Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  Quote:
Originally Posted by Poimen MODERATOR VOICE ON
Far enough guys (everybody). Let's stick to discussing the article by Frame. Anything else is off limits for this thread. If you want to talk about Dr. Clark's views etc. start a new thread.
MODERATOR VOICE OFF | Just wondering, has this discussion got confused because Dr. Frame drastically overstated the case in slamming the law/gospel distinction in the OP? |
Perhaps. What this is coming down to is really a matter of who's view of the Reformed Confessions is idiosyncratic.
I will be the first to admit that Dr. Frame writes and says some things that I don't believe are Confessional but that doesn't make it a maxim that every critique he utters is,
a priori, false. I actually believe there is a kernel of truth to what he states and you don't have to become a neo-nomian to agree with the critique as far as it goes.
It doesn't really help the case of truth when those in error see a large crowd of those who reject their views and a small percentage are actually orthodox but a vast majority are criticizing them because they clash with their own idiosyncratic views. It doesn't give the FV any excuse for their own error but I imagine it must be galling when you are condemned for being un-Confessional and a great number of those raising their hand represent Churches where the charge of being un-Confessional could strike them from another corner. There are many more warts than the FV on the hide of NAPARC congregations.