Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

16473Re: The North American Reformed Seminary (TNARS) - free seminary

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bray
    Aug 8, 2008
      Although i don't agree with all that Dr. Frame espouses, i most likely
      don't agree with all of what any one man believes. I certainly think
      that Dr. Frame falls within the pale of orthodoxy.

      Those who think that everyone must be on exactly the same page as
      themselves have done great harm to the Church.

      For instance, i believe that theonomy goes too far in making the
      application of the moral law normative, when it's really the moral law
      itself that is normative. I think Dr. Frame goes to far the other way
      in believing that even the normative moral law is...for lack of a
      better word...bendable.


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
      <bsuden@...> wrote:
      >
      > Sorry, in that a seminary - at least IMO - is to train men to be
      > defenders of the faith, running an endorsement by one of the premier
      > contemporary saboteurs of the same is - shall we say - a trifle
      > schizophrenic. Not cool, to put it mildly.
      >
      > As for the Framites, what about these who aren't? In my book, an
      > endorsement by JF is the kiss of death. I'd only expect more of the
      > happy clappy cr*p that JF is known for from TNARS. Yes, I know, Paul
      > tells the Corinthians he caught them with guile 2 Cor. 12:16, but he
      > also tells us that we are not to do evil that good may result Rom. 3:8.
      > A false pretence of false amity toward JF's theology crosses the line.
      > If it is false. Perhaps it is real. How are we to know, in that an
      > endorsement usually means someone is glad to get it from the party
      > giving it?
      >
      > But to be brutally blunt about it for those without a clue, regardless
      > of how arrogant and "unloving" that sounds, what we have been
      > witnessing in our day is a full scale assault on the doctrine, worship
      > and government of the reformed church by many within the camp. Having
      > begun with jus divinum church government (Schlissel and
      > congregationalism), Frame and all his buddies have been hacking away at
      > reformed worship, (Jordan, Schlissel, Wilson, Leithart, Horne, Meyer,
      > Gore) all the time they have had their eye on the crown jewels, i.e.
      > justification by faith. After all, a lot of the Federal Vision cut their
      > teeth dissing the RPW
      >
      <http://reformedveritas.blogspot.com/2007/10/federal-visions-fraudulent-\
      > version-of.html> (Jordan, Schlissel, Wilson, Leithart, Horne, Meyer).
      >
      > Frame hasn't publicly thrown in with the FV yet, but regardless if he
      > ultimately does or not, the modus operandi is the same. Distort,
      > mischaracterize and misrepresent the confessional orthodox position and
      > then substitute schlock in its place, never mind that if you can't tell
      > us what the confessional position really is in the first place, you're
      > incompetent to the question to begin with. Frame has played his part in
      > the mess the contemporary reformed church finds itself in, which is why
      > a genuine reformed seminary not only doesn't need an endorsement from
      > him, but would - if consistent - reject and repudiate it.
      >
      > Thank you,
      > cordially
      > Bob S.
      >
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
      > <fraasrd@> wrote:
      > >
      > > I would run in anyway. I think any endorsement by a notable figure
      > > among Reformed/Protestant churches would tend to draw students. An
      > > endorsement by a professor or pastor does not suggest that the
      > > seminary endorses him back. If I were running a seminary I would
      > > want Frame-ites to feel encouraged to apply. How else are they
      > > going to become Reformed? Although I would exclude it if it were
      > > not likely to draw students for the seminary, like an endorsement
      > > from Grand Inquisitor Joe Ratzinger or Ehud Barak.
      > >
      > > Riley
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
      > > bsuden@ wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Hello again, Larry
      > > >
      > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray"
      > > > <larryicr@> wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > I appreciate that honest [correct and pointed] criticism of Dr.
      > > Frame.
      > > >
      > > > Good. Glad to hear it. Will you or TNARS act upon it?
      > > >
      > > > > I don't agree with everything that he teaches, and as you
      > > mentioned he
      > > > > doesn't teach at TNARS either.
      > > >
      > > > Agreed, but will TNARS continue to run his endorsement?
      > > >
      > > > > The materials that are taught at TNARS are from a Westminster
      > > > > Standards point of reference. That's the important thing in my
      > > > opinion.
      > > >
      > > > Exactly. Which is just the point. I don't care if John Frame is a
      > > > theological idiot savant that can do prime numbers in his head
      > > when it
      > > > comes to apologetics. Rather Mr. Frame is doing what he can in
      > > our
      > > > day and time under our very noses to undercut those very same
      > > > Standards, if not the Word of God itself, with his fraudulent,
      > > errant
      > > > and nonconfessional theology, accompanied all the while with his
      > > > profession of love for and belief in both the Standards and the
      > > > Scripture. My question again is: who needs papists with
      > > presbyterians
      > > > like this?
      > > >
      > > > > Did you have any issues with what we were teaching? All of the
      > > classes
      > > > > are accessible from our website.
      > > >
      > > > That I haven't had a chance to look into.
      > > > But like I might just as well said, why bother? If TNARS thinks an
      > > > endorsement from John Frame is a plus or at least necessary to
      > > > acknowledge, that might seem to speak volumes about TNARS's
      > > theological
      > > > discernment. As in the lack thereof.
      > > > (And that even before we begin the discussion over long distance
      > > vs. on
      > > > site/in person theological education.)
      > > >
      > > > Again, I appreciate your efforts with the TNARS, Larry, but
      > > theology
      > > > according to the Three Stooges gets me going and that is what I
      > > consider
      > > > Mr. Frame's output to be.
      > > > If the written word of God is infallible, perspicuous and
      > > sufficient,
      > > > than among other things, pictures of Christ are unnecessary -
      > > as well
      > > > as forbidden in that same word - at least according to the WS. But
      > > not
      > > > according to John Frame.
      > > >
      > > > Fine. Slap him with a gag order, give him a box of crayons, and
      > > let him
      > > > have at it in the church's nursery - or better yet in the pope's
      > > > catechism class. Instead he's publishing, pontificating and
      > > handing out
      > > > endorsements - and what's worse, protestant presbyterians accept
      > > them
      > > > at face value. That I got a problem with.
      > > >
      > > > Thanks again,
      > > >
      > > > cordially in the Word become flesh,
      > > > Bob S.
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic