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

16487Re: John Frame and Images

Expand Messages
  • bob_suden
    Aug 10, 2008
      Hi Larry,

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray"
      <larryicr@...> wrote:
      > I tried to reply to the last post by Bob but yahoo was having
      > problems, so i'm posting it as a new thread.

      Nice try/your effort is appreciated, but you really haven't replied to
      Bob's argument in substance, much more refuted it. Neither have you
      demonstrated that it is frivolous, irrelevant or immaterial.

      > The issue of the bronze serpent has nothing to do with whether or not
      > God commanded something to be done. Rather, it has to do with the fact
      > that it can't be considered idolatry because God commanded it. God
      > would not command Israel to commit idolatry.

      That is not the point of my argument. Rather the issue of the bronze
      serpent has to do with whether God commanded an image to be made to
      instruct the Israelites. And if God not only can, but has done so, so
      too man. Thus JFrame. But this is not only an arrogant confusion, it is
      theological idiocy.

      > The issue of images of Jesus for certain purposes outside of worship
      > has nothing to do with the RPW since it is outside of worship that
      > they are used.

      If images of Christ are lawful for pedagogical (teaching) purposes
      outside the worship of God, why not in worship? After all JFrame wants
      to say worship is teaching, whether prayer, song or sermon in his
      efforts to justify his introduction of "forms" into the
      element/circumstance distinction in the reformed exposition of the 2nd

      But if in worship, the RPW necessarily raises its hand and asks the
      awkward question where God has commanded images in his worship. We know
      God explicitly did so in the OT temple worship. But that is now
      fulfilled by Christ . . . .

      > This simply shows that Frame does fall within reasonable expectations
      > of Scripture interpretation. Some of the main reasons i think he's
      > wrong...

      Frame does not fall within reformed expectations of Scripture
      interpretation, which also encompasses a reasonable expectation that
      Scripture is not only one, but perspicuous/clear, sufficient and

      > The command in Ex 20 against idolatry has within it 2 distinct
      > prohibitions regarding idols - don't make them(have them), don't
      > worship them. Frame looks at the distinction of the 2nd prohibition as
      > being a clarification of the 1st part rather than distinct from it.


      > The apostles were the only ones that could create an image of Jesus
      > since they saw what He looked like...and they didn't. This shows that
      > there was no break in OT/NT teachings regarding idolatry.

      Rather weak/lame. Again, for JF, why worry about apostolic example, when
      we have God's example in the temple or with the serpent?

      > If there was a shift from not making to making images it would have
      > been mentioned in the NT as the history of the Church prior to the NT
      > shows a non-negotiable prohibition on images of God.

      Agreed, but not according to JFrame. He again mistakes/insists the
      practice or action of God is an approved example that man can
      follow/imitate. That it is lawful to make images, even of Christ, for

      But the Scripture tells us that without faith it is impossible to
      please God and that most necessary faith cometh by hearing and hearing
      by the Word which is preached by those who are sent.

      Even further, contra JFrame, there is no mention at all in Rom 10 of
      pictures, plays or puppets.

      In other words, whether I agree with JFrame 100% or not is immaterial.
      Rather his doctrine and hermeneutic not only undercuts the sufficiency
      and clarity of Scripture, it also usurps the sufficiency and
      efficiency of the divinely appointed means of preaching to communicate
      and teach its truths.

      Of course, that's a funny position to take for someone who claims to be
      a preacher and teacher of God's word, but if he is trying to work
      himself out of a job, that's fine by me. I can only hope he long enjoys
      standing by the freeway onramp with the ubiquitous cardboard 'will work
      for food' sign.

      cordially in the Word become flesh,
      Bob S.
    • Show all 10 messages in this topic