"The word of God is God"--John Frame??

[Covenant Joel]

On pages 48-49 of "Salvation Belongs to the Lord: An Introduction to Systematic Theology," John Frame repeatedly says that "the word of God is God." It appears as well that he is not simply referring to Jesus' identification of the Word of God with Jesus in John 1. Rather, he seems to be referring also to the speech of God being God Himself.

Several questions:
1) Does this sound really strange to anyone else?
2) Is this a historically orthodox/confessional position?
3) What is that even supposed to mean?

 

[Herald]

I don't know much about Frame. Would he be arguing that the written word is manifested as God apart from the Trinity?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Joel,
You need to put more of a contextual quote in here, for those of us without the book. I can't judge his comment based on a snippet.

The best thing would be to quote him where he first uses the phrase, where he might explain himself a bit...

 

[Herald]

Joel,
You need to put more of a contextual quote in here, for those of us without the book. I can't judge his comment based on a snippet.

The best thing would be to quote him where he first uses the phrase, where he might explain himself a bit...

And that is why they pay you the big money Bruce.

 

[MW]

I would take a reasonable guess and say this is more of Prof. Frame's theology=application approach.

 

[Covenant Joel]

OK, sorry for just giving the snippet. Here's the extended section from the book. He's listing several points about the word of God:

"6. The speech of God has divine attributes. It is righteous....perfect...Only God has these attributes in total perfection. So, the word is God.
7. The word of God is an object of worship..[scripture verses quoted]...This is remarkable, for only God is the object of religious praise. To worship something other than God is idolatrous. Since David worships the word here, we canot excape the conclusion that the word is divine.
8. The word is God. ...(John 1:1). We usually use this passage to show the deity of Christ, and it is an excellent passage for this purpose...But I want you to see that this passage does not only identify Jesus with God; it also identifies God's speech with God...So, the Word that "was God" in verse 1 was not only Jesus, as verse 14 clearly indicates ("And the Word becmae flesh and dwelt among us"), but also the speech of God commanding the light to come out of darkness in Genesis 1:3...
So the word is God, and God is the word."

 

[MW]

On point 6, there is a creaturely perfection, as Gen. 1:31 indicates, that is, so far as God's moral attributes are concerned. No one would suggest the world is God.

On point 7, the word is not technically the "object" of worship, but Scripture employs a metonymy, and speaks of the means in terms of the object.

On point 8, if the verbal revelation of God is to be distinguished from the personal revelation of God in Jesus, and all the divinity of the second person of the Godhead is to be attributed to this verbal revelation, then the only conclusion can be that there is a fourth person in the Godhead, which is blasphemy.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We need to distinguish between (and I trust JF does this) the Word as it is, being God's self-revelation, and the Bible, the book, as an artifact of revelation.

 

[RamistThomist]

and Frame is also employed by RTS. This should make us careful with any heterodox charges. Surely such a great bastion of the truth as RTS would not employ anyone heterodox.

 

[swilson]

We need to distinguish between (and I hope JF does this) the Word as it is, being God's self-revelation, and the Bible, the book, as an artifact of revelation.

Would the self-revelation still be the self, or a revealing of the self? I see a difference here, in that, to call anything God but the Father, Son or Holy Spirit seems dangerous. The authority of God's Word has its authority because the Word belongs to God (is from God), not because of the Word in and of itself. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us...is Frame truly saying that the book of Isaiah became flesh and dwelt among us? I know I am exagerating, but we should take it to its logical conclusion (if I've succeeded in doing so). See, this is what happens when you move away from Van Til

 

[Covenant Joel]

Thanks for the thoughts.

 

[Romans922]

RTS Orlando is not RTS (It is out of accord with the Westminster ....).

and Frame is also employed by RTS. This should make us careful with any heterodox charges. Surely such a great bastion of the truth as RTS would not employ anyone heterodox.

 

[RamistThomist]

RTS Orlando is not RTS (It is out of accord with the Westminster ....).

and Frame is also employed by RTS. This should make us careful with any heterodox charges. Surely such a great bastion of the truth as RTS would not employ anyone heterodox.

Since this is a public forum I will not say my original thoughts. But even granting your point--which I don't--others still need to account for the fact that Frame has been in good standing with the PCA. Surely they would discipline the heterodox, would they not?. Suffice to say that the RTSs are not so independent as you would think.

 

[Romans922]

It was a joke.

RTS Orlando is not RTS (It is out of accord with the Westminster ....).

and Frame is also employed by RTS. This should make us careful with any heterodox charges. Surely such a great bastion of the truth as RTS would not employ anyone heterodox.

Since this is a public forum I will not say my original thoughts. But even granting your point--which I don't--others still need to account for the fact that Frame has been in good standing with the PCA. Surely they would discipline the heterodox, would they not?. Suffice to say that the RTSs are not so independent as you would think.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

We need to distinguish between (and I hope JF does this) the Word as it is, being God's self-revelation, and the Bible, the book, as an artifact of revelation.

Would the self-revelation still be the self, or a revealing of the self? I see a difference here, in that, to call anything God but the Father, Son or Holy Spirit seems dangerous. The authority of God's Word has its authority because the Word belongs to God (is from God), not because of the Word in and of itself. The Word became flesh and dwelt among us...is Frame truly saying that the book of Isaiah became flesh and dwelt among us? I know I am exagerating, but we should take it to its logical conclusion (if I've succeeded in doing so). See, this is what happens when you move away from Van Til

It would be most apt, I think, to say that God's self-disclosure is always some exhibition of the 2nd Person. That seems to be John's point in 1:1, and several other places in his Gospel. That which Isaiah wrote is an artifact of revelation, not the essential Revelation. Such a thing (infinite) could not be "contained". But we could say that the Word of the Lord "came to Isaiah" and that Word was the 2nd Person, God the Son.

 

[MW]

It would be most apt, I think, to say that God's self-disclosure is always some exhibition of the 2nd Person. That seems to be John's point in 1:1, and several other places in his Gospel. That which Isaiah wrote is an artifact of revelation, not the essential Revelation. Such a thing (infinite) could not be "contained". But we could say that the Word of the Lord "came to Isaiah" and that Word was the 2nd Person, God the Son.

Bruce, what do you do with Prof. Frame's distinction between the second person and the "speech of God," and the attribution of divinity to the "speech of God?"

 

[Contra_Mundum]

That, Matthew, I would call into question. I agree that is an improper distinction to make.

However, I still do not feel as though I have read enough of a quote to say I know for SURE that JF is suggesting that ontological distinction.

 

[Covenant Joel]

One thing to keep in mind as well is that the book that this was found in is his shorter volume. Perhaps he provides more explanation in his full work, "The Doctrine of God." I felt like as I read through that section that he didn't explain enough--kind of that I was missing something, for I highly doubt that Dr. Frame is suggesting some sort of additional member to the Trinity.

 

[bookslover]

We need to distinguish between (and I trust JF does this) the Word as it is, being God's self-revelation, and the Bible, the book, as an artifact of revelation.

Judging just by the quotation given, it's hard to know what Frame means. Is he confusing the living Word of God (Jesus Christ) with the written Word of God (the Bible)? Is he just guilty of sloppy writing and just not keeping in mind the distinction between the way the term is used? Is he trying to combine the two senses of the term?

Maybe he's just getting lost in his tri-perspectivalism...

 

[Contra_Mundum]

One thing to keep in mind as well is that the book that this was found in is his shorter volume. Perhaps he provides more explanation in his full work, "The Doctrine of God." I felt like as I read through that section that he didn't explain enough--kind of that I was missing something, for I highly doubt that Dr. Frame is suggesting some sort of additional member to the Trinity.

The issue wouldn't be whether a man might be suggesting something in a self-conscious way, but rather: does such a formulation take us someplace ill, whether a man is explicit about going there himself or not. Or even if he denies that a reductio takes him there.

If I declare myself a firm, immovable Trinitarian, but then I "create" a fourth divine substance by my formualtion or description, then I have created a problem.

Since I don't have the book, I'm not willing to say that I think JF is defintely driving an semantic or ontological wedge between the Word, and God's speech-revelation. Or ascribing divinity to the Bible, an artifact of revelation.

 

[Covenant Joel]

The issue wouldn't be whether a man might be suggesting something in a self-conscious way, but rather: does such a formulation take us someplace ill, whether a man is explicit about going there himself or not. Or even if he denies that a reductio takes him there.

If I declare myself a firm, immovable Trinitarian, but then I "create" a fourth divine substance by my formualtion or description, then I have created a problem.

Since I don't have the book, I'm not willing to say that I think JF is defintely driving an semantic or ontological wedge between the Word, and God's speech-revelation. Or ascribing divinity to the Bible, an artifact of revelation.

Right. And that is largely why I brought this up. But I would still suspect that he fleshes it out more in his larger volume which explains it more...not to excuse any misleading in this volume.

 

[RamistThomist]

How about emailing him and asking him. He is very good on responding to emails.

jframe AT rts DOT edu

 

[Civbert]

How about emailing him and asking him. He is very good on responding to emails.

jframe AT rts DOT edu

Good idea.


Also, it could be the Frame is speaking metaphorically.