anyone gets arrogance from either his writings or his demeanor is well beyond my imagination. all i can think is that this poster doesn't know either the man nor his thinking.



It doesn´t take a church court to see that Norm Shepherd has denied the truth of the gospel, which is by faith alone. If anything the courts have failed in their duty as O. Palmer Robertson documents in great detail in his book, _The Current Justification Controversy_. Most recently, this complete failure has evidenced itself again in the OPC´s dismal handling of the John Kinnaird case. Frame´s arrogance is in his assumption because he can see nothing wrong with Shepherd´s denial of the Gospel it follows that the Gospel has not been denied. Frame´s arrogance is in his belief that there is "œroom for debate" concerning the doctrine of the imputation of Christ´s righteousness.


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 10, 2006)

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> Less Internet, more book-larnin' folks, especially from the Bible! I need to heed my own advice!


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Apr 11, 2006)

How about you all e-mail him ? He's very humble and very accessible: [email protected] . I've dialogued with him several times in the past.


----------



## crhoades (Apr 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> How about you all e-mail him ? He's very humble and very accessible: [email protected] . I've dialogued with him several times in the past.


----------



## Magma2 (Apr 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by OS_X_
> How about you all e-mail him ? He's very humble and very accessible: [email protected] . I've dialogued with him several times in the past.



To what purpose? He's made it clear where he stands and why on the current justification controversy in the link provided above and in a number of other public statements where he has defended Shepherd and other proponents of the Neo-Liberalism of the FV. Do you really think a letter from me will change his mind when he clearly rejects the analysis of men like O. Palmer Robertson, John Robbins, Robert Reymond, Calvin Beisner, Paul Elliot and many more? His apparent "œhumility" aside, I confess I have very little respect for a man who a number of years ago, and in defense of his mentor C. Van Til, wrote; "œ. . . .the doctrine of justification by faith incorporates the paradox of divine sovereignty. The doctrine of justification by faith "“ when fully explained in its relations to the rest of Scriptural truth "“ is just as paradoxical as divine sovereignty." No wonder he defends men who speak out of both sides of their mouths concerning the central doctrine of the Christian faith, justification by belief alone. In Frame´s perspectivalistic babble there is evidently no doctrine of the faith that isn´t up for debate.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by turmeric_
> > Less Internet, more book-larnin' folks, especially from the Bible! I need to heed my own advice!



I disagree. God's primary gift to the church is internet commandoes, taking upon themselves the dangerous job of exposing, but never publically debating, heretics.


----------



## Civbert (Apr 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> ...



Attacking Frame's critics with snipes is a good way to undermine the critics without having to defending anything Frame says. Well done. 

(Yes, that was sarcasm in case you're wondering.)


----------



## crhoades (Apr 11, 2006)

Since noone is discussing the actual piece by Frame and instead discussing the man and his career and has degenerated...

Thread Closed for business.


----------



## crhoades (Apr 12, 2006)

I got the below U2U from Caddy. He contacted John Frame about this thread and received a response as others had pointed out he would. I will let John Frame have the last word on this matter. 

But before I do, brothers and sisters, let us all pray, meditate, repent, seek forgiveness of all of our conduct at times on this board. We throw peoples names about on this board all the time and are judging them and their thoughts. I won't be accused of (hopefully) being wishy washy and relativistic on matters of doctrine but we really should respect those that are ordained and have given their life over to overseeing God's flock. That doesn't mean that we can't interact with their thought and even offer critiques, however we should do everything with humility and love seeking unity. The gosple and grace applies to Christians too! 

This is the second thread that has generated more heat than light regarding teachers of the gospel in recent memory. I am thinking also of the James White debacle. We've all spent a lot of time on this board and community and I would like to think this trend ends now. 

On a personal note...Caddy, thank you for taking the time and thought to contact John Frame in order to give him a chance to respond.

If anyone has any questions regarding the handling of this thread, please U2U me or another admin or moderator.
________________________________________________________
Chris

I received the following reply from Dr. Frame concerning the comments on this board. Seeing that you had already closed the thread, I thought I would forward along his comments to those accusations and leave it up to you whether or not you feel you would like to post his response to those points.

God Bless

Steve
________________________________________________________
His Response:



Steve, I can´t get into the hassle of registering, logging in, etc. I´m not very literate about such things, and it usually takes me a half-hour at least to figure it all out. And I certainly don´t intend to become a regular member of this particular group! 

I will put some comments below, and if you want to share them with the "œBoard" you may. 

I am 67 years old and most of you, I suspect, are young enough to be my children or grandchildren. Some of you, therefore, need to give some attention to 1 Tim. 5:1, if not to the broader biblical teachings about how we should deal with one another in the body of Christ. In this discussion the epithets and invective have really gotten out of hand. 


My article was neither fully pro-Shepherd nor fully anti-Shepherd. I was trying to do some analysis and to encourage thoughtful discussion, to move beyond the predictable partisan positions. This particular thread adds nothing to that discussion. 


My present comments will be my only contribution to this discussion. I don´t intend to get into any back-and forth. I don´t have the time, and I don´t think this conversation is likely to get anywhere. 


"œOr are there some of you on this board who are prepared to call John Frame a heretic?" Judgments of heresy are for the church, not for internet "œboards." People making such judgments should be qualified to make them and accountable to a church body. I suspect those conditions have not been met by some of those in the present discussion. (Thanks, Jacob Aitken.) 


"œThe doctrine of imputation is explicitly taught in a number of places in the NT, including in James; "And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." Can there really be any room for debate that the doctrine of the imputation of Christ´s active obedience is clearly taught in Scripture?" The person making this comment shows that he has no understanding of the issue. This verse says nothing about the imputed active righteousness of Christ. It says that Abraham´s believing was imputed to him for righteousness. If we are going to talk about the imputed active righteousness of Christ, we must go to other passages. And if you´re going to talk about James 2:23, you need to take verse 24 also into consideration. 


"œFrame´s arrogance is in his assumption because he can see nothing wrong with Shepherd´s denial of the Gospel it follows that the Gospel has not been denied. Frame´s arrogance is in his belief that there is "œroom for debate" concerning the doctrine of the imputation of Christ´s righteousness." I gather from this that I am arrogant because (1) I think my own view is correct (On that basis everybody´s view of everything is arrogant.) and (2) because I agree with Shepherd on some points. (2), I guess, implies that one cannot defend Shepherd without arrogance. That is to say, that it is not possible to distinguish between an arrogant and a non-arrogant defense of Shepherd. That seems odd to me. Arrogance is an attitude, not a point of view. I can distinguish between arrogant and non-arrogant critiques of Shepherd. Why can´t you distinguish between arrogant and non-arrogant defenses? I think that the word arrogant is not being rightly used here. 


"œHis apparent "œhumility" aside, I confess I have very little respect for a man who a number of years ago, and in defense of his mentor C. Van Til, wrote; "œ. . . .the doctrine of justification by faith incorporates the paradox of divine sovereignty. The doctrine of justification by faith "“ when fully explained in its relations to the rest of Scriptural truth "“ is just as paradoxical as divine sovereignty." No wonder he defends men who speak out of both sides of their mouths concerning the central doctrine of the Christian faith, justification by belief alone. In Frame´s perspectivalistic babble there is evidently no doctrine of the faith that isn´t up for debate." Sorry, but I don´t have the time to go back and revisit the issues that occasioned the 1976 pamphlet quoted here. I just want to assure readers that "œparadox" here does not mean what Gerety (and Robbins, and Crampton, and all) think it means. The article explains it as well as I can explain it now. If you are worried about this, you should look at the context, http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1976VanTil.htm . Certainly, Van Til cannot be accused of relativism or heresy, nor can my defense of his position. If you are worried about whether he and I have abandoned logic, please consult http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2005Logic.htm. 


So long. 



John Frame

[Edited on 4-12-2006 by crhoades]


----------

