16484Re: The North American Reformed Seminary (TNARS) - free seminary
- Aug 9, 2008--- In email@example.com, "Larry Bray"
>Come on, Larry. You can do better than than taking cheap shots and
> Frankly, i am glad that we don't attract people such as yourself who
> have so much enmity for others in the Body of Christ.
making snide remarks. I might just as well say look in the mirror. You
yourself said that what could be called Frame's antinomian or libertine
view of the moral law troubled you. But nobody else can be bothered
about Frame's theology?
> First let me just say that Dr. Frame is anything but arrogant.Garnett nailed it when he referred to "academic arrogance." I've never
seen a guy so blithely ignore the confession all the while he claims to
uphold it - at least in spirit, if not in substance or something like
that - as JF does, all the while in his humble opinion it is wrong.
Well, if it is, he has no business saying so outside of the church
courts in that he is sworn to uphold at least the WCF. Yet we see no end
of popular evangelical theology lite literature gushing forth from his
word processor contradicting or questioning the WCF. Evidently the 3rd
and 9th commandment are, as you say, "bendable".
> You claim that his teaching on images of Christ is an attack onThere was and is progress in the truth. The West. Stands. are the last
> 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?
of the great Reformation confessions and supersede what went before IMO.
Further, what is called the continental view at least had a scriptural
argument for it. Now days what is called the continental view would more
correctly be called the personally convenient view.
> Dr. Frame uses Scripture to back up his teaching on images of Christ.No, Frame abuses and misuses Scripture, as well as reason. As below,
> His interpretation of the command referring to making images for the
> purpose of worship is backed up in Lev 26:1 -
since God can command an image to be made, ipso facto so too can man.
> "You shall not make idols for yourselves or erect an image or pillar,Above and beyond that, in the larger context again, Frame and the rest
> 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."
> 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.
of the Federal Vision bunch have bought into the fundamental
presupposition - and have persistently affirmed it - that since we
have an example of an image in Scripture commanded by God, ergo we are
permitted to do the same, be it images in the temple or the bronze
serpent or where ever. But note bene, this is a non sequitur - it does
not follow. It is to arrogate and presume that what God is permitted to
do, we are also permitted to do, i.e it is theological confusion.
But we are not God nor may we presume his prerogatives in worship or
anything else, however novel that stricture might sound to JF and the
FV boys. Hence my use of the term arrogant to describe JF's attempt to
hijack the RPW and hoodwink the reformed church, which object he might
seem to have accomplished respectfully IMO if this conversation is any
> Dr Frame also considers that permitting images in our mind of Jesus,But James (Roll) Jordan (Roll) in a typical overheated moment, called
> since He was in the flesh, keeps us from the heresy of Docetism.
the RPW and those who would defend it, examples of "Liturgical
Nestorianism". So what? "Doktor" Frame can consider what he likes, but
by this time after one has heard his typically casual and sloppy
arguments majoring in blather on the RPW etc, he doesn't have much
credibility. Much more as usual he offers no substantial and solid
reasoning for his opinion other than it is just that, his considered
Well, thank you very much, but I expect more from a reformed
theological professor than your average Joe Blow evangelical enthusiast,
which is who his remarks might reasonably lead one to believe made
them. Either that or more likely a theological quack.
cordially in the Word, not the picture, become flesh
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "bob_suden"
> bsuden@ wrote:
> > The question is not whether we ever can agree 100% with someone, but
> > what points we agree or disagree. Frame's argument and doctrine onScripture
> > pedagogical pictures of Christ is an attack on the doctrine of
> > - Chapt. 1 of the Confession and one of the two principium of theReformation
> > 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
> > conflict between Protestantism and popery.sequitur -
> > Of course Frame and his defenders think all the above a non
> > as if Frame's methodology itself is rigorously logical, never mindwhat
> > confessional, which is yet another mark against him regardless of
> > his "reformed" fans think. Others think it no small thing. Withoutendorsement
> > 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
> > from a leading theologian of the day who has proudly, arrogantly anddoctrine of
> > enthusiastically laid waste to the biblical and confessional
> > reformed worship does not say much for that seminary's reformedlikely
> > theological discernment.
> > --- In email@example.com, "Larry Bray"
> > <larryicr@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Although i don't agree with all that Dr. Frame espouses, i most
> > > don't agree with all of what any one man believes. I certainlythink
> > > that Dr. Frame falls within the pale of orthodoxy.law
> > >
> > > 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
> > > itself that is normative. I think Dr. Frame goes to far the otherway
> > > in believing that even the normative moral law is...for lack of a
> > > better word...bendable.
> > >
- << Previous post in topic