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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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.