John Frame's "The Doctrine of the Word of God"

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Three questions concerning this work of Frame:

1. Have you read it throughout?

2. What are your thoughts on it in general?

3. Any serious errors found (as in his later works of the same series)?

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

Any help here? Has anyone here at least read some portions of the book?

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

Yes, I have read it, and I found it not very good. John Frame is proposing a subjectivist philosophy. But I read it a long time ago.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Marrow Man]

Hi:

Yes, I have read it, and I found it not very good. John Frame is proposing a subjectivist philosophy. But I read it a long time ago.

Blessings,

Rob

How long ago did you read it, Rob? It's only been out for about a year, hasn't?

Perhaps you are confusing it with one of the other tomes he has written (the names are all too similar, in my opinion).

 

[athanatos]

I will be reading it soooooooon for class

 

[jogri17]

I own it and have looked through it. I wouldn't say it is it wrong, but I think it is severely flawed in its methodology. Here is
how:
1) He argues to be in the same Reformed tradition as John Murray (using his method) and says that is where he gets his methodology. This is false and an over simplification in his mind. Yes John murray emphesized Biblical exegesis in his Systematic Theology classes at WTS (see Vol. 3 of his collected works), but he also had a supurb understanding of Church History and would use that.
2) Frame's understanding of Confessionalism is very weak. The presumption should you agree with your church's confession 100%, and you should leave room for exceptions, but those exceptions ought to be made clear at the beginning.
3) Frame's lack of historical theology shows us on a number of occasions where he repeats stuff that has been refuted decades ago. I do not think he is even aware of Richard Muller's work, which is accepted even in secular and liberal circles.
4) It is anti-elenctic theology implicately. Granted, he goes after open theism in the series, but there are times where severe attacks on theologies are necessary in theology and Frame, with his unhealthy obsession with a neo-evangelical understand of Christian unity makes him blind to this important fact.

That being said, I do reccomend reading it. The evangelical spirit (which I listed as a weakness above lol) is a good thing and missing from many Reformed STs. And he does have a brillant systematicing mind which makes it worthy of reading, though I recomend reading Bavinck vol. 1 before hand or right after. Bavinck's methodology (if you do not have the time, Berkhof's little book Introduction to the study of ST is an acceptable substitute) in volume 1 of RD is a must add if you just read that as opposed to other STs.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

What do you think about the following review on Amazon which gave only 1 star to Frame's book? Is it truthful?:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"My book is a systematic theological treatment, not a historical study. My purpose is not to enter into this complicated history and to determine inductively whether a canon somehow emerges from it and what books constitute that canon. Indeed, I'm inclined to think that that kind of study is unfruitful. Studies of the historical process by which the church came to identify the canon certainly do reveal interesting facts, and believers can see the hand of God throughout this process. But inductive study alone is unlikely to show us with certainty which books God has given to rule the church. My purpose here, rather, is to present the teachings of Scripture itself relevant to the doctrine of the word of God, and now relevant to the specific question of canonicity." The Doctrine of the Word of God, pg.134

Really, did you catch that; "not to determine inductively whether a canon emerges... I'm inclined to think that that kind of study is unfruitful?" But why would Frame say this? Could it be because he realizes that such a "determination" would undermine the presumed authority of his system? But even more important is the fact that his rejection of induction is a lie; there is no such thing as "the word of God" without the method of inductive science. Frame "would like" to be able to claim that inductive science is "unfruitful," or irrelevant to his system, but unfortunately he can't- existence won't give him the option. The Bible from which he speaks presupposes the necessity of inductive science.

Once again, did you catch that; Frame's "purpose" is simply to assume that the Protestant Canon, on which this book is based, is "itself relevant to the doctrine of the word of God." Are you kidding me? Is this a joke? And why would any logical person allow Frame to get away this?

The assumption by Frame, seems to be, that the reliability of the Canon is not an important issue? This is simply absurd- especially coming from a Presuppositionalist. Is not Frame's entire position deduced from a concept of Canon? If so, then to argue that an "inductive determination" is "unfruitful," is to ignore the central issue, not only of Frame's theology, but every aspect of his epistemology as well. Thus, for Frame to say, "my book is a systematic theological treatment, not a historical study," is absurd in that all of Frame's theology, as well as his sense of history, is directly connected to his concept of Canon. In other words, there is no "theological treatment" without an authoritative Canon, and no Canon, without inductive science. But for some reason Frame decides to dismiss the issue? My argument is that he does this because he knows it would undermine the authority of his system. "Why is it unfruitful," we might ask? Because Frame can't establish an authoritative Canon, on the basis of "induction," which would equally allow him to justify his conclusions. This is just plain dishonest, is it not?

"No Mr. Tibbs, in order for the trick to work you can't look behind the curtain."

"Now children, there is no need to question the premise, that kind of thinking is unfruitful; the best thing we can do, to ensure that we are right, is to assume the truth of our premise. Now there, see, everything works!"

Does Frame do a good job of summarizing and articulating ideas? Yes.

Is this book deceptive in that Frame draws conclusions, which would otherwise be impossible, if he did not assume their premise? Yes.

Is this a good book? Sure, if you are going to assume with Frame that Frame is right?

One word to summarize the argument of this book? "Authoritarianism."

Example: "...natural revelation is a necessary means of interpreting Scripture. To properly understand Scripture, we need to know something about ancient languages and culture, and that information is not always available in Scripture alone. Nevertheless, once we have reached a settled interpretation as to what Scripture says, that knowledge takes precedence over any ideas supposedly derived from natural revelation." Ibid. pg.272

Frame says:"...natural revelation is a necessary means..." and then a few sentences later, that these "ideas [are] SUPPOSEDLY derived from natural revelation?" Well for the love of God man make up your mind!

And what reason does Frame give for abandoning his original, "natural revelatory" mode of reason (as in, "that knowledge takes precedents over any ideas" which "supposedly" established it)? None, pure authoritarianism! And yet, he admits that this form of reasoning is "necessary" to "properly understand scripture!" So tell me folks, who is presupposing whose worldview?

For the collapse of Frame's theology, along with all other forms of Presuppositional Apologetics see, Jersey Flight, John Frame, Christianity the Beginning of the End, at:theskepticthinker(.)com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some opposing comments were made on this review: http://www.amazon.com/review/RG4O7T...5522645&nodeID=&tag=&linkCode=#wasThisHelpful

 

[CalvinandHodges]

Hi:

You are right - I was thinking of the "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God."

My fault.

Blessings,

Rob

 

[Philip]

Samuel, that sounds like a lot of the stuff I hear from skeptics when it comes to the Bible in general. I happen to think that determination of canon is secondary to the doctrine of Scripture because determination of canon is secondary to the doctrine of Scripture. That is, without a doctrine of Scripture, we have no criteria for recognizing canon.

 

[InSlaveryToChrist]

What are your thoughts on Frame's statement, “…theology is not purely objective truth… there is no such thing as purely objective truth…"?

Frame seems to oppose Van Til's idea that “the whole idea of the revelation of the self-sufficient God of Scripture drops to the ground if man himself is autonomous or self-sufficient. …if man is in any sense autonomous, he is not in need of revelation.”

It seems to me that in Frame's mind our own senses are the highest authority, after which come the Scriptures.

 

[CharlieJ]

No, not at all. Objective means "outside the subject." Truth does not exist detached from subjects. In the Christian worldview, truth is ultimately grounded in a Subject, God. We do not just perceive truth, as an outside reality impacting us. We participate in truth through the Holy Spirit.

All knowledge contains subjective and objective elements. If there were no subject, there would be no one to know. If there were no object, there would be nothing to know. Knowledge is always a fusion between the faculties of the subject and the properties of the object. Frame is arguing against Cartesian rationalism, not Van Til.

 

[Marrow Man]

Hi:

You are right - I was thinking of the "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God."

My fault.

Blessings,

Rob

No problem. I confuse the first two books in the series all the time.