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

16484Re: The North American Reformed Seminary (TNARS) - free seminary

Expand Messages
  • bob_suden
    Aug 9, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray"
      <larryicr@...> wrote:
      >
      > 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.

      Come on, Larry. You can do better than than taking cheap shots and
      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?
      Anyway.

      > 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 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?

      There was and is progress in the truth. The West. Stands. are the last
      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.
      > His interpretation of the command referring to making images for the
      > purpose of worship is backed up in Lev 26:1 -
      >
      No, Frame abuses and misuses Scripture, as well as reason. As below,
      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,
      > 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.
      >

      Above and beyond that, in the larger context again, Frame and the rest
      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
      example.

      > 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.

      But James (Roll) Jordan (Roll) in a typical overheated moment, called
      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
      opinion.

      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
      Bob S.

      >
      > --- 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.
      > > >
    • Show all 19 messages in this topic