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

16480Re: The North American Reformed Seminary (TNARS) - free seminary

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bray
    Aug 9, 2008
      I find it interesting that you speak of erecting images of Calvin, and
      yet you condemn him as attacking Scripture (since he held to a
      continental view of the Sabbath).

      So i would presume that you wouldn't be o.k. with schools that Calvin
      endorsed either...i guess i'm in good company then.

      You say that using images for religious purposes is a violation...what
      about the bronze serpent? Certainly that was used for religious
      purposes...to point to Christ and show the healing power of God. Yet
      it wasn't until the people actually worshiped it that it was a sin.

      As to your last points...i do not advocate the use of images, i was
      simply stating that Dr. Frame has come to a different conclusion - one
      that i believe is wrong - and why he comes to his conclusions.

      I can't think of anybody that would be "good enough" to give an
      endorsement if that meant they had to agree on every point of
      Scripture...and every point of it is important.


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "ghowmil"
      <garnetmilne@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > Hi Larry (May I?),
      >
      > Points noted below for you consideration.
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray"
      > <larryicr@> wrote:
      > >
      > > First let me just say that Dr. Frame is anything but arrogant.
      >
      > I am sure JF is a pleasant fellow and respectful of others, but there
      > is such a thing as academic arrogance.
      >
      > >
      > > You claim that his teaching on images of Christ is an attack on
      > > Scripture. Do you also believe that teachings outside of the
      > > Westminster Standards like the continental view on the Sabbath is also
      > > an attack on Scripture?
      >
      > Yes anti-sabbatarian views are an attack on Scripture
      >
      > >
      > > Dr. Frame uses Scripture to back up his teaching on images of Christ.
      > > His interpretation of the command referring to making images for the
      > > purpose of worship is backed up in Lev 26:1 -
      > >
      > > "You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar,
      > > and you shall not set up a figured stone in your land to bow down to
      > > it, for I am the Lord your God."
      > >
      > > where we are told that we aren't to make an image "to bow down to it."
      >
      > Using any image for any religious purpose is to bow down to it. Yes it
      > is ok to knock up a statue of Knox or paint an image of Calvin but it
      > is not ok to use them for religious purposes.
      >
      > >
      > > In 2 Ki 18:4 we see Hezekiah destroying the bronze serpent (a picture
      > > of Christ). Though the image was permitted, the people started
      > > worshiping it, and that is what broke the command and therefore caused
      > > its destruction.
      >
      > Types of Christ are only found in and sanctioned by Scripture. Are you
      > suggesting we can create new types of our Lord? Where is your biblical
      > warrant. Where is your special revelation to create a bronze
      > serpent?God no longer gives such revelations (Heb. 1:1-2). If images
      > can be pictures or types, what about human beings? The Pope would
      > agree with you.
      >
      > >
      > > Dr Frame also considers that permitting images in our mind of Jesus,
      > > since He was in the flesh, keeps us from the heresy of Docetism.
      >
      > So without the use of images in the mind we are all prone to docetism?
      > I am sure Calvin and Knox would be surprised at this revelation!
      >
      > Kind Regards,
      >
      > Gary
      > covenantedreformation.com
      >
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
      > > <bsuden@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > 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 covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.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 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
      > > > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic