Dr. Reggie Kidd

[NaphtaliPress]

I'm not sure what Rev. Hyde needs to apologize for. One person finds one prof one of his best another in another context one of his worst. You can agree to disagree but asking the one to apologize?

I do find it interesting though; you can really imagine the smiles of approval of the original post turn to frowns on the faces of those who don't get why Dr. Kidd apologized.

WOW! Based on some of the responses RC has just about reached R. Scott Clark status among FV'ers.

And he only had to make one comment at PCA GA to get there!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Well then; perhaps we should be careful about speaking "too highly" of others as well since we're referencing LC 144/145? I'll simply leave this for Rev. Hyde to explain if he choses, or apologize if he thinks he has prejudiced Frame's good name.

I'm not sure what Rev. Hyde needs to apologize for. One person finds one prof one of his best another in another context one of his worst. You can agree to disagree but asking the one to apologize?

I do find it interesting though; you can really imagine the smiles of approval of the original post turn to frowns on the faces of those who don't get why Dr. Kidd apologized.

Yes, as stated it is Hyde's subjective opinion--- but that makes it no less damaging to Frame's good name, especially considering it was slung out into a public internet forum with no back up explanation or qualification. If we inverted the situation, would we just shrug it off if Frame came here and publicly expressed a similar subjective opinion about his student Hyde?

It should not be hard to see that publicly calling someone the "worst professor" he had fails "...to defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbor." LD 43.

 

[RamistThomist]

If I would have said Dr Kline is the worst theologian I ever read because of his views on creation and ethics, would that have been okay on this board? Not for a moment! and understandably so.

Btw, I don't believe that about Kline for a moment. I think his views on ethics (see Lee Irons) and creation are problematic for Confessionalism, but I wouldn't say that about him.

But then again, such rhetoric might be okay. T. David Gordon called John Murray the "drunk uncle" or Reformed theology, and nobody batted an eye.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I suppose one has his right to express his opinion concerning who he thinks is the worst/best professor he's ever had.

True--then my hypothetical comments about Kline are valid--but isn't it kind of tacky? I mean Frame is an ordained minister in a Presbyterian church.

So are many FV advocates. And I think they deserve critique as does Bishop Wright.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Since the "sin card" has been played, I think Rev. Hyde may need to elaborate in his own defense.

 

[fredtgreco]

If I would have said Dr Kline is the worst theologian I ever read because of his views on creation and ethics, would that have been okay on this board? Not for a moment! and understandably so.

Btw, I don't believe that about Kline for a moment. I think his views on ethics (see Lee Irons) and creation are problematic for Confessionalism, but I wouldn't say that about him.

But then again, such rhetoric might be okay. T. David Gordon called John Murray the "drunk uncle" or Reformed theology, and nobody batted an eye.

I don't know, maybe someone read Frame's intro to Backbone of the Bible and was trying to be imitative.

 

[RamistThomist]

I didn't accuse anybody of sin.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Nope; you didn't.

 

[RamistThomist]

I suppose one has his right to express his opinion concerning who he thinks is the worst/best professor he's ever had.

True--then my hypothetical comments about Kline are valid--but isn't it kind of tacky? I mean Frame is an ordained minister in a Presbyterian church.

So are many FV advocates. And I think they deserve critique as does Bishop Wright.

Relevance? We are talking about Frame, who is NOT FV.

 

[mvdm]

The separate issue of "speaking too highly" of someone diverts our attention from the issue. Clearly that was not my concern over Hyde's comment. Leaving it to him to decide if the comment was prejudicial is a fairly subjective standard, and would open the door to all sorts of hyperbolic rhetoric couched as "opinion".

As it stands in it's conclusory form, it is *objectively* prejudicial, warranting clarification or apology.

 

[dannyhyde]

Yes, as stated it is Hyde's subjective opinion--- but that makes it no less damaging to Frame's good name, especially considering it was slung out into a public internet forum with no back up explanation or qualification. If we inverted the situation, would we just shrug it off if Frame came here and publicly expressed a similar subjective opinion about his student Hyde?

It should not be hard to see that publicly calling someone the "worst professor" he had fails "...to defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbor." LD 43.

After writing a long response, I deleted it. The sum of it is that I expressed my opinion and that it did not violate the ninth commandment. Any who think otherwise may follow our Lord's prescribed course of action.

 

[mvdm]

Yes, as stated it is Hyde's subjective opinion--- but that makes it no less damaging to Frame's good name, especially considering it was slung out into a public internet forum with no back up explanation or qualification. If we inverted the situation, would we just shrug it off if Frame came here and publicly expressed a similar subjective opinion about his student Hyde?

It should not be hard to see that publicly calling someone the "worst professor" he had fails "...to defend and promote, as much as I am able, the honor and good character of my neighbor." LD 43.

After writing a long response, I deleted it. The sum of it is that I expressed my opinion and that it did not violate the ninth commandment. Any who think otherwise may follow our Lord's prescribed course of action.

That's too bad, as the longer explanation could have shed some light on your comment, and could have hopefully removed the disparaging aspect from it.

So you believe you kept the law perfectly.

I suppose that's a workable answer if you adopt the FV concept of "cooperation with grace".

So if Frame were to even want to bother with this, to whom would he direct the complaint?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

So if Frame were to even want to bother with this, to whom would he direct the complaint?

Mod. Take this offlist. It will not be a subject of this thread any longer.

 

[MW]

So you believe you kept the law perfectly.

I suppose that's a workable answer if you adopt the FV concept of "cooperation with grace".

Friend, this is puerile. You made an accusation which required Rev. Hyde to respond. His response is a justification of his actions to a fellow man, not to God. I really think you should simply accept his opinion as such, and drop the matter; or better yet, in the interests of brotherly fellowship, you should think about apologising for making something of nothing. Personal opinions are just that -- you can take them or leave them.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

True--then my hypothetical comments about Kline are valid--but isn't it kind of tacky? I mean Frame is an ordained minister in a Presbyterian church.

So are many FV advocates. And I think they deserve critique as does Bishop Wright.

Relevance? We are talking about Frame, who is NOT FV.

Is he beyond critique of his support for his stances. The Relevance is that many critique a Bishop and other PCA Pastors. They critique Pastors who are FV and NPP. Just because a man is ordained, does that raise him above critique? So what is your point in pointing out he is an ordained Minister in a Presbyterian Church. Have you not critiqued any theologian? It is Relevant.

 

[RamistThomist]

So are many FV advocates. And I think they deserve critique as does Bishop Wright.

Relevance? We are talking about Frame, who is NOT FV.

Is he beyond critique of his support for his stances. The Relevance is that many critique a Bishop and other PCA Pastors. So what is your point in pointing out he is an ordained Minister in a Presbyterian Church. Have you not critiqued any theologian? It is Relevant.

The relevance is that we should exercise care on an internet message board regarding the Orthodoxy of a long-time friend and minister in a Reformed denomination. Frame is not in the same class as Wright et al and to suggest he is is silly.

Ok, where on justification has Frame erred, since you are putting him in the same class as Wright and Co? Be specific.

There is a difference between critiquing a theologian and questioning his orthodoxy by putting him in the same camp as others, and that without any substantial warrant.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Relevance? We are talking about Frame, who is NOT FV.

Is he beyond critique of his support for his stances. The Relevance is that many critique a Bishop and other PCA Pastors. So what is your point in pointing out he is an ordained Minister in a Presbyterian Church. Have you not critiqued any theologian? It is Relevant.

The relevance is that we should exercise care on an internet message board regarding the Orthodoxy of a long-time friend and minister in a Reformed denomination. Frame is not in the same class as Wright et al and to suggest he is is silly.

Ok, where on justification has Frame erred, since you are putting him in the same class as Wright and Co? Be specific.

There is a difference between critiquing a theologian and questioning his orthodoxy by putting him in the same camp as others, and that without any substantial warrant.

ARe you tired or something? No one has called him silly or challenged his view of justification. Now you are off the subject I addressed at first. Is he beyond criticizing because he is a Presbyterian Minister? No he is not.

 

[RamistThomist]

If I would have said Dr Kline is the worst theologian I ever read because of his views on creation and ethics, would that have been okay on this board? Not for a moment! and understandably so.

Btw, I don't believe that about Kline for a moment. I think his views on ethics (see Lee Irons) and creation are problematic for Confessionalism, but I wouldn't say that about him.

But then again, such rhetoric might be okay. T. David Gordon called John Murray the "drunk uncle" or Reformed theology, and nobody batted an eye.

I don't know, maybe someone read Frame's intro to Backbone of the Bible and was trying to be imitative.

Granted that wasn't Frame's best tactical moment (but to his credit he apologize for the rhetoric), but when you get to the substance of his essay, it is quite unexciting. He ends up affirming, to the shock of the reader, salvation by faith alone, covenant of works, and imputation.

 

[RamistThomist]

scracth that. I see where we got sidetracked. I countered a highly subjective claim with a highly subjective claim of my own. Then came whether we should critique ministers in good standing. I urged caution. Then it seemed to be suggested that Frame is in error, although it was never specified as to what the error was. I apologize for ambiguity.

 

[VictorBravo]

scracth that. I see where we got sidetracked. I countered a highly subjective claim with a highly subjective claim of my own. Then came whether we should critique ministers in good standing. I urged caution. Then it seemed to be suggested that Frame is in error, although it was never specified as to what the error was. I apologize for ambiguity.

And that sounds like a good way to end the off track discussion. Thanks, Jacob.