Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
Disclaimer: I have not read any of his books! (But I plan to . . .)
I think at least one thing controversial about him is that he has offered criticism of the traditional view of the regulative principle of worship.
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
Disclaimer: I have not read any of his books! (But I plan to . . .)
I think at least one thing controversial about him is that he has offered criticism of the traditional view of the regulative principle of worship.
I get in trouble every time I comment on John's theology publicly, so I'll be circumspect, but folks have criticized the following in JMF's theology:
1. His s definition of theology (as application) (though this has precedent in Ames and Edwards),
2. His theological method ("tri-perspectivalism"),
3. His claim that we can know God "in himself," (not something the Reformed have taught),
4. His claim that God is both one person and three persons,
5. His application of the RPW to every area of life so that it ceases to have a distinct function in regulating worship,
6. His criticism/rejection of the traditional/confessional application of the 2nd commandment to pictures of God the Son incarnate,
7. His criticism/rejection/revision of the traditional Protestant law/gospel distinction and his support for elements of Norm Shepherd's doctrine of justification and apparent support for the FV.
He has written widely on theological method (he has a new intro to theology out), on apologetics, the doctrine of God, worship and ecumenics.
rsc
Originally posted by Mayflower
Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Originally posted by StaunchPresbyterian
Disclaimer: I have not read any of his books! (But I plan to . . .)
I think at least one thing controversial about him is that he has offered criticism of the traditional view of the regulative principle of worship.
I get in trouble every time I comment on John's theology publicly, so I'll be circumspect, but folks have criticized the following in JMF's theology:
1. His s definition of theology (as application) (though this has precedent in Ames and Edwards),
2. His theological method ("tri-perspectivalism"),
3. His claim that we can know God "in himself," (not something the Reformed have taught),
4. His claim that God is both one person and three persons,
5. His application of the RPW to every area of life so that it ceases to have a distinct function in regulating worship,
6. His criticism/rejection of the traditional/confessional application of the 2nd commandment to pictures of God the Son incarnate,
7. His criticism/rejection/revision of the traditional Protestant law/gospel distinction and his support for elements of Norm Shepherd's doctrine of justification and apparent support for the FV.
He has written widely on theological method (he has a new intro to theology out), on apologetics, the doctrine of God, worship and ecumenics.
rsc
Dear Mr. Scott,
These things that you wrote, are they all things which many reformed theologions have disagree with John Frame ? So is he still orthodox reformed in his theology ? Is he still trustfull to read ?
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I disagree with Frame on the following:
1) Music.
2) Transcendental Argument. I sdie with Bahnsen onthis one. Do you know what Bahnsen's last words to Frame were? "John, you're just wrong on the transcendental argument!" Frame told that at Bahnsen's funeral and everybody roared with laughter!
Originally posted by Mayflower
Originally posted by Draught Horse
I disagree with Frame on the following:
1) Music.
2) Transcendental Argument. I sdie with Bahnsen onthis one. Do you know what Bahnsen's last words to Frame were? "John, you're just wrong on the transcendental argument!" Frame told that at Bahnsen's funeral and everybody roared with laughter!
Dear Jacob,
Can you maybe explain in a few words (if it is possible?) what his view is on music and the transcendental argument ?
I don't want to get into a wrestling match with you on this issue but this blurb is a little surprising. I've read The Doctrine of God and that seems too pithy a way to sum up what he's saying. I confess that I don't completely follow all the arguments as my theological understanding of the history of such discussions regarding the Godhead is still growing.Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
4. His claim that God is both one person and three persons,
Van Til is not offering a novel doctrine at all, but, apparently, (NAME CHANGED TO PROTECT THE NON-INNOCENT) devotion to Aristotelian principles blinds him to this fact. Person X fails to distinguish the meaning of "œperson" in the technical sense of the Nicene Creed from Van Til´s more modern usage. Van Til never parts from the traditional formula that God is one in one sense and three in another. In Van Til´s usage of "œperson" we see that Scripture does speak of God as a person without mentioning the distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit: God thinks (Ps 33:11), plans (Gen 41:32), loves (Ps. 91:14), creates (Gen 1:1), judges (Isa. 28:16, 17) , and speaks (Ex. 20:1).
Moreover, the Westminster Confession declares famously that "œThere is but one only living and true God, who is"¦most wise, most holy, working all things to the counsel of his own"¦will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, "¦.the rewarder of them that diligently seek him"¦" (Chap. II, I---my emphasis).
I think if John would write only apologetics there would be less controversy.
I don't read much from him, and can't say that I understand him, but you've got to give him credit for having the courage to be consistent. He and I would disagree on the RPW, but I disagree with modern Presbyterianism on that too. At least Dr. Frame takes it to its logical end. I would believe that a minister who preaches the Framework Hypothesis is in contravention, first and foremost, of the RPW; modern Presbyterianism doesn't. It believes that the RPW applies to those who are regulated, but that the regulators are exempt in as far as they are separate in their offices from the regular folk. They too are confined to singing only the Psalms, because the entire congregation is confined; they worship together, not separately. But if they choose to exempt themselves in their offices by ruling and preaching what God did not send them to rule and preach, and not be in contravention of it thereby, and also still be in compliace with their offices, then that is their right.Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
For what it's worth, I have significant problems with some of what John proposes regarding the doctrine of God. I think he and CVT erred, for different reasons, in saying "one person, three persons." This is not an ecumenical or catholic or biblical formula.
I think John's re-formulation of the RPW is not confessional or biblical. The RPW has never been applied to all of life indiscriminately. It was never intended to function that way.
I think John is rather confused when he says that we can know God "in himself." This is not a Reformed or biblical way of speaking. We only know God as he reveals himself to us. Accommodated revelation is not God "in himself."
His rejection of Reformed ethics re the 2nd commandment, though very popular, does not commend itself to anyone who wants to be confessional in their reading of Scripture.
That said, I think his volume on Apologetics (to the Glory of God) was helpful and I've benefited from his work on CVT (though I realize many do not think him completely faithful to CVT's apologetics). His critique of Open Theism was helpful and generally well done, though he makes a concession to Op Th that I would not.
I think if John would write only apologetics there would be less controversy. Doubtless he would say that if I stuck to history (!) everyone would be better off.
I think John should be read with a Bible in one hand (he would agree) and a confession in the other (which I guess means putting John's book on the bookstand in the middle).
rsc
Originally posted by Draught Horse
To my knowledge Frame doesn't teach FH. Now, he might not be a full-blown Confessional Creationist, but I know he is quite critical of Meredith Kline and tries to keep his distance. But then again, if you can show me something he wrote to the contrary, I stand corrected.