16476Re: The North American Reformed Seminary (TNARS) - free seminary
- Aug 9, 2008Bob is correct,
People like John Frame who have claimed to be spokesmen for orthodoxy
over the years have a great responsibility.
If they wish to overthrow Reformed orthodoxy in worship etc, then they
need to be honest and admit that their thinking is not compatible with
the Reformers and the Reformed Confessions and resign as a teacher
from any institution that claims to be Reformed. Such public teachers
not only hurt the Reformation, they prove themselves to be
hypocritical when claiming to teach biblical truth.
Neither should a seminary want endorsement from such a 'teacher'.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "bob_suden"
> The question is not whether we ever can agree 100% with someone, but on
> what points we agree or disagree. Frame's argument and doctrine on
> pedagogical pictures of Christ is an attack on the doctrine of Scripture
> - Chapt. 1 of the Confession and one of the two principium of the
> Reformed faith, the other being the doctrine of God.
> In other words, the issue comes down to whether we will have the
> preaching of Christ or pictures of Christ, i.e. deja vu the Reformation
> conflict between Protestantism and popery.
> Of course Frame and his defenders think all the above a non sequitur -
> as if Frame's methodology itself is rigorously logical, never mind
> confessional, which is yet another mark against him regardless of what
> his "reformed" fans think. Others think it no small thing. Without
> apology I side with the latter.
> If a reformed seminary is to equip men to be able like the men of
> Issachar, to know the times and what Israel ought to do, an endorsement
> from a leading theologian of the day who has proudly, arrogantly and
> enthusiastically laid waste to the biblical and confessional doctrine of
> reformed worship does not say much for that seminary's reformed
> theological discernment.
> --- In email@example.com, "Larry Bray"
> <larryicr@> wrote:
> > 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 firstname.lastname@example.org, "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,
> > > 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.
> > > A false pretence of false amity toward JF's theology crosses the
> > > 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,
> > > of how arrogant and "unloving" that sounds, what we have been
> > > witnessing in our day is a full scale assault on the doctrine,
> > > and government of the reformed church by many within the camp.
> > > begun with jus divinum church government (Schlissel and
> > > congregationalism), Frame and all his buddies have been hacking away
> > > reformed worship, (Jordan, Schlissel, Wilson, Leithart, Horne,
> > > 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
> > > teeth dissing the RPW
> > >
> > > version-of.html> (Jordan, Schlissel, Wilson, Leithart, Horne,
> > >
> > > Frame hasn't publicly thrown in with the FV yet, but regardless if
> > > ultimately does or not, the modus operandi is the same. Distort,
> > > mischaracterize and misrepresent the confessional orthodox position
> > > then substitute schlock in its place, never mind that if you can't
> > > us what the confessional position really is in the first place,
> > > incompetent to the question to begin with. Frame has played his part
> > > the mess the contemporary reformed church finds itself in, which is
> > > a genuine reformed seminary not only doesn't need an endorsement
> > > him, but would - if consistent - reject and repudiate it.
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > cordially
> > > Bob S.
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In email@example.com, "Dan Fraas"
> > > <fraasrd@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I would run in anyway. I think any endorsement by a notable
> > > > among Reformed/Protestant churches would tend to draw students.
> > > > 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
> > > >
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>