I am kind of shocked at this John Frame comment on the WCF....

[lynnie]

I really like Frame, always have.

Just read this:

Response to Jeremy Jones, Renewing Theology



3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers.


If the WCF was written today I believe there might be some things added like maybe creation vs evolution, and a rejection of the low self esteem victim psychology- instead of sin- behind emotional problems. But I thought we all agreed it was a real good basic summary of the main scriptural teachings. Not infallible canon, but excellent. I thought you had to take a vow to that effect to be ordained. I am puzzled by what he means about more theological reflection exactly. I'm still holding to the golden age myself.

Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.

 

[Beth Ellen Nagle]

 

[Marrow Man]

He doesn't like the RPW. He's wrong. 'Nuff said.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

I think Dr. Frame was doing what most systematic theologians do. That is asking the provocative questions, while not necessarily implying that these questions were evidence of one's stance on the matter. The questions are valid, yet they do not imply we throw out our Confessions, nor that they have become outdated.

I don't think for a minute that if the WCF were being written today that it would differ substantively from its original content.

In short, I think you are reading too much into Frame's questions.

 

[he beholds]

I really like Frame, always have.

Just read this:

Response to Jeremy Jones, Renewing Theology



3. The PCA is a “confessional church,” as we are often told. We should, however, forthrightly ask the question whether this is a good thing. If it is, what role should a 350 year old confession have in a contemporary church? Is it plausible to suggest that we should treat the confession in effect as an infallible presentation of biblical doctrine? How then can we do justice to the immense amount of quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection that has taken place since that time? Does confessionalism itself lead to sectarianism? If not, how can a confessional church guard against sectarians who appeal to the confession as a “golden age” document? On these matters I am, for now, content to ask questions, rather than presuming to provide answers.


If the WCF was written today I believe there might be some things added like maybe creation vs evolution, and a rejection of the low self esteem victim psychology- instead of sin- behind emotional problems. But I thought we all agreed it was a real good basic summary of the main scriptural teachings. Not infallible canon, but excellent. I thought you had to take a vow to that effect to be ordained. I am puzzled by what he means about more theological reflection exactly. I'm still holding to the golden age myself.

Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.

I think it is good to question why we do the things we do, so I would not be alarmed at the question. Maybe the answer one gets, but not the act of questioning.

 

[ww]

He doesn't like the RPW. He's wrong. 'Nuff said.

I think it is his way of among the future movers and shakers within the PCA and other Reformed denominations. He wants men to think why they embrace the Confessions and how to apply them to today's circumstances not necessarily forsake them. Just my

 

[DMcFadden]

As an outsider to the Presbyterian club . . .

Frame is renown for his scholarship and willingness to challenge any number of points of Westminster theology. As an outsider, it appears to this observer that Dr. Frame's love of music and the arts generally leads him to struggle with the perceived constraints of the RPW. Is it possible that this has been the engine driving his relentless questioning of the Westminster standards over the years?

 

[MW]

Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.

This is the outcome of his theology-as-application approach. In "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" he puts forward the belief that theological meaning is dependent on the meeting of human needs. He maintains theology can change over time and situation. Note, he does not say that the presentation of theology can be adjusted to suit the situation, but that the theology itself is relevant to the situation being addressed. Hence what might be true for one age might not be true for a succeeding age.

You have every reason to be concerned at the introduction of relativism into the theological approach.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This is the outcome of his theology-as-application approach. In "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" he puts forward the belief that theological meaning is dependent on the meeting of human needs. He maintains theology can change over time and situation. Note, he does not say that the presentation of theology can be adjusted to suit the situation, but that the theology itself is relevant to the situation being addressed. Hence what might be true for one age might not be true for a succeeding age.

I am not following the logical leap made in your last sentence from the previous two. Where in DKG do you draw the evidence to support this conclusion and the subsequent indictment of Frame as a proponent of relativism?

 

[Hamalas]

This sounds like typical Frame stuff, and sadly I think it is a statement that would resonate with all too many in the PCA. We need to be praying and fighting for our denomination. There is much good in the PCA, but there are far too many areas where we have fallen away from our reformed heritage. There are precious few PCA churches that could actually call themselves confessional. We desperately need reform!

 

[DonP]

Comments? Am I overreacting? It might be helpful to read the whole (short) essay first.

This is the outcome of his theology-as-application approach. In "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" he puts forward the belief that theological meaning is dependent on the meeting of human needs. He maintains theology can change over time and situation. Note, he does not say that the presentation of theology can be adjusted to suit the situation, but that the theology itself is relevant to the situation being addressed. Hence what might be true for one age might not be true for a succeeding age.

You have every reason to be concerned at the introduction of relativism into the theological approach.

Not shocked at all.
I agree. I think Frame is one of the weaker ministers who would like to see change to a looser position.
Sadly he is not alone. The church needs to fight and resist this else it most likely will go the way of the other churches who did. We do not fight it because we are stuck in the mud, but because clear unprejudiced exegesis agrees with the Confession and God has preserved this for a long history in His church.

There is no need to change. We have plenty of freedom with the Confession now. Too much freedom now if you ask me.

His asking it as a question is a safety gimmick. He can't come out and say it is wrong. But he is clear on what he thinks. I think He is hoping to get others to shift also by raising the question, it raises doubts about the Confession rather than promoting confidence in the truth from scripture.
The confession does not address all areas of the faith and walk but only those most central areas we Confess our teachers should, must agree on to be fit to be teachers in the church.
There is plenty of room on non-confessional issues to teach and have liberty to address the needs of the church and current cultural issues.
One does not need ot change or question the Confession to accomplish this.

And one is even free to take an exception so why even consider changing what one doesn't need to adhere to?

Unless they went to one all would adhere to. This would mean another split no doubt.
I would prefer to read and study other men than Frame.
If I was in his church I would submit to his teaching and discuss things with my elder/s.

 

[MW]

Where in DKG do you draw the evidence to support this conclusion and the subsequent indictment of Frame as a proponent of relativism?

See pp. 302-318. Having claimed that the situational perspective is as determinative as the normative perspective, he applies Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary theory to theological progression and denies the traditional concept of progress by accumulation. He speaks of theological progress as contextualising the message, and specifically maintains "no definitive criteria for orthodoxy can be laid down once and for all. If such criteria were definitive, then they would be on a par with Scripture. Rather, criteria of this sort are always applications of Scripture to various situations; and situations change" (p. 305). He thus denies a definitive, unchanging orthodoxy in historical statements of truth, or, to use the technical term, the norma normata.

 

[CDM]

Where in DKG do you draw the evidence to support this conclusion and the subsequent indictment of Frame as a proponent of relativism?

See pp. 302-318. Having claimed that the situational perspective is as determinative as the normative perspective, he applies Thomas Kuhn's revolutionary theory to theological progression and denies the traditional concept of progress by accumulation. He speaks of theological progress as contextualising the message, and specifically maintains "no definitive criteria for orthodoxy can be laid down once and for all. If such criteria were definitive, then they would be on a par with Scripture. Rather, criteria of this sort are always applications of Scripture to various situations; and situations change" (p. 305). He thus denies a definitive, unchanging orthodoxy in historical statements of truth, or, to use the technical term, the norma normata.

We really need some sort of double-thanks function especially reserved for Rev. Winzer.

I am no expert on Frame, but after his pseudo RPW book, Worship in Spirit and Truth, I decided there were other men I ought to spend my study time on.

 

[Scott1]

I'm not extensively familiar with this man's writings and am not sure of his exact status (e.g. church office) in his denomination.

Also, academic theologians do tend to ask provocative questions to incite discussion and debate and that may be the context of what he is doing there.

It seems he is almost questioning the very purpose of his Confession of Faith without stating specifically what points in its "infallible presentation of biblical doctrine" he disagrees with.

One might almost assume he is suggesting a new and better summary be written by him (consulting, of course "the quality biblical scholarship and theological reflection" of others). The problem is that attitude doesn't reflect the confessional nature of the theological circle he has chosen to identify himself with and that he seeks credibility in.

It would be helpful to know what "exceptions" he has been granted. General statements casting doubt on the doctrinal summary of the confession as a whole would not be appropriate for an officer who has vowed he agrees and holds it.

Sinners all have a tendency to go "off" due to pride, blindness of heart, etc. This can certainly happen to theologians.

The good news is, faith and repentance are available to all who are truly God's, even to those who would presume to represent Him through studying His Word. I hope that's not a part of his ['golden age'] Confession he disagrees with.

 

[CharlieJ]

I think that Frame is, well, correct as far as I read him. It is insufficient simply to have a confession. Baptists, Lutherans, and Reformed all have confessions. The Reformed have several confessions, admittedly very similar. If everyone just sits on his own confession, no one would ever learn or grow. I think Frame has some legitimate cause for concern that the Confession can become rigid. If it is too easy to change, it serves little purpose. If it is too hard to change, it becomes practically on par with Scripture.

I also think Frame is correct in his "golden age" comment. Thanks to men like Richard Muller, we recognize the development of a theological tradition beginning at the Reformers and developing through the 17th century. There were multiple Reformed confessions being written during this time. Why should theological development be supposed suddenly to be arrested in 1646? Have we really learned nothing from the explosion of biblical theology in the 19th century or the phenomenal increase in access to original language materials gained in the 20th century?

On another note, the PCA WCF isn't the same as the original WCF. If this is a bad thing, why aren't people campaigning to reinstate the original? If this is a good thing, why couldn't other changes be necessary, at least theoretically?

 

[TaylorOtwell]

Speaking of being confessional, I am thoroughly enjoying Dr. Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession - it may prove helpful in considering these things. He interacts with Frame's thinking in several areas.

 

[lynnie]

Thank you very much for all the interesting and helpful comments.

At some point every church needs a basic confession of faith. I know of a church where Wayne Grudem's ST essentially serves that purpose. Growing up I knew churches where the Scofield bible was their confession. Calvary Chapels have them- not only what they believe but what they reject as well. I think Chuck Smith serves as their Rutherford. I'll stay with classic Calvinism, thank you. Confessions are not canon but they are very helpful.

That quote from DKG is troubling, but thank you for it.

 

[Hamalas]

I think that Frame is, well, correct as far as I read him. It is insufficient simply to have a confession. Baptists, Lutherans, and Reformed all have confessions. The Reformed have several confessions, admittedly very similar. If everyone just sits on his own confession, no one would ever learn or grow. I think Frame has some legitimate cause for concern that the Confession can become rigid. If it is too easy to change, it serves little purpose. If it is too hard to change, it becomes practically on par with Scripture.

I also think Frame is correct in his "golden age" comment. Thanks to men like Richard Muller, we recognize the development of a theological tradition beginning at the Reformers and developing through the 17th century. There were multiple Reformed confessions being written during this time. Why should theological development be supposed suddenly to be arrested in 1646? Have we really learned nothing from the explosion of biblical theology in the 19th century or the phenomenal increase in access to original language materials gained in the 20th century?

On another note, the PCA WCF isn't the same as the original WCF. If this is a bad thing, why aren't people campaigning to reinstate the original? If this is a good thing, why couldn't other changes be necessary, at least theoretically?

At least part of our reaction to his statement comes from some of the specific "changes" that he would like to see in our confession.

(And some of us do object to the modified WCF.)

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

In my opinion, Dr. Frame's method of asking questions erodes, rather than bolsters, orthodoxy and confessionalism. Remember, our Confession is a summary of Biblical teaching, which does not change. We may grow, as was said earlier, by "accumulation" that is, by adding truths to truths already known, or new ways of supporting truths or ways of expression which strengthen our understanding of the Bible, but questioning the relevancy of our Confessional Standards is, if we confess that our Confessions teach Biblical truth, questioning the relevancy of the Scriptures. Are the Scriptures "settled in heaven" or are they a "living, breathing document" that shall be interpreted by the "perspective" of every age?

 

[Josiah]

Speaking of being confessional, I am thoroughly enjoying Dr. Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession - it may prove helpful in considering these things. He interacts with Frame's thinking in several areas.

Not to get but, I have wanted to buy the book ever since it came out. In my humble opinion this book is perhaps one of the most thought provoking books of its kind this year from everything I have heard about it. Certainly worthy of another thread on this board at another time perhaps.

Recovering the Reformed Confession

 

[CharlieJ]

Speaking of being confessional, I am thoroughly enjoying Dr. Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession - it may prove helpful in considering these things. He interacts with Frame's thinking in several areas.

I have read that and found it quite provocative. Interestingly, Clark suggested that the Reformed churches should keep writing new confessions. I am sure he is committed to the WCF, but he thinks that we ought to be a confessing church, not just a confessional one. I know that a confession written by Frame would be different than one written by Clark, but I find it significant that two men with very different views on some matters both suggest that we form a new confession rather than rest on the WCF and 3FU.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I actually find the WCF to be extremely relevant.

The problem I have with the quoted portion is that it not only misrepresents the case of what the view of the Confession is but it also seems to have a pretty naive view of what modernity would fashion in its place.

The WCF is, in a nutshell, a standard exposition of Scripture. The problem that people have with the Church producing a standard exposition of Scripture is because (like the actors in Judges) everybody today prefers his/her own exposition of Scripture.

The Confessions are not infallible, per se, but insofar as the exposition of Scripture is accurate, why would we assume that the exposition would change from over four centuries?

I know his statement strikes the modernist bone in most people that read this. The assumption is that dusty old men from the 1600's shouldn't be providing a normative exposition of Scripture. Frankly, I don't care if it's from 400 years ago. I read things from Augustine that are older that are profound expositions of Scripture. I read Irenaeus in some of his writings against heretics affirming the Deity of Christ and find standard expositions of Scripture.

I wonder if people who say "Amen" to things like what were written ever see themselves in Paul's warning to Timothy that some men will have "itching ears". After all, Timothy's exposition of Scripture would be "...so 1st Century..." and were we to find some manuscript of a sermon delivered we should hope that somebody has found something "better" as time has progressed and our brains have gotten much bigger. In fact, just think about how much time we'll have to be "refining Truth" in heaven after "...we've been there 10,000 years...", we'll be continually refining our views of key doctrines which, after all, never seem to have been settled by the Scriptures.

I wonder, for you Preachers that agree with that quote (or for Frame himself), when you actually stand up to preach the Word, do you hope that people assume that what you are expositing on any given Sunday morning is just your opinion of the Scriptures? When you command men to believe upon the finished work of Christ is there any settled content that you can point them to or do you tell them that the verdict is still out and they can believe today but, after all, the content of that work may be revealed to be different tomorrow based on new scholarship? Honestly, if we can so easily dismiss as Churchmen the Church's standard exposition of Scripture and hand wave it as "400 years ago" then why can't one in your Church dismiss your exposition to "repent and believe" as "30 minutes ago".

Finally, a point with respect to modernity.

I'm reminded of an opportunity I had in 2004 to have Justice Scalia lecture of the U.S. Constitution. He was remarking about how short the U.S. Constitution and that, if you read it for the first time and didn't get to the Amendments, you might think that the U.S. still practiced slavery. He then commented on the fact that he had been asked to evaluate the Constitution of the European Union and its several hundred pages that spelled everything out including such modern sensibilities that we be environmentally conscious and every other critical "right" that modern man can conceive.

It was a mess.

And so would be a Confession crafted in the midst of modernity.

I think the best description I ever heard of a Confession was that it is like a fence line. If you're inside the fence then you're in but if you're outside the fence line then you're out. Some fence lines are larger than others. The Apostle's Creed is a bigger fence than the Nicence which is bigger than the Chalcedon. Every time the Church confessed was to draw a line less to keep people in than to keep folks out.

Sectarianism? You ain't seen nothing until every man creates his own Confession and the fence line for orthodoxy is a dot.

 

[Prufrock]

Sectarianism? You ain't seen nothing until every man creates his own Confession and the fence line for orthodoxy is a dot.

I'm quite thankful for our confession: it is neither divisive nor sectarian; rather, it unites us and binds us together, whatever other differences within its bounds we might have with one another.

 

[ww]

After seeing John Frame's endorsement of "The Way of Righteousness" by Norman Shepherd I want to take back my cordial and gracious handling of this comment. I think there is more than there than meets the eye. In other words, it isn't just about his musical inclinations.

 

[DonP]

I think Frame has some legitimate cause for concern that the Confession can become rigid. If it is too easy to change, it serves little purpose. If it is too hard to change, it becomes practically on par with Scripture.

The Confession is a summary of the basic essentials of the faith, not an exhaustive commentary on all of scripture or all doctrines.
Are you suggesting the basic essentials of faith should change? The historic church has not even had the gospel and central doctrines necessary for ministers and church fellowship?


Why should theological development be supposed suddenly to be arrested in 1646? Have we really learned nothing from the explosion of biblical theology in the 19th century or the phenomenal increase in access to original language materials gained in the 20th century?

Well I think modern BT comes from liberal roots so I would not want to change central doctrines based on it, and it is not a systematic theology which the confession is. It is a preaching style often misused as a hermeneutic, and even if used as one part of a hermeneutic system, it would by nature not be the part to define essential doctrine.
And if access to new original language texts would change the central doctrines of the church then we do not have closed canon. nor has God preserved His word to all His church and we may as well think like Frame and toss the Confession in preference to Charismatic revelation as the basis of our ever changing beliefs.


On another note, the PCA WCF isn't the same as the original WCF. If this is a bad thing, why aren't people campaigning to reinstate the original? If this is a good thing, why couldn't other changes be necessary, at least theoretically?

Don't show this post to your profs at GPTS


There are ministers who hold to what was changed from the majority position to the minority position in 1789 who would still through practice and education hope the understanding of the RPW in respect to psalmody would be reversed as evidenced by the fact some churches still hold to the original 1646 version.
My take is after the revolution some were concerned about the ability to make sure the King would protect the church and whether there would now be a need for a king to assure a safe day for the GA to meet, since they could not assure he would submit to God's law and probably thought the Queen was the anti-Christ instead of the Pope.
I would say these are pretty incidental not significant changes to the Confession as some now propose.

But where the church has sought liberty to deviate from the Confession it has been downhill.

Note how Union seminary was offered $240,000 in donations for new Director to be put in if they would drop the WC as a requirement for Directors, so they dropped the WC requirement. Where are they now? Why would they even want to have a director if he was not a spiritual man agreeing with the essential tenants of the faith?

UNION SEMINARY DROPS WESTMINSTER CONFESSION; Its Faculty and Directors Need Not Subscribe to It Now. $240,000 IN GIFTS FOLLOWS Constitutional Requirement Had Hampered the Institution in Its Choice of Directors.
The Directors of the Union Theological Seminary have voted unanimously to abolish the requirement that candidates for member of the Faculty or for member of the Board of Directors declare their belief in the Westminster Confession.

 

[CDM]

Mr. Frame is free to *improve* upon the Confession. Although, I doubt he and others like-minded will be providing any improvements upon the WCF anytime soon.

Seems their content resting in the peanut gallery.

 

[DMcFadden]

After seeing John Frame's endorsement of "The Way of Righteousness" by Norman Shepherd I want to take back my cordial and gracious handling of this comment. I think there is more than there than meets the eye. In other words, it isn't just about his musical inclinations.

Wayne, you beat me to it! I was taken aback by the endorsement (although not entirely surprised by it). Although he parsed his words carefully, it was disappointing that he was even on the book in the company of the literati of the FV.

I stand ready to be corrected by the TR among us, but as an outsider to the camp, my mind runs to the analog of Clark Pinnock. Granted, Pinnock's theological departures may be more significant. However, beginning with a strong defense of inerrancy in 1971 and progressing to his current openness position by means of asking LOTS of provocative "questions" along the way, makes me innately suspicious of people who continually profess that they are merely "asking questions."

While we ought not stop the creative interaction of academic theologians with the text, the tradition, and our times . . . I am not prepared to give them a free pass on undermining key doctrines in the interests of "academic freedom" or "just asking questions."

 

[Beth Ellen Nagle]

After seeing John Frame's endorsement of "The Way of Righteousness" by Norman Shepherd I want to take back my cordial and gracious handling of this comment. I think there is more than there than meets the eye. In other words, it isn't just about his musical inclinations.

Wayne, you beat me to it! I was taken aback by the endorsement (although not entirely surprised by it). Although he parsed his words carefully, it was disappointing that he was even on the book in the company of the literati of the FV.

I stand ready to be corrected by the TR among us, but as an outsider to the camp, my mind runs to the analog of Clark Pinnock. Granted, Pinnock's theological departures may be more significant. However, beginning with a strong defense of inerrancy in 1971 and progressing to his current openness position by means of asking LOTS of provocative "questions" along the way, makes me innately suspicious of people who continually profess that they are merely "asking questions."

While we ought not stop the creative interaction of academic theologians with the text, the tradition, and our times . . . I am not prepared to give them a free pass on undermining key doctrines in the interests of "academic freedom" or "just asking questions."

Questions are good. Questions that flow from questionable hermeneutics are dangerous!

 

[Marrow Man]

I suppose those two unnecessary (I originally said "stupid" but thought better about it) chapters ("Of the Gospel" and "Of the Holy Spirit") that were "added" to the Confession were supposed to improve it as well.

 

[TsonMariytho]

I'm quite thankful for our confession: it is neither divisive nor sectarian; rather, it unites us and binds us together, whatever other differences within its bounds we might have with one another.

Paul, you may be satisfied that the confession binds together those who agree with it and is therefore "neither divisive nor sectarian". However, that has little to do with what Dr. Frame was talking about, since he was referencing the wider Christian Church. E.g. it's not useful in this discussion to defend the confession's inclusiveness by its binding together of you and Rich. How about you and me?

As one who deplores denominationalism, I thought the page linked to in the original post had some excellent insights.

(I don't know anything about the alleged areas of unorthodoxy, and haven't read much Frame; still catching up on "golden age" theologians.)