# Frame's new book on R2K



## TimV (Dec 23, 2011)

Has anyone read Frame's book on Westminster West theology?

http://www.amazon.com/Escondido-Theology-Reformed-Response-Kingdom/dp/1937300005


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 23, 2011)

No, but it looks intriguing...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 23, 2011)

Doesn't a person have to be Reformed before they can critique from a Reformed position? John Frame? I am still reeling from his endorsement of 'Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy'. Could it be he is just grinding his axe?


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 23, 2011)

Sounds very interesting.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 23, 2011)

From the Amazon description:


> But they are not simply Reformed; they hold views that are quite distinctive, unusual and controversial. In Dr. Frame s view, these positions are not standard Reformed theology. None of their distinctive positions is taught in any of the Reformed confessions. These positions are an idiosyncratic kind of teaching peculiar to the Escondido school. Those who teach them are a faction, even a sect.


I would say that this also describes Dr. Frame on especially the RPW and the 2nd Commandment. If you've ever listened to his lecture on the WLC, you will actually be surprised more by when he actually agrees with it because he spends so much time pointing out where it is wrong.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 23, 2011)

There are probably better resources to be found. As I mentioned before shouldn't someone who is Reformed give a Reformed critique? I am no fan of R2K and I sense that there will be better things written that will shed more light than heat. As I mentioned before I am still reeling by Dr. Frame's endorsement of 'Within the bounds of Orthodoxy' which I don't think he has withdrawn his endorsement. Dr. Frame has some Confessional issues to deal with in my estimation before he critiques other brothers. And the WSCal guys are our brothers. I do cringe at the R2K stuff and their Klinean theology but I am not so sure that a critique from Frame will be any more beneficial than an antinomian would be at critiquing a legalist. I might be incorrect but that is how I perceive things.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 23, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> From the Amazon description:
> 
> 
> > But they are not simply Reformed; they hold views that are quite distinctive, unusual and controversial. In Dr. Frame s view, these positions are not standard Reformed theology. None of their distinctive positions is taught in any of the Reformed confessions. These positions are an idiosyncratic kind of teaching peculiar to the Escondido school. Those who teach them are a faction, even a sect.
> ...



Who wrote that description? It's terrible.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 23, 2011)

I am not fan or promoter of Frame and his idiosyncratic views on worship and apologetics but he is a bright mind and has written some helpful books in the past. Those who oppose R2K and those who support it should be objective and mature enough to allow the theological views to speak and debate for themselves without pre-judging the book, one way or the other.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 23, 2011)

Poimen said:


> I am not fan or promoter of Frame and his idiosyncratic views on worship and apologetics but he is a bright mind and has written some helpful books in the past. Those who oppose R2K and those who support it should be objective and mature enough to allow the theological views to speak and debate for themselves without pre-judging the book, one way or the other.



Not prejudging the book but one cannot ignore the fact that some criticisms are better left to others. One of the reasons many FV felt emboldened was that they viewed their chief critics to be un-Confessional themselves.


----------



## TimV (Dec 23, 2011)

Thanks, I've got an Amazon card that will cover it and wanted thoughts.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 23, 2011)

If I had your giftcard I'd spend $1.10 more and get this:
http://www.amazon.com/Aesthetics-Th...UTF8&coliid=I1A41NWU87K6A0&colid=VYRB5G1K8LJP


----------



## ChristianTrader (Dec 23, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> > I am not fan or promoter of Frame and his idiosyncratic views on worship and apologetics but he is a bright mind and has written some helpful books in the past. Those who oppose R2K and those who support it should be objective and mature enough to allow the theological views to speak and debate for themselves without pre-judging the book, one way or the other.
> ...



Was that a false belief of the FVers?

CT


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 23, 2011)

ChristianTrader said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > Poimen said:
> ...


I don't understand your question Hermonta? If it is that those who critiqued the FV were unconfessional themselves concerning the topics then I would have to say yes. The FVers held to a false belief that their critics were being unconfessional. All of NAPARC agreed with the critics.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 23, 2011)

py3ak said:


> If I had your giftcard I'd spend $1.10 more and get this:
> http://www.amazon.com/Aesthetics-Th...UTF8&coliid=I1A41NWU87K6A0&colid=VYRB5G1K8LJP



I think I might spend $1.10 more on just about anything more reputable than what seems very likely to be little more than a screed


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 23, 2011)

But I bet it's a good screed!

Actually, I'm glad the book was brought up. As I read Horton's Christian Theology - and as I've read a few other things - I've been kind of uncomfortable with what appears to be a Lutheranizing of Reformed theology. Anything that will help clarify is welcome by me.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Dec 23, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



That the Federal Vision is unconfessional is not the question. The question is whether the critics (or at least a chunk of the most vocal) were confessional in the relevant ways. Law & Gospel distinctions that various Reformed have called Antinomian, the Mosiac covenant being a covenant of works, the emphasis on justification to the seeming downplaying of sanctification, are all apart of the system that gave birth to the Federal Vision.

If one wants to say that Frame is not Confessional enough to write against a theological system that he has first hand knowledge of, then we need to make sure we don't hold to double standards. 

CT


----------



## mvdm (Dec 23, 2011)

I really wonder if *any* critique of R2k can ever be immune from a shift of focus onto the one the making the critique.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Dec 23, 2011)

ChristianTrader said:


> That the Federal Vision is unconfessional is not the question. The question is whether the critics (or at least a chunk of the most vocal) were confessional in the relevant ways. Law & Gospel distinctions that various Reformed have called Antinomian, the Mosiac covenant being a covenant of works, the emphasis on justification to the seeming downplaying of sanctification, are all apart of the system that gave birth to the Federal Vision.
> 
> If one wants to say that Frame is not Confessional enough to write against a theological system that he has first hand knowledge of, then we need to make sure we don't hold to double standards.
> 
> CT


I wasn't stating that he was not confessional enough to write a critique of another. The man has every right to write a book and much of what he writes is solid and Biblical. I have read Frame's books with great profit and consider him to be a first-rate scholar.

My point is that he is not usually one to really concern himself much in defending the Confessions. Where I've heard him put down the Confessional position (Pastoral and Social Ethics - Download free content from Reformed Theological Seminary on iTunes) he very often paints the Confessional view in an incorrect historical light in the service of putting forth his own view in a Reformed seminary. I don't relish pointing this out. His views on the 2nd and 4th Commandment are well known and qualify to be labeled "idiosyncratic". As much as WSCAL has a distinct theology, there is likewise a distinct Framean theology and I examine men all the time who represent his school and their list of exceptions to the Confession is typically longer than those I've examined from WSCAL.

My concern, then, is what I was trying to note in the FV debate and, yes, some of the critics of the FV who were most vocal were unconfessional themselves and the issues were sometimes muted by the idea that one had to abandon one idiosyncratic view for another. The FV debate was far more than that but the nature of party spirits lend themselves to these sorts of excesses.

I guess I would have not guessed that it would be Frame trying to come to the rescue of Reformed orthodoxy and I have to wonder if the standard of Reformed orthodoxy is going to be Framean. A book criticizing WSCAL doesn't surprise me but Framean theology criticizing WSCAL theology? I'm guessing his book will hit the mark at times but my concern is that one cannot ignore the effect that a particular messenger has on his critics.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2011)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Doesn't a person have to be Reformed before they can critique from a Reformed position? John Frame? I am still reeling from his endorsement of 'Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy'. Could it be he is just grinding his axe?



Don't you have to be Reformed before you can accuse a Reformed person of not being Reformed?


----------



## mvdm (Dec 23, 2011)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I guess I would have not guessed that it would be Frame trying to come to the rescue of Reformed orthodoxy



We need not place such high expectations on one man. Seems fair to judge THIS work on THIS one topic, which based on Frame's previous writings on THIS TOPIC, has been in line with critiques from other men whose Reformed _bona fides_ are beyond question.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 23, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't a person have to be Reformed before they can critique from a Reformed position? John Frame? I am still reeling from his endorsement of 'Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy'. Could it be he is just grinding his axe?
> ...



Not the same thing Pergy.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 23, 2011)

_Most Men's Anger about Religion is as if two Men should quarrel for a Lady they neither of them care for_. -George Savile.

That is the feeling you get when someone who has shown no concern to be confessional criticizes someone else for not being confessional. However, in this case the other side has expressed a desire to be confessional, so it might be telling to convict them of a failure in what they hold dear.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2011)

> ...someone who has shown no concern to be confessional ....



A bit much, don't you think?


I find it hard to stomach that a very solid professor who has authored multiple books and who always writes in an irenic way has to put up with this sort of write-off everytime he makes valid criticisms. 

I believe Dr. Frame is qualified to write about a multitude of topics within the Reformed tradition...at least as much as someone who is not fully "confessional" has the right to criticise even before reading his book.

---------- Post added at 02:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:54 AM ----------

Here is a reminder of Dr Frame's credentials:



> Dr. John Frame is presently Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida. He previously served as a Professor at both Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia and then as a founding faculty member at Westminster Seminary in Escondido, California.



This should be ample proof that he is sufficiently competent to critique a major strain of thought within reformed circles.


----------



## MICWARFIELD (Dec 23, 2011)

I was delighted when I heard about this book. I still love Frame, and I'm swimming in an ocean of Westminster West influenced brothers out here in San Diego (several of my friends attend Westminster). I plan on purchasing this book ASAP.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 23, 2011)

I didn't say he couldn't criticize them, though. You might find it easier to stomach things if you took them for what they are. It is perfectly possible to convict someone of being inconsistent with their principles, _even when you don't hold to those principles yourself_. For all I know this book is the finest critique of WSCAL that will ever be published; that doesn't mean Frame himself is confessional.


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 23, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> > ...someone who has shown no concern to be confessional ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't see how this reflects that he is reformed. His book on worship sets out to bring down the Confession and the RPW. With this and his man-made view of worship, he contradicts completely one of the reformation's top doctrines, the liberty of conscience. 

So I still have a hard time seeing that he is truly reformed, even though he might say he is reformed, and has served at RTS WTS, and WSC. Remember at least one (there are many more) recent professor of WTS: Peter Enns. Are you prepared to say he was reformed because he taught at WTS?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 23, 2011)

mvdm said:


> I really wonder if *any* critique of R2k can ever be immune from a shift of focus onto the one the making the critique.



I believe this can happen Elder Van Der Molen. I obviously don't like the R2K and Klineanism that proceeds from Westminster California. I am also not their enemy either. I have a deep appreciation for Dr. Clark as you might know. He has been very gracious toward me even when we disagree. 

When I see a title of a book that looks wonderful, I look to see who the author is. Just knowing the author's take and character on issues sometimes shades my reception of desiring to even look at the book. Knowing how Frame shades things makes me not want to take him seriously on many topics. As Rich noted above....


> If you've ever listened to his lecture on the WLC, you will actually be surprised more by when he actually agrees with it because he spends so much time pointing out where it is wrong.





> My point is that he is not usually one to really concern himself much in defending the Confessions. Where I've heard him put down the Confessional position ...he very often paints the Confessional view in an incorrect historical light in the service of putting forth his own view in a Reformed seminary. I don't relish pointing this out. His views on the 2nd and 4th Commandment are well known and qualify to be labeled "idiosyncratic". As much as WSCAL has a distinct theology, there is likewise a distinct Framean theology and I examine men all the time who represent his school and their list of exceptions to the Confession is typically longer than those I've examined from WSCAL.(



Frame's writings, Rich's and other's observations, along with Dr. Frames endorsement of 'Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy' really shades me toward thinking he is not necessarily worthy to be heard concerning his discernment in many areas. I just think this critique would be better if it came from somewhere else. The Person does matter sometimes. And it should. After all we are to examine the conversation of our Elders before we listen to them. 



> (Heb 13:7) Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.



I hope I haven't crossed any boundaries here. Some of my friends have benefited from Dr. Frame's works.

I would much rather reference a Dr. Venema or Dr. Strange concerning this topic than Frame. It would bear more weight. And there is a reason for that.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 23, 2011)

I have shown his credentials above, showing that he is capable of giving a critique, whether you grant him the title "reformed" or not.

---------- Post added at 02:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:44 AM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> > I really wonder if *any* critique of R2k can ever be immune from a shift of focus onto the one the making the critique.
> ...



Thanks, I see where you are coming from.


----------



## CharlieJ (Dec 23, 2011)

I am concerned that this book was published through a rather backward publisher. That says that there wasn't a mainstream market for it. Perhaps the normal channels were unconvinced of its merits, or simply unwilling to push a book this controversial. I also am a bit put off by the personal tone of the title. The PLACE is being indicted. Frame's recent reviews of WSC material have been less than judicious. As far as his personal Reformed-ness, I can't say it bothers me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 23, 2011)

Escondido is turning out a fair amount of good men who serve their God and their Congregations faithfully. I am grateful for that. I have a deep appreciation for some of the things proceeding from their endeavors. God's glory is sought. If someone wants to read the book and do a review on the Puritanboard that would be fine. But for now this subject shall be laid to rest. 

Be Encouraged guys.


----------

