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

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

Expand Messages
  • bob_suden
    Greetings Larry, I took a look at your site for TNARS the other day. While I appreciate your efforts, I must say that an endorsement
    Message 1 of 19 , Jul 28 10:17 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Greetings Larry,

      I took a look at your site for TNARS  the other day. While I appreciate your efforts,  I must say that an endorsement from John Frame is like waving a red flag to some folks.

      Have you read his new book, the Doctrine of the Christian Life? (It was up on the web for awhile, but is no longer available.)  In other words, there is a reason he might be considered a contemporary Grima WormTongue, if not  Judas.

      While he affirms the sufficiency of Scripture (WCF 1:6)in Chapt. 11 of DoCL, he goes on to butcher the Regulative Principle of Worship  in Chapt. 25 on the Second Commandment after the all too familiar and usual interlude of equivocations, non sequiturs and question begging. Unfortunately  in Chapt. 26, it gets even worse. Therein he concludes that  when it comes to pedagogical pictures of Christ,  he knows of `no reason not to use them (emph. added)'. In other words, what JF gives with one hand, he stabs in the back with another, if not betrays with a kiss. 

      Mr. Frame's most recent comments and conclusions  are  essentially an attack on the Protestant doctrine of Scripture. The same  includes, along with verbal inspiration, the sufficiency of Scripture as well as its infallibility and clarity. They are also a mealy mouthed attempt in our day  to cut the nerve of the lively preaching of God's Word (LC155 & SC 89). That ain't small change on either count, with the first being the most serious charge.

      Of course if  JF had the consistency of his conclusions and had sent us a coloring book with 50 pages, instead of this tome with 50 chapters and 1100 pages of print, nobody would or could complain.  But pathetic blather or no, the next time the brother preaches, I very much doubt that instead of a microphone and a pulpit bible, he will be asking for a muzzle/gag and a flannel board.

      Rather the real question is just how long will we have to wait before John starts framing arguments for screening Mel Gibson's Passion of Christ at the afternoon matinee worship services for Lent? After all, it stands to his abuse of reason, the WCF and Scripture.

      In other words, with seminary professors like this, who need heretics?

      I realize that Mr. Frame is not an instructor for the TNARS, he just endorses it, but that is still not a plus IMO.

      Best wishes otherwise.
      Thank you very much.

      cordially in Christ,
      Bob S







      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray" <larryicr@...> wrote:
      >
      > Greetings in the name of Christ!
      > I am the current president of TNARS. We are a completely free, online,
      > Reformed seminary. I was wondering if it would be possible for TNARS
      > to have an official relationship with the Reformed Presbyterian Church
      > (Covenanted).
      >
      > http://www.tnars.net
      >
    • Larry Bray
      I appreciate that honest criticism of Dr. Frame. I don t agree with everything that he teaches, and as you mentioned he doesn t teach at TNARS either. The
      Message 2 of 19 , Jul 29 6:26 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        I appreciate that honest criticism of Dr. Frame.

        I don't agree with everything that he teaches, and as you mentioned he
        doesn't teach at TNARS either.

        The materials that are taught at TNARS are from a Westminster
        Standards point of reference. That's the important thing in my opinion.

        Did you have any issues with what we were teaching? All of the classes
        are accessible from our website.

        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
        <bsuden@...> wrote:
        >
        > Greetings Larry,
        >
        > I took a look at your site for TNARS <http://www.tnars.net> the other
        > day. While I appreciate your efforts, I must say that an endorsement
        > from John Frame is like waving a red flag to some folks.
        >
        > Have you read his new book, the Doctrine of the Christian Life
        >
        <http://www.wtsbooks.com/product-exec/product_id/5669/nm/The_Doctrine_of\
        > _the_Christian_Life_A_Theology_of_Lordship_Hardcover_> ? (It was up on
        > the web for awhile, but is no longer available.) In other words, there
        > is a reason he might be considered a contemporary Grima WormTongue, if
        > not Judas.
        >
        > While he affirms the sufficiency of Scripture (WCF 1:6)in Chapt. 11 of
        > DoCL, he goes on to butcher the Regulative Principle of Worship in
        > Chapt. 25 on the Second Commandment after the all too familiar and usual
        > interlude of equivocations, non sequiturs and question begging.
        > Unfortunately in Chapt. 26, it gets even worse. Therein he concludes
        > that when it comes to pedagogical pictures of Christ, he knows of
        > `no reason not to use them (emph. added)'. In other words, what
        > JF gives with one hand, he stabs in the back with another, if not
        > betrays with a kiss.
        >
        > Mr. Frame's most recent comments and conclusions are essentially
        > an attack on the Protestant doctrine of Scripture. The same includes,
        > along with verbal inspiration, the sufficiency of Scripture as well as
        > its infallibility and clarity. They are also a mealy mouthed attempt in
        > our day to cut the nerve of the lively preaching of God's Word
        > (LC155 & SC 89). That ain't small change on either count, with the first
        > being the most serious charge.
        >
        > Of course if JF had the consistency of his conclusions and had sent us
        > a coloring book with 50 pages, instead of this tome with 50 chapters and
        > 1100 pages of print, nobody would or could complain. But pathetic
        > blather or no, the next time the brother preaches, I very much doubt
        > that instead of a microphone and a pulpit bible, he will be asking for a
        > muzzle/gag and a flannel board.
        >
        > Rather the real question is just how long will we have to wait before
        > John starts framing arguments for screening Mel Gibson's Passion of
        > Christ at the afternoon matinee worship services for Lent? After all, it
        > stands to his abuse of reason, the WCF and Scripture.
        >
        > In other words, with seminary professors like this, who need heretics?
        >
        > I realize that Mr. Frame is not an instructor for the TNARS, he just
        > endorses it, but that is still not a plus IMO.
        >
        > Best wishes otherwise.
        > Thank you very much.
        >
        > cordially in Christ,
        > Bob S
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray"
        > <larryicr@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Greetings in the name of Christ!
        > > I am the current president of TNARS. We are a completely free, online,
        > > Reformed seminary. I was wondering if it would be possible for TNARS
        > > to have an official relationship with the Reformed Presbyterian Church
        > > (Covenanted).
        > >
        > > http://www.tnars.net
        > >
        >
      • bob_suden
        Hello again, Larry ... Good. Glad to hear it. Will you or TNARS act upon it? ... Agreed, but will TNARS continue to run his endorsement? ... opinion. Exactly.
        Message 3 of 19 , Jul 29 9:21 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello again,  Larry

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray" <larryicr@...> wrote:
          >
          > I appreciate that honest [correct and pointed] criticism of Dr. Frame.

          Good. Glad to hear it. Will you or TNARS act upon it?
           
          > I don't agree with everything that he teaches, and as you mentioned he
          > doesn't teach at TNARS either.

          Agreed, but will TNARS continue to run his endorsement?
           
          > The materials that are taught at TNARS are from a Westminster
          > Standards point of reference. That's the important thing in my opinion.

          Exactly.   Which is just the point. I don't care if John Frame is a theological idiot savant that can do prime numbers in his head when it comes to apologetics.  Rather  Mr. Frame  is doing what he can in our day and time  under our very noses to undercut those very same Standards, if not the Word of God itself,  with his fraudulent, errant and nonconfessional  theology, accompanied all the while with his profession of love for and belief in both the Standards and the Scripture. My question again is: who needs papists with presbyterians like this?

          > Did you have any issues with what we were teaching? All of the classes
          > are accessible from our website.

          That I haven't had a chance to look into.
          But like I might just as well said, why bother? If TNARS thinks an endorsement from John Frame is a plus or at least necessary to acknowledge, that might seem to speak volumes about TNARS's theological discernment. As in the lack thereof.
          (And that even before we begin the discussion over long distance vs. on site/in person theological education.)

          Again, I appreciate your efforts with the TNARS, Larry, but theology according to the Three Stooges gets me going and that is what I consider Mr. Frame's output to be.
          If the written word of God is infallible, perspicuous and sufficient, than among other things,  pictures of Christ are unnecessary -   as well as forbidden in that same word - at least according to the WS. But not according to John Frame.

          Fine. Slap him with a gag order, give him a box of crayons,  and let him have at it in the church's nursery - or better yet in the pope's catechism class. Instead he's publishing, pontificating and handing out endorsements - and what's worse, protestant presbyterians  accept them at face value.  That I got a problem with.

          Thanks again,

          cordially in the Word become flesh,
          Bob S.
        • bob_suden
          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
          Message 4 of 19 , Aug 8, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            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 (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
            >
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
            > bsuden@ wrote:
            > >
            > > Hello again, Larry
            > >
            > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray"
            > > <larryicr@> wrote:
            > > >
            > > > I appreciate that honest [correct and pointed] criticism of Dr.
            > Frame.
            > >
            > > Good. Glad to hear it. Will you or TNARS act upon it?
            > >
            > > > I don't agree with everything that he teaches, and as you
            > mentioned he
            > > > doesn't teach at TNARS either.
            > >
            > > Agreed, but will TNARS continue to run his endorsement?
            > >
            > > > The materials that are taught at TNARS are from a Westminster
            > > > Standards point of reference. That's the important thing in my
            > > opinion.
            > >
            > > Exactly. Which is just the point. I don't care if John Frame is a
            > > theological idiot savant that can do prime numbers in his head
            > when it
            > > comes to apologetics. Rather Mr. Frame is doing what he can in
            > our
            > > day and time under our very noses to undercut those very same
            > > Standards, if not the Word of God itself, with his fraudulent,
            > errant
            > > and nonconfessional theology, accompanied all the while with his
            > > profession of love for and belief in both the Standards and the
            > > Scripture. My question again is: who needs papists with
            > presbyterians
            > > like this?
            > >
            > > > Did you have any issues with what we were teaching? All of the
            > classes
            > > > are accessible from our website.
            > >
            > > That I haven't had a chance to look into.
            > > But like I might just as well said, why bother? If TNARS thinks an
            > > endorsement from John Frame is a plus or at least necessary to
            > > acknowledge, that might seem to speak volumes about TNARS's
            > theological
            > > discernment. As in the lack thereof.
            > > (And that even before we begin the discussion over long distance
            > vs. on
            > > site/in person theological education.)
            > >
            > > Again, I appreciate your efforts with the TNARS, Larry, but
            > theology
            > > according to the Three Stooges gets me going and that is what I
            > consider
            > > Mr. Frame's output to be.
            > > If the written word of God is infallible, perspicuous and
            > sufficient,
            > > than among other things, pictures of Christ are unnecessary -
            > as well
            > > as forbidden in that same word - at least according to the WS. But
            > not
            > > according to John Frame.
            > >
            > > Fine. Slap him with a gag order, give him a box of crayons, and
            > let him
            > > have at it in the church's nursery - or better yet in the pope's
            > > catechism class. Instead he's publishing, pontificating and
            > handing out
            > > endorsements - and what's worse, protestant presbyterians accept
            > them
            > > at face value. That I got a problem with.
            > >
            > > Thanks again,
            > >
            > > cordially in the Word become flesh,
            > > Bob S.
            > >
            >
          • Larry Bray
            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
            Message 5 of 19 , Aug 8, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              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
              > >
              > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
              > > bsuden@ wrote:
              > > >
              > > > Hello again, Larry
              > > >
              > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray"
              > > > <larryicr@> wrote:
              > > > >
              > > > > I appreciate that honest [correct and pointed] criticism of Dr.
              > > Frame.
              > > >
              > > > Good. Glad to hear it. Will you or TNARS act upon it?
              > > >
              > > > > I don't agree with everything that he teaches, and as you
              > > mentioned he
              > > > > doesn't teach at TNARS either.
              > > >
              > > > Agreed, but will TNARS continue to run his endorsement?
              > > >
              > > > > The materials that are taught at TNARS are from a Westminster
              > > > > Standards point of reference. That's the important thing in my
              > > > opinion.
              > > >
              > > > Exactly. Which is just the point. I don't care if John Frame is a
              > > > theological idiot savant that can do prime numbers in his head
              > > when it
              > > > comes to apologetics. Rather Mr. Frame is doing what he can in
              > > our
              > > > day and time under our very noses to undercut those very same
              > > > Standards, if not the Word of God itself, with his fraudulent,
              > > errant
              > > > and nonconfessional theology, accompanied all the while with his
              > > > profession of love for and belief in both the Standards and the
              > > > Scripture. My question again is: who needs papists with
              > > presbyterians
              > > > like this?
              > > >
              > > > > Did you have any issues with what we were teaching? All of the
              > > classes
              > > > > are accessible from our website.
              > > >
              > > > That I haven't had a chance to look into.
              > > > But like I might just as well said, why bother? If TNARS thinks an
              > > > endorsement from John Frame is a plus or at least necessary to
              > > > acknowledge, that might seem to speak volumes about TNARS's
              > > theological
              > > > discernment. As in the lack thereof.
              > > > (And that even before we begin the discussion over long distance
              > > vs. on
              > > > site/in person theological education.)
              > > >
              > > > Again, I appreciate your efforts with the TNARS, Larry, but
              > > theology
              > > > according to the Three Stooges gets me going and that is what I
              > > consider
              > > > Mr. Frame's output to be.
              > > > If the written word of God is infallible, perspicuous and
              > > sufficient,
              > > > than among other things, pictures of Christ are unnecessary -
              > > as well
              > > > as forbidden in that same word - at least according to the WS. But
              > > not
              > > > according to John Frame.
              > > >
              > > > Fine. Slap him with a gag order, give him a box of crayons, and
              > > let him
              > > > have at it in the church's nursery - or better yet in the pope's
              > > > catechism class. Instead he's publishing, pontificating and
              > > handing out
              > > > endorsements - and what's worse, protestant presbyterians accept
              > > them
              > > > at face value. That I got a problem with.
              > > >
              > > > Thanks again,
              > > >
              > > > cordially in the Word become flesh,
              > > > Bob S.
              > > >
              > >
              >
            • 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
              Message 6 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                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
                > > >
              • bob_suden
                [Edit, not Send] ... an endorsement from a leading theologian of the day who has proudly, arrogantly and enthusiastically laid waste to the biblical and
                Message 7 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  [Edit, not Send]

                  ...  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 - and who is doing what he can to undercut the reformed doctrine of preaching and through it the doctrine of  Scripture -  does not say much for the Naive American Reformed Seminary's theological discernment.

                  --- 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.
                  > >
                  > >
                • Larry Bray
                  First let me just say that Dr. Frame is anything but arrogant. You claim that his teaching on images of Christ is an attack on Scripture. Do you also believe
                  Message 8 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    First let me just say that Dr. Frame is anything but arrogant.

                    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?

                    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."

                    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.

                    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.


                    --- 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
                    > > > >
                    >
                  • Larry Bray
                    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.
                    Message 9 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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.

                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
                      <bsuden@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > [Edit, not Send]
                      >
                      > ... 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 - and who is doing what he can
                      > to undercut the reformed doctrine of preaching and through it the
                      > doctrine of Scripture - does not say much for the Naive American
                      > Reformed Seminary's theological discernment.
                      >
                      > --- 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.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      >
                    • ghowmil
                      Bob 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
                      Message 10 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bob 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'.

                        Kind Regards,

                        Gary
                        --- 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
                        > > > >
                        >
                      • ghowmil
                        Hi Larry (May I?), Points noted below for you consideration. ... I am sure JF is a pleasant fellow and respectful of others, but there is such a thing as
                        Message 11 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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
                          > > > > >
                          > >
                          >
                        • Larry Bray
                          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
                          Message 12 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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
                            > > > > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                          • Ic Neltococayotl
                            ... Hi Larry. Quick question. What is your understanding of the Continental view of the Sabbath ? On what time period exactly is your definition guided or
                            Message 13 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray"
                              <larryicr@...> wrote:
                              >
                              > 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).
                              >

                              Hi Larry.

                              Quick question.

                              What is your understanding of the "Continental view of the Sabbath"? On
                              what time period exactly is your definition guided or influenced by?


                              Thank you very much!

                              Edgar Ibarra
                              www.PresbiterianoReformado.org
                            • Gary Milne
                              Hi Larry, Here is Moses warrant (Nu 21:8,9.). Can you give me your revelation please? Of course you do not have to because you do not agree with JF. You say
                              Message 14 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
                              • 0 Attachment

                                Hi Larry, Here is Moses warrant (Nu 21:8,9.). Can you give me your revelation please? Of course you do not have to because you do not agree with JF. You say you disagree with Frame over images and yet you support him? If you disagree then you can only do so on biblical grounds. Can you kindly clarify whether you think it is right to make images of God or not? If you disagree with the use of images of God, do you do so on biblical grounds? What are those grounds?

                                 

                                As to Calvin and the Sabbath – Scholars disagree whether he held to the modern ‘continental view’ you are using as an example/analogy. However if Calvin or anyone else holds to a position which is not sanctioned by Scripture the he is wrong.

                                 

                                It is not a question over whether JF does not seek to argue from Scripture, but whether he does so successfully. He does not do so successfully and instead undermines a vital aspect of the Christian faith. No, Calvin did not undermine vital aspects of the Christian faith in my view.

                                 

                                Since you disagree with JF Larry, why are you being so defensive?

                                 

                                Here is Calvin on the 2nd commandment. I encourage you to read it and prepare to be edified.

                                 

                                Every blessing,

                                 

                                Gary

                                 

                                4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. In the First

                                Commandment, after He had taught who was the true God, He

                                commanded that He alone should e worshipped; and now He defines what

                                is HIS LEGITIMATE WORSHIP. Now, since these are two distinct things, we

                                conclude that the commandments are also distinct, in which different

                                things are treated of. The former indeed precedes in order, viz., that

                                believers are to be contented with one God; but it would not be sufficient

                                for us to be instructed to worship him alone, unless we also knew the

                                manner in which He would be worshipped. The sum is, that the worship

                                of God must be spiritual, in order that it may correspond with His nature.

                                For although Moses only speaks of idolatry, yet there is no doubt but that

                                by synecdoche, as in all the rest of the Law, he condemns all fictitious

                                services which men in their ingenuity have invented. For hence have arisen

                                the carnal mixtures whereby God’s worship has been profaned, that they

                                estimate Him according to their own reason, and thus in a manner

                                metamorphose Him. It is necessary, then, to remember what God is, lest

                                we should form any gross or earthly ideas respecting Him. The words

                                simply express that it is wrong f79 for men to seek the presence of God in

                                any visible image, because He cannot be represented to our eyes. The

                                command that they should not make any likeness, either of any thing

                                which is in heaven, or in the earth, or in the waters under the earth, is

                                derived from the evil custom which had everywhere prevailed; for, since

                                superstition is never uniform, but is drawn aside in various directions,

                                some thought that God was represented under the form of fishes, others

                                under that of birds, others in that of brutes; and history especially

                                recounts by what shameless delusions Egypt was led astray. And hence

                                too the vanity of men is declared, since, whithersoever they turn their

                                eyes, they everywhere lay hold of the materials of error, notwithstanding

                                that God’s glory shines on every side, and whatever is seen above or

                                below, invites us to the true God.

                                Since, therefore, men are thus deluded, so as to frame for themselves the

                                materials of error from all things they behold, Moses now elevates them

                                above the whole fabric and elements of the world; for by the things that

                                are “in heaven above,” he designates not only the birds, but the sun, and

                                the moon, and all the stars also; as will soon be seen. He declares, then,

                                that a true image of God is not to be found in all the world; and hence that

                                His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever He is set

                                before our eyes in a visible form. Now we must remark, that there are two

                                parts in the Commandment — the first forbids the erection of a graven

                                image, or any likeness; the second prohibits the transferring of the worship

                                which God claims for Himself alone, to any of these phantoms or delusive

                                shows. Therefore, to devise any image of God, is in itself impious; because

                                by this corruption His Majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be

                                other than He is. There is no need of refuting the foolish fancy of some,

                                that all sculptures and pictures are here condemned by Moses, for he had

                                no other object than to rescue God’s glory from all the imaginations which

                                tend to corrupt it. And assuredly it is a most gross indecency to make God

                                like a stock or a stone. Some expound the words, “Thou shalt not make to

                                thyself a graven image, which thou mayest adore;” f80 as if it were

                                allowable to make a visible image of God, provided it be not adored; but

                                the expositions which will follow will easily refute their error.

                                 

                                 

                                 

                                From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Larry Bray
                                Sent: Sunday, 10 August 2008 8:45 a.m.
                                To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: The North American Reformed Seminary (TNARS) - free seminary

                                 

                                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
                                href="mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.com">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
                                href="mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.com">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
                                href="mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.com">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
                                > > > > > >
                                > > >
                                > >
                                >

                              • Larry Bray
                                I believe that images of God, any person of the Triunity, are against God s will and a sin. I wasn t defending Frame s position, simply giving his reasons for
                                Message 15 of 19 , Aug 9, 2008
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  I believe that images of God, any person of the Triunity, are against
                                  God's will and a sin.

                                  I wasn't defending Frame's position, simply giving his reasons for the
                                  position, which were derived from Scripture.

                                  Reading Calvin's work i don't think that he held to the Sabbatarian
                                  view that the Westminster Standards adhere to. I adhere to the
                                  Westminster view.

                                  There is not one person who doesn't hold to a wrong view...that was my
                                  initial point in saying that i most likely don't agree 100% with
                                  anyone's theology. That doesn't mean that they aren't brothers in
                                  Christ, not does it mean that i would spurn their endorsement of godly
                                  education.

                                  The Sabbath of God is part of the same commandments that idolatry is a
                                  part of. I would never suggest, as you have, that the Sabbath command
                                  is not vital but the idolatry command is. We don't have the authority
                                  to pick and choose what we consider vital "parts" of the
                                  Scripture...they are all vital.


                                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Gary Milne"
                                  <garnetmilne@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > Hi Larry, Here is Moses warrant (Nu 21:8,9.). Can you give me your
                                  > revelation please? Of course you do not have to because you do not agree
                                  > with JF. You say you disagree with Frame over images and yet you support
                                  > him? If you disagree then you can only do so on biblical grounds.
                                  Can you
                                  > kindly clarify whether you think it is right to make images of God
                                  or not?
                                  > If you disagree with the use of images of God, do you do so on biblical
                                  > grounds? What are those grounds?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > As to Calvin and the Sabbath - Scholars disagree whether he held to the
                                  > modern 'continental view' you are using as an example/analogy.
                                  However if
                                  > Calvin or anyone else holds to a position which is not sanctioned by
                                  > Scripture the he is wrong.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > It is not a question over whether JF does not seek to argue from
                                  Scripture,
                                  > but whether he does so successfully. He does not do so successfully and
                                  > instead undermines a vital aspect of the Christian faith. No, Calvin
                                  did not
                                  > undermine vital aspects of the Christian faith in my view.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Since you disagree with JF Larry, why are you being so defensive?
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Here is Calvin on the 2nd commandment. I encourage you to read it and
                                  > prepare to be edified.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Every blessing,
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Gary
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > 4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image. In the First
                                  >
                                  > Commandment, after He had taught who was the true God, He
                                  >
                                  > commanded that He alone should e worshipped; and now He defines what
                                  >
                                  > is HIS LEGITIMATE WORSHIP. Now, since these are two distinct things, we
                                  >
                                  > conclude that the commandments are also distinct, in which different
                                  >
                                  > things are treated of. The former indeed precedes in order, viz., that
                                  >
                                  > believers are to be contented with one God; but it would not be
                                  sufficient
                                  >
                                  > for us to be instructed to worship him alone, unless we also knew the
                                  >
                                  > manner in which He would be worshipped. The sum is, that the worship
                                  >
                                  > of God must be spiritual, in order that it may correspond with His
                                  nature.
                                  >
                                  > For although Moses only speaks of idolatry, yet there is no doubt
                                  but that
                                  >
                                  > by synecdoche, as in all the rest of the Law, he condemns all fictitious
                                  >
                                  > services which men in their ingenuity have invented. For hence have
                                  arisen
                                  >
                                  > the carnal mixtures whereby God's worship has been profaned, that they
                                  >
                                  > estimate Him according to their own reason, and thus in a manner
                                  >
                                  > metamorphose Him. It is necessary, then, to remember what God is, lest
                                  >
                                  > we should form any gross or earthly ideas respecting Him. The words
                                  >
                                  > simply express that it is wrong f79 for men to seek the presence of
                                  God in
                                  >
                                  > any visible image, because He cannot be represented to our eyes. The
                                  >
                                  > command that they should not make any likeness, either of any thing
                                  >
                                  > which is in heaven, or in the earth, or in the waters under the
                                  earth, is
                                  >
                                  > derived from the evil custom which had everywhere prevailed; for, since
                                  >
                                  > superstition is never uniform, but is drawn aside in various directions,
                                  >
                                  > some thought that God was represented under the form of fishes, others
                                  >
                                  > under that of birds, others in that of brutes; and history especially
                                  >
                                  > recounts by what shameless delusions Egypt was led astray. And hence
                                  >
                                  > too the vanity of men is declared, since, whithersoever they turn their
                                  >
                                  > eyes, they everywhere lay hold of the materials of error,
                                  notwithstanding
                                  >
                                  > that God's glory shines on every side, and whatever is seen above or
                                  >
                                  > below, invites us to the true God.
                                  >
                                  > Since, therefore, men are thus deluded, so as to frame for
                                  themselves the
                                  >
                                  > materials of error from all things they behold, Moses now elevates them
                                  >
                                  > above the whole fabric and elements of the world; for by the things that
                                  >
                                  > are "in heaven above," he designates not only the birds, but the
                                  sun, and
                                  >
                                  > the moon, and all the stars also; as will soon be seen. He declares,
                                  then,
                                  >
                                  > that a true image of God is not to be found in all the world; and
                                  hence that
                                  >
                                  > His glory is defiled, and His truth corrupted by the lie, whenever
                                  He is set
                                  >
                                  > before our eyes in a visible form. Now we must remark, that there
                                  are two
                                  >
                                  > parts in the Commandment - the first forbids the erection of a graven
                                  >
                                  > image, or any likeness; the second prohibits the transferring of the
                                  worship
                                  >
                                  > which God claims for Himself alone, to any of these phantoms or delusive
                                  >
                                  > shows. Therefore, to devise any image of God, is in itself impious;
                                  because
                                  >
                                  > by this corruption His Majesty is adulterated, and He is figured to be
                                  >
                                  > other than He is. There is no need of refuting the foolish fancy of
                                  some,
                                  >
                                  > that all sculptures and pictures are here condemned by Moses, for he had
                                  >
                                  > no other object than to rescue God's glory from all the imaginations
                                  which
                                  >
                                  > tend to corrupt it. And assuredly it is a most gross indecency to
                                  make God
                                  >
                                  > like a stock or a stone. Some expound the words, "Thou shalt not make to
                                  >
                                  > thyself a graven image, which thou mayest adore;" f80 as if it were
                                  >
                                  > allowable to make a visible image of God, provided it be not adored; but
                                  >
                                  > the expositions which will follow will easily refute their error.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > From: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                  > [mailto:covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                                  Larry Bray
                                  > Sent: Sunday, 10 August 2008 8:45 a.m.
                                  > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Re: The North American Reformed
                                  Seminary
                                  > (TNARS) - free seminary
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > 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
                                  > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.com> , "ghowmil"
                                  > <garnetmilne@> wrote:
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > > Hi Larry (May I?),
                                  > >
                                  > > Points noted below for you consideration.
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                  > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.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
                                  > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.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
                                  > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.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
                                  > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.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-\
                                  >
                                  <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
                                  > <mailto:covenantedreformationclub%40yahoogroups.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
                                  > > > > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                • bob_suden
                                  ... 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
                                  Message 16 of 19 , 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.
                                    > > >
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.