Thread: Salvation Belongs to the Lord by John Frame

I just got this book by John Frame today after hearing some very good reports about it from ministerial students at Reformed Theological College (Irish Covenanter). Has anyone else read it?

Yes and I really enjoyed it. It is like a mini-systematic. You can read the whole book in a very short period of time. I found it to be very informative for such an abbreviated volume.

DK

Very good. About the only qualm i have is it is written in colloquial english (uses contractions).

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Very good. About the only qualm i have is it is written in colloquial english (uses contractions).

can't win 'em all

Originally Posted by ReformationArt

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Very good. About the only qualm i have is it is written in colloquial english (uses contractions).

can't win 'em all

I did notice that he seems to define preterism as hyper-preterism when I was flicking through it. Can anyone confirm that this is right?

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I did notice that he seems to define preterism as hyper-preterism when I was flicking through it. Can anyone confirm that this is right?

Sort of. Of course, he doesn't think Gentry, Bahnsen et al are heretical hyper-preterists. Perhaps he should have been more clear.

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I did notice that he seems to define preterism as hyper-preterism when I was flicking through it. Can anyone confirm that this is right?

Sort of. Of course, he doesn't think Gentry, Bahnsen et al are heretical hyper-preterists. Perhaps he should have been more clear.

That is a shame because I will have to mention that when I do a review. Such a negative comment could have been avoided by adding the word "hyper". Moreover, it means that I am going to have to go around telling everyone that John Frame's definition of preterism is wrong and that they are not a bunch of heretics.

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Very good. About the only qualm i have is it is written in colloquial english (uses contractions).

But the book was a transcript from a series of *talks* he gave. Many times contractions sound better, and flow better, when one is giving a talk. I think he even mentioned something about this in the intro, but I could be wrong and I'm too lazy to go look it up....

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I did notice that he seems to define preterism as hyper-preterism when I was flicking through it. Can anyone confirm that this is right?

Sort of. Of course, he doesn't think Gentry, Bahnsen et al are heretical hyper-preterists. Perhaps he should have been more clear.

That is a shame because I will have to mention that when I do a review. Such a negative comment could have been avoided by adding the word "hyper". Moreover, it means that I am going to have to go around telling everyone that John Frame's definition of preterism is wrong and that they are not a bunch of heretics.

....well now I was forced to get the book

Frame calls hyper-preterism "extreme preterism" (310). He goes so far as to call it "heretical." But, he also grants that "preterism" about some passages, viz., the Olivet Discourse &c. were fulfilled, at least partly, in the fall of Jerusalem (309). So, he says one can be a preterist (a pastist) about many or all biblical prophecies. But, if you are a preterist about all of the prophecies, then you are an "extreme preterist" and have even given in to "heresy."

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Very good. About the only qualm i have is it is written in colloquial english (uses contractions).

But the book was a transcript from a series of *talks* he gave. Many times contractions sound better, and flow better, when one is giving a talk. I think he even mentioned something about this in the intro, but I could be wrong and I'm too lazy to go look it up....

I know. And it is still a good book, maybe the best modern day "light" intro to Reformed systematics.

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Very good. About the only qualm i have is it is written in colloquial english (uses contractions).

But the book was a transcript from a series of *talks* he gave. Many times contractions sound better, and flow better, when one is giving a talk. I think he even mentioned something about this in the intro, but I could be wrong and I'm too lazy to go look it up....

I know. And it is still a good book, maybe the best modern day "light" intro to Reformed systematics.

Perhaps. I'm still partial to Berkof's Manuel of Christian Doctrine to fill that role, though. But then maybe you don't classify Berkof as "modern day." If so, then I don't think there are *any* "modern day 'light' intros to Reformed Systematics" besides Frame's. So he would be the best by default.

I think that Ferguson's book "A Christian Life" would qualify, as would his most recent book "In Christ Alone."

Originally Posted by greenbaggins

I think that Ferguson's book "A Christian Life" would qualify, as would his most recent book "In Christ Alone."

I think those would qualify as good, "light" introductions to *Reformed* theology/soteriology, but not *systematic* theology. Sin and salvation and ethics are but *parts* of the system.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I just got this book by John Frame today after hearing some very good reports about it from ministerial students at Reformed Theological College (Irish Covenanter). Has anyone else read it?

I have just started reading this, and I have to say that I am very impressed so far.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I have just started reading this, and I have to say that I am very impressed so far.

Impressed by what? Details man, details!

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I have just started reading this, and I have to say that I am very impressed so far.

Impressed by what? Details man, details!

Well he starts of by emphasizing God's absolute Lordship (which is a good start), plus it is very easy to read. Seems to be a great introduction to Systematic Theology.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

I have just started reading this, and I have to say that I am very impressed so far.

Impressed by what? Details man, details!

Well he starts of by emphasizing God's absolute Lordship (which is a good start), plus it is very easy to read. Seems to be a great introduction to Systematic Theology.

Not too worry the hard-line Reformed people, Frame gives the traditional answers on the traditional loci, but he approaches them from--I can't say the word "perspective"--a unique point of view and defends them from different angles. I like it.

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by AV1611

Impressed by what? Details man, details!

Well he starts of by emphasizing God's absolute Lordship (which is a good start), plus it is very easy to read. Seems to be a great introduction to Systematic Theology.

Not too worry the hard-line Reformed people, Frame gives the traditional answers on the traditional loci, but he approaches them from--I can't say the word "perspective"--a unique point of view and defends them from different angles. I like it.

That sounds intriguing.

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

But the book was a transcript from a series of *talks* he gave. Many times contractions sound better, and flow better, when one is giving a talk. I think he even mentioned something about this in the intro, but I could be wrong and I'm too lazy to go look it up....

I know. And it is still a good book, maybe the best modern day "light" intro to Reformed systematics.

Perhaps. I'm still partial to Berkof's Manuel of Christian Doctrine to fill that role, though. But then maybe you don't classify Berkof as "modern day." If so, then I don't think there are *any* "modern day 'light' intros to Reformed Systematics" besides Frame's. So he would be the best by default.

Wouldn't James Boyce's Foundation of the Christian Faith be an introductory work in systematic theology?

Originally Posted by cih1355

Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

I know. And it is still a good book, maybe the best modern day "light" intro to Reformed systematics.

Perhaps. I'm still partial to Berkof's Manuel of Christian Doctrine to fill that role, though. But then maybe you don't classify Berkof as "modern day." If so, then I don't think there are *any* "modern day 'light' intros to Reformed Systematics" besides Frame's. So he would be the best by default.

Wouldn't James Boyce's Foundation of the Christian Faith be an introductory work in systematic theology?

IMHO no, it is too big.