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.

__________________
Lynnie

PCA

Central NJ

__________________
____________________________

~Beth Ellen Nagle~
Lakeside Church -Wales, WI (PCA)
Married to John
One wonderful daughter, Chaela Joelle


My work in digital art and photography: http://www.puritanboard.com/members/...ms-images.html

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

__________________
Tim Phillips
Pastor, Midlane Park Presbyterian Church (ARP)
Louisville, KY
Husband of Scottish Lass
My Blog: Gairney Bridge
My Facebook/My Avatar

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

"Wherever the gospel is preached, it is as if God Himself came into the midst of us." ~ John Calvin

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 The questions are valid, yet they do not imply we throw out our Confessions, nor that they have become outdated.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.

__________________
Patrick
Member, PCA
Chandler, AZ
ReformedTheologyInstitute.com

I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.

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.

__________________
Shalom,
jessi
PCA
Steelers fan exiled to Virginia


“Whatever your heart clings to and confides in, that is really your God.”
Martin Luther

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

__________________
Wayne Whitmer
Member, Rio Rancho OPC
Albuquerque, NM

As an outsider to the Presby 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?

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

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?

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!

__________________
Ben Franks

I attend: Ketoctin Covenant Presbyterian Church (OPC)
in Purcellville, Virginia
I'm a member of: Heartland Community Church (PCA)
in Wichita, Kansas
I blog here (along with my Dad): http://rrfranks.blogspot.com/
And I'm a student here: www.phc.edu

"Remember the speeches we have spoken so often over our mead, when we raised boast on the bench, heroes in the hall, about hard fighting. Now may the man who is bold prove that he is."-Aelfwine at the Battle of Maldon

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.

__________________
DonP

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.

__________________
Chris
Presbyterian Reformed Church of Charlotte (PRC)
Student, Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
SC

...hope is nothing but the nourishment and strength of faith.
~ Calvin's Institutes III.ii.43

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.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina


"Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)"
Hebrews 10:23

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?

__________________
Charlie Johnson
Downtown Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, student

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.

__________________
Taylor W. Otwell, Husband to Abigail
Member, Fellowship Bible Church
Fort Smith, Arkansas
Family Blog

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.

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.)

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?

__________________
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Pastor, Christ Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCGA)
Wylie, TX
www.christcovenantreformedpc.org

Our best marks can contribute nothing to our justification, ...that is proper to faith. Faith cannot lodge in the soul alone, and without other graces; yet faith alone justifies before God.--G. Gillespie

Not to get but, I have wanted to buy the book ever since it came out. IMHO 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.

__________________
Josiah Lovett
Member of
Trinity OPC
Bothell WA
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Westminster Standards

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.

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.

__________________
Rich
PCA, Northern VA
Student, New Geneva Theological Seminary

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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 Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

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. IOW it isn't just about his musical inclinations.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.)

__________________
AV
Baptist
VA

Excellent! I reviewed the materials and now stand corrected.

Wow a changeable man. Praise God. A good example for all of us.

Thanks!

What year were those chapters added to the Confession and why did they feel the need?
Any good resource or minutes of GA you can point me to.

Personally I like the idea of adding something on the Gospel but if they had accepted the Sum of Saving Knowledge the may not have felt a need to.
But there has been so much controversy on the free offer and the modern decisional regeneration if this was clearly stated and refuted may have been more helpful.

My apologies for being too off-topic. I simply wanted to display a token of "well-said" to something Rich said.

Don, my understanding is that those chapters were originally added to the Standards of the northern Presbyterian church around the turn of the 20th century as a response to the objections of the (Arminian) Cumberland Presbyterians (read between the lines: in order to water down the Calvinism in the WCF). The southern Presbyterians adopted the chapters around 1950, and true to form, the ARP followed their big brother (the PCUS) and added the chapters about 5 years later.

Mind you, this is all from memory. The book I need that chronicles this is not with my right now. I can check at home (on the years) and update later. If someone else wants to fill in the pieces or correct my recollection, please do so.

No wonder they didn't make the Gospel chapter better then.

I was thinking it was a new side old side thing but I didn't remember Cumberland pres.
So why did ARP adopt it? And why not repeal it and go back ?

Ah, just remembered that I included those alterations of the WCF elsewhere. Here is a portion of a paragraph I wrote with the appropriate data:

The sources for these are Office of the General Assembly, Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Book of Confessions: Study Edition (Louisville, KY: Geneva Press, 1996), p. 170, and Edward A. Dowey, Jr., A Commentary on the Confession of 1967 and an Introduction to “The Book of Confessions” (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), p. 230, 234.

I believe the ARP adopted the chapters around 1950. Why not repeal them? Good question (one that was actually posed on the floor of Synod a few years ago by Dr. Bill Evans). Here's the problem with this sort of thing: once the genie gets out of the bottle, it's hard to put him back in again. Once amendments, chapters, etc. are added, it's hard to get them taken out. Very hard. Very very hard.

Had you been at the examination of Leithart's orthodoxy that was held at the Oct. 2008 meeting of our presbytery, and heard the emphasis that was placed upon Frame's view of the confessions as a way by which to completely negate the authority of our standards as a means of evaluating a minister's theology, you would (or should) have been disheartened.

__________________
Adam J. Myer
Slated for the Jan. 10th Chaplains Basic Officer Leadership Course
Estacada Christian Church
Sandy, Oregon

Soli Deo Gloria

I see no problem with Frame's questions. R. Scott Clark, an ardent defender of confessions, thinks it's time for a new Reformed confession. Writes Clark,

The relative reluctance of modern Reformed folk to confess the faith in their own words suggests a certain weakness in the post-Westminster understanding of the importance and necessity of confession.

Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,

When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise, and in accordance with the additional light of Scripture which the Holy Spirit might be pleased to give the church. I believe that the time has come for us to do something along this line.

So Frame's point is valid. Of course, those who don't like some of Frame's theology will attribute an ill design to his motives. Frame may be against a kind of static confessionalism, but he's not opposed to orthodoxy or confessionalism per se.

__________________
Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Easley, South Carolina

"Persons need not and ought not to set any bounds to their spiritual and gracious appetites." Jonathan Edwards

MODERATION

The thread has been edited to remove allegations of motive on the part of Frame or others. It is open for discussion on the merits, but let us refrain from discussing the inner motives (unless they are admitted) of anyone here. That is something we can't know and something that is off limits on the board.

__________________
Raymond Victor Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Similarly, R. B. Kuiper, whom Clark cites, argues,
When our Reformed fathers wrote the Confessions, they intended that these documents should be revised from time to time with a view to heresies that might in the future arise,

That is an interesting point. The confessions were written in a time when the church primarily seemed to battle the RCC and Arminians. I wonder if they were written today if many things would be added to address the prosperity doctrine greed, Darwin and evolution, self esteem psychobabble, Scofield dispensationalism, etc.

Nothing about God would be changed, or about salvation or righteousness or any eternal unchanging truth. But might not a modern confession have a few extras about some modern problems?