Any Reidians out there?

[ChristianTrader]

No, I'm referring to where he is as a Reformed theologian. It's kind of like that Sesame Street song: "One of these kids is not like the other...." His view of the RPW is pretty novel. Also, he hasn't quite been clear in whether or not he condemns the FV.

I am currently really leaning towards accepting William Dennison's critique of Frame in the Spring 95 issue of WTJ. Frame is too much Analytic Philosopher, too little Reformed Theologian.

CT

Well I wish more "reformed theologians" would write doctrine of God books, systematic theology books, and doctrine of the knowledge of God books.

Basically every Reformed Theologian who has written a systematic has done so. (Most prolegema's work out to be something akin to Frame's Doctrine of the Knowledge of God book.)

Btw, I'd also say, the majority of other guys in the formed camp are too much theologian, too little analytic philosopher. Dennison's about a 2 on the scale of the latter.

I do not think you can be too much of a theologian, that is somewhat saying that one has too much Jesus. Remember Theology is the Queen while Philosophy is the handmaiden. No one would ever say, one needs more handmaiden and less Queen.

Frame's not perfect by far (neither are any of us, btw), but I think he and Paul Helm (and some other younger guys, Welty, Crisp, etc.,) are the best assets we have in the above mentioned areas 9and maybe throw a Oliphint in there....maybe!).

I'll take Anderson and Oliphint but keep an eye on Helm and others.

The best is a guy who has both areas mastered. Frame comes closer to that, by far, than Dennison does.

I would say that a person who has mastered Theology and Philosophy would be dangerous, but I would need to see more about how mastering Analytic Philosophy implies mastering good philosophy in general.

CT

 

[Jim Johnston]

Frame hasn't "mastered" analytic philosophy. I wouldn't even classify him that way. There's HUGE differences between reading him, and a true analytic philosopher. So, I guess one could ask what Dennison's critique has to do with Frame. And, I guess you'd note that Frame is "dangerous."

Anyway, I know where you're coming from and you know where I am. Hopefully my side will win and reformed theology won't slip away into obscurity!

 

[Jim Johnston]

Btw, the Bible doesn't endorse an "internalist" or an "externalist" approach to warrant. it doesn't endorse a Cartesian dualism over a Thomistic or personalist dualism. The Bible doesn't give us a theory of universals. Doesn't tell us about moderate or extreme realism. It doesn't give us a theory of sense perception, e.g., indirect vs. direct realism. Much of these things are *assumed* in your doing theology, or in addressing theological questions. We need our theologians to be good philosophers as well. Being "too much theologian" and "too little philosopher" gets one shoddy work usually. Sounds good to ignorant laymen, but is that really what you want?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Frame hasn't "mastered" analytic philosophy. I wouldn't even classify him that way. There's HUGE differences between reading him, and a true analytic philosopher. So, I guess one could ask what Dennison's critique has to do with Frame. And, I guess you'd note that Frame is "dangerous."

Anyway, I know where you're coming from and you know where I am. Hopefully my side will win and reformed theology won't slip away into obscurity!

Reformed Theology has been around a lot longer and will continue a lot longer than any particular school of philosophy.

I really didn't make any comment on Frame's mastering of anything. My only issue with him is that he seems to be more philosopher less Theologian.

My dangerous comment was meant in a good way, not a bad way.

CT

 

[Jim Johnston]

"Reformed" theology is a will-o-the-wisp, in one sense. Is "reformed theology" infra or supra? Is the RPW part of it? How about days of creation? Traducianism, creationism? At one level, I understand you, but when we analyze what you said , we run into problems.

If you mean, the theology of the Bible has been around longer than particular shcools of philosophy, fine. But, do we know for certain every one of our interpretations? In the same way, then, Christian philosophy has been around just as long as a Christian theology. Do we know that our philosophical positions are certainly correct? No, not all of them.

I know you emant "dangerous" in a good way. And, since Frame isn't technically an "analytic philosopher" (though he grew up in that tradition, and does employ some of its methods), but is still a good philosopher, then he's a "dangeruous guy," which is a good thing! Dennison meant his statement as a "bad thing." You therefore disagree with Dennison.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Tom,
How are you differentiating between Theology and Philosophy? When does one stop doing Theology and start doing Philosophy? I think at some level we are talking past each other.

CT