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

John Frame and Images

Expand Messages
  • Larry Bray
    I tried to reply to the last post by Bob but yahoo was having problems, so i m posting it as a new thread. The issue of the bronze serpent has nothing to do
    Message 1 of 10 , Aug 10, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      I tried to reply to the last post by Bob but yahoo was having
      problems, so i'm posting it as a new thread.

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

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

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

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

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

      If there was a shift from not making to making images it would have
      been mentioned in the NT as the history of the Church prior to the NT
      shows a non-negotiable prohibition on images of God.
    • ghowmil
      Hi Larry, I am glad you reject John Frame s positions, and that you reject them on biblical grounds. But do you not see a contradiction in saying that Frame is
      Message 2 of 10 , Aug 10, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Larry,

        I am glad you reject John Frame's positions, and that you reject them
        on biblical grounds. But do you not see a contradiction in saying that
        Frame is wrong biblically on the one hand and 'Frame does fall within
        reasonable expectations of Scripture interpretation'on the other? How
        is getting the Second Commandment wrong (as you admit Frame
        does)compatible with falling 'within reasonable expectations of
        Scripture interpretation'?

        Surely it is not 'reasonable' in God's eyes to reject the truth of the
        Commandment, by adopting the Roman Catholic position?

        Kind Regards,

        Gary


        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Larry Bray"
        <larryicr@...> wrote:
        >
        > I tried to reply to the last post by Bob but yahoo was having
        > problems, so i'm posting it as a new thread.
        >
        > The issue of the bronze serpent has nothing to do with whether or not
        > God commanded something to be done. Rather, it has to do with the fact
        > that it can't be considered idolatry because God commanded it. God
        > would not command Israel to commit idolatry.
        >
        > The issue of images of Jesus for certain purposes outside of worship
        > has nothing to do with the RPW since it is outside of worship that
        > they are used.
        >
        > This simply shows that Frame does fall within reasonable expectations
        > of Scripture interpretation. Some of the main reasons i think he's
        > wrong...
        >
        > The command in Ex 20 against idolatry has within it 2 distinct
        > prohibitions regarding idols - don't make them(have them), don't
        > worship them. Frame looks at the distinction of the 2nd prohibition as
        > being a clarification of the 1st part rather than distinct from it.
        >
        > The apostles were the only ones that could create an image of Jesus
        > since they saw what He looked like...and they didn't. This shows that
        > there was no break in OT/NT teachings regarding idolatry.
        >
        > If there was a shift from not making to making images it would have
        > been mentioned in the NT as the history of the Church prior to the NT
        > shows a non-negotiable prohibition on images of God.
        >
      • bob_suden
        Hi Larry, ... Nice try/your effort is appreciated, but you really haven t replied to Bob s argument in substance, much more refuted it. Neither have you
        Message 3 of 10 , Aug 10, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Hi Larry,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          Agreed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          cordially in the Word become flesh,
          Bob S.
        • Chris Coldwell
          Seeing this thread I wanted to post an FYI that Frame s Doctrine of the Christian Life, more specifically his chapters on the second commandment, are reviewed
          Message 4 of 10 , Aug 10, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Seeing this thread I wanted to post an FYI that Frame's Doctrine of
            the Christian Life, more specifically his chapters on the second
            commandment, are reviewed by Frank J. Smith in the forthcoming 2008
            issue of the Confessional Presbyterian journal, DV (getting close to
            done now). Also, I hope to run a substantial article on images and LC
            109 in the 2009 issue (again DV); at least I have someone slated to do
            it and some research is done.
            The 2008 I think surpasses the 2007 in variety/number of articles, but
            also, very surprisingly to me, in length. The 2008 should (still some
            last minute work) hit the 312 page mark, passing the what I thought
            was huge 304 of the 2007. And that is without any work on the text of
            the Larger Catechism, which, as it turns out, would not have fit given
            the length of everything else any way.
            Sincerely,
            Chris Coldwell
            The Confessional Presbyterian journal
            www.cpjournal.com
          • bob_suden
            Chris, Will you be posting the table of contents? Are there any plans to start reprinting Rutherford now that you have reprinted most of Gillespie? Thank
            Message 5 of 10 , Aug 11, 2008
            • 0 Attachment
              Chris,
              Will you be posting the table of contents?
              Are there any plans to start reprinting Rutherford now that you have
              reprinted most of Gillespie?
              Thank you,
              Bob S.

              --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Coldwell"
              <naphtali@...> wrote:
              >
              > Seeing this thread I wanted to post an FYI that Frame's Doctrine of
              > the Christian Life, more specifically his chapters on the second
              > commandment, are reviewed by Frank J. Smith in the forthcoming 2008
              > issue of the Confessional Presbyterian journal, DV (getting close to
              > done now). Also, I hope to run a substantial article on images and LC
              > 109 in the 2009 issue (again DV); at least I have someone slated to do
              > it and some research is done.
              > The 2008 I think surpasses the 2007 in variety/number of articles, but
              > also, very surprisingly to me, in length. The 2008 should (still some
              > last minute work) hit the 312 page mark, passing the what I thought
              > was huge 304 of the 2007. And that is without any work on the text of
              > the Larger Catechism, which, as it turns out, would not have fit given
              > the length of everything else any way.
              > Sincerely,
              > Chris Coldwell
              > The Confessional Presbyterian journal
              > www.cpjournal.com
              >
            • Chris Coldwell
              Bob, Yes; I had hope to yesterday but juggling last minute things and also waiting on one last piece and the artwork to button the issue up; but that shouldn t
              Message 6 of 10 , Aug 12, 2008
              • 0 Attachment
                Bob,
                Yes; I had hope to yesterday but juggling last minute things and also
                waiting on one last piece and the artwork to button the issue up; but
                that shouldn't prevent posting the contents which I will try to do
                later today and start sending out renewals maybe tomorrow.
                As for Rutherford. I do think about it; it would be very hard work.
                The easiest would be Paul's Presbytery (smallest and nicest structure)
                but church government is a poor seller; several oversized volumes
                containing more than one work may be the way to go; but that makes for
                huge projects. And actually, I have thought about redoing a collected
                Gillespie but that still requires a huge amount of work, mostly
                because of the work needed to check/revise edit Aaron's Rod
                Blossoming; translate, and research the bibliography etc. Right now
                I'm reworking the fast sermons of the Scots commissioners to the
                Westminster Assembly into one volume; and contemplating issuing it in
                the 17th century presbyterians series versus Lulu. It deserves the
                full offset printing treatment but it depends on if I can get a sense
                of any market for it and get interest from resellers and pre pub
                commitments. After that I have a commitment to finish all of Durham's
                sermons for a one volume project, which would put everything by Durham
                into print (and then eventually I have the text and rights to reissue
                the Revelation commentary in a matching format to the other large
                Durham volumes, Lord willing). And I have the text of a large Puritan
                work which needs editing for publication. That and I will have to
                start on CPJ 5 planning in a few months has my hands tied for a while.
                Thanks for asking.
                Chris Coldwell
                Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian journal
                www.cpjournal.com

                --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
                <bsuden@...> wrote:
                >
                > Chris,
                > Will you be posting the table of contents?
                > Are there any plans to start reprinting Rutherford now that you have
                > reprinted most of Gillespie?
                > Thank you,
                > Bob S.
                >
                > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Coldwell"
                > <naphtali@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Seeing this thread I wanted to post an FYI that Frame's Doctrine of
                > > the Christian Life, more specifically his chapters on the second
                > > commandment, are reviewed by Frank J. Smith in the forthcoming 2008
                > > issue of the Confessional Presbyterian journal, DV (getting close to
                > > done now). Also, I hope to run a substantial article on images and LC
                > > 109 in the 2009 issue (again DV); at least I have someone slated to do
                > > it and some research is done.
                > > The 2008 I think surpasses the 2007 in variety/number of articles, but
                > > also, very surprisingly to me, in length. The 2008 should (still some
                > > last minute work) hit the 312 page mark, passing the what I thought
                > > was huge 304 of the 2007. And that is without any work on the text of
                > > the Larger Catechism, which, as it turns out, would not have fit given
                > > the length of everything else any way.
                > > Sincerely,
                > > Chris Coldwell
                > > The Confessional Presbyterian journal
                > > www.cpjournal.com
                > >
                >
              • bob_suden
                Thanks, Chris. It will be interesting to see what Smith makes of Frame s latest. Re: the text of a large Puritan work which needs editing for publication .
                Message 7 of 10 , Aug 17, 2008
                • 0 Attachment
                  Thanks, Chris.

                  It will be interesting to see what Smith makes of Frame's latest.
                  Re: "the text of a large Puritan work which needs editing for publication". As in Oliver Bowles'  Treatise on the Evangelical Pastor?  And if not, do you know anything about how that project is progressing?
                  Re: the baptist Needham essay on the WCF, psalmody and hymns in the WCF in the 21st Century  what was L. Duncan thinking? Are the PCA southern  presbyterians  nominating him as a champion or a sacrificial lamb?


                  --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Coldwell" <naphtali@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Bob,
                  > Yes; I had hope to yesterday but juggling last minute things and also
                  > waiting on one last piece and the artwork to button the issue up; but
                  > that shouldn't prevent posting the contents which I will try to do
                  > later today and start sending out renewals maybe tomorrow.
                  > As for Rutherford. I do think about it; it would be very hard work.
                  > The easiest would be Paul's Presbytery (smallest and nicest structure)
                  > but church government is a poor seller; several oversized volumes
                  > containing more than one work may be the way to go; but that makes for
                  > huge projects. And actually, I have thought about redoing a collected
                  > Gillespie but that still requires a huge amount of work, mostly
                  > because of the work needed to check/revise edit Aaron's Rod
                  > Blossoming; translate, and research the bibliography etc. Right now
                  > I'm reworking the fast sermons of the Scots commissioners to the
                  > Westminster Assembly into one volume; and contemplating issuing it in
                  > the 17th century presbyterians series versus Lulu. It deserves the
                  > full offset printing treatment but it depends on if I can get a sense
                  > of any market for it and get interest from resellers and pre pub
                  > commitments. After that I have a commitment to finish all of Durham's
                  > sermons for a one volume project, which would put everything by Durham
                  > into print (and then eventually I have the text and rights to reissue
                  > the Revelation commentary in a matching format to the other large
                  > Durham volumes, Lord willing). And I have the text of a large Puritan
                  > work which needs editing for publication. That and I will have to
                  > start on CPJ 5 planning in a few months has my hands tied for a while.
                  > Thanks for asking.
                  > Chris Coldwell
                  > Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian journal
                  > www.cpjournal.com
                  >
                  > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
                  > bsuden@ wrote:
                  > >
                  > > Chris,
                  > > Will you be posting the table of contents?
                  > > Are there any plans to start reprinting Rutherford now that you have
                  > > reprinted most of Gillespie?
                  > > Thank you,
                  > > Bob S.
                  > >
                  > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Coldwell"
                  > > <naphtali@> wrote:
                  > > >
                  > > > Seeing this thread I wanted to post an FYI that Frame's Doctrine of
                  > > > the Christian Life, more specifically his chapters on the second
                  > > > commandment, are reviewed by Frank J. Smith in the forthcoming 2008
                  > > > issue of the Confessional Presbyterian journal, DV (getting close to
                  > > > done now). Also, I hope to run a substantial article on images and LC
                  > > > 109 in the 2009 issue (again DV); at least I have someone slated to do
                  > > > it and some research is done.
                  > > > The 2008 I think surpasses the 2007 in variety/number of articles, but
                  > > > also, very surprisingly to me, in length. The 2008 should (still some
                  > > > last minute work) hit the 312 page mark, passing the what I thought
                  > > > was huge 304 of the 2007. And that is without any work on the text of
                  > > > the Larger Catechism, which, as it turns out, would not have fit given
                  > > > the length of everything else any way.
                  > > > Sincerely,
                  > > > Chris Coldwell
                  > > > The Confessional Presbyterian journal
                  > > > www.cpjournal.com
                  > > >
                  > >
                  >
                • Chris Coldwell
                  Bob, On the editorial decision making for Westminster 21st century; can t say. It may be we takes what we can gets. I hear that, though the parameters of CPJ
                  Message 8 of 10 , Aug 17, 2008
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Bob,
                    On the editorial decision making for Westminster 21st century; can't
                    say. It may be "we takes what we can gets." I hear that, though the
                    parameters of CPJ safeguard it significantly. On Needham, yes, for its
                    length it is surprisingly off the mark (not just in its conclusion but
                    in its method). Mr. Winzer does a fine job taking Needham's case apart
                    in considerably less space. The large Puritan work is Cawdrey and
                    Palmer's Sabbatum Redivivum (1645; 1652) in four parts. No, I have not
                    heard anything about the Bowles (the Ryken project right?); but such
                    things take a long time. On Dr. Smith's take on Frame, I suspect I'm
                    not giving anything away if I say that the review is not favorable.
                    Sincerely,
                    Chris Coldwell
                    Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian
                    www.cpjournal.com

                    --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
                    <bsuden@...> wrote:
                    >
                    > Thanks, Chris.
                    >
                    > It will be interesting to see what Smith makes of Frame's latest.
                    > Re: "the text of a large Puritan work which needs editing for
                    > publication". As in Oliver Bowles' Treatise on the Evangelical Pastor?
                    > And if not, do you know anything about how that project is progressing?
                    > Re: the baptist Needham essay on the WCF, psalmody and hymns in the WCF
                    > in the 21st Century what was L. Duncan thinking? Are the PCA southern
                    > presbyterians nominating him as a champion or a sacrificial lamb?
                    >
                    >
                    > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Coldwell"
                    > <naphtali@> wrote:
                    > >
                    > > Bob,
                    > > Yes; I had hope to yesterday but juggling last minute things and also
                    > > waiting on one last piece and the artwork to button the issue up; but
                    > > that shouldn't prevent posting the contents which I will try to do
                    > > later today and start sending out renewals maybe tomorrow.
                    > > As for Rutherford. I do think about it; it would be very hard work.
                    > > The easiest would be Paul's Presbytery (smallest and nicest structure)
                    > > but church government is a poor seller; several oversized volumes
                    > > containing more than one work may be the way to go; but that makes for
                    > > huge projects. And actually, I have thought about redoing a collected
                    > > Gillespie but that still requires a huge amount of work, mostly
                    > > because of the work needed to check/revise edit Aaron's Rod
                    > > Blossoming; translate, and research the bibliography etc. Right now
                    > > I'm reworking the fast sermons of the Scots commissioners to the
                    > > Westminster Assembly into one volume; and contemplating issuing it in
                    > > the 17th century presbyterians series versus Lulu. It deserves the
                    > > full offset printing treatment but it depends on if I can get a sense
                    > > of any market for it and get interest from resellers and pre pub
                    > > commitments. After that I have a commitment to finish all of Durham's
                    > > sermons for a one volume project, which would put everything by Durham
                    > > into print (and then eventually I have the text and rights to reissue
                    > > the Revelation commentary in a matching format to the other large
                    > > Durham volumes, Lord willing). And I have the text of a large Puritan
                    > > work which needs editing for publication. That and I will have to
                    > > start on CPJ 5 planning in a few months has my hands tied for a while.
                    > > Thanks for asking.
                    > > Chris Coldwell
                    > > Editor, The Confessional Presbyterian journal
                    > > www.cpjournal.com
                    > >
                    > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
                    > > bsuden@ wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Chris,
                    > > > Will you be posting the table of contents?
                    > > > Are there any plans to start reprinting Rutherford now that you
                    > have
                    > > > reprinted most of Gillespie?
                    > > > Thank you,
                    > > > Bob S.
                    > > >
                    > > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Coldwell"
                    > > > <naphtali@> wrote:
                    > > > >
                    > > > > Seeing this thread I wanted to post an FYI that Frame's Doctrine
                    > of
                    > > > > the Christian Life, more specifically his chapters on the second
                    > > > > commandment, are reviewed by Frank J. Smith in the forthcoming
                    > 2008
                    > > > > issue of the Confessional Presbyterian journal, DV (getting close
                    > to
                    > > > > done now). Also, I hope to run a substantial article on images and
                    > LC
                    > > > > 109 in the 2009 issue (again DV); at least I have someone slated
                    > to do
                    > > > > it and some research is done.
                    > > > > The 2008 I think surpasses the 2007 in variety/number of articles,
                    > but
                    > > > > also, very surprisingly to me, in length. The 2008 should (still
                    > some
                    > > > > last minute work) hit the 312 page mark, passing the what I
                    > thought
                    > > > > was huge 304 of the 2007. And that is without any work on the text
                    > of
                    > > > > the Larger Catechism, which, as it turns out, would not have fit
                    > given
                    > > > > the length of everything else any way.
                    > > > > Sincerely,
                    > > > > Chris Coldwell
                    > > > > The Confessional Presbyterian journal
                    > > > > www.cpjournal.com
                    > > > >
                    > > >
                    > >
                    >
                  • bob_suden
                    ... Sad, very sad - and inexcusable. L. Duncan was the editor for RAP 94 edition of Carruthers Everyday Work of the WAssembly, one chapter of which was
                    Message 9 of 10 , Aug 18, 2008
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Coldwell" <naphtali@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Bob,
                      > On the editorial decision making for Westminster 21st century; can't
                      > say. It may be "we takes what we can gets."

                      Sad, very sad - and inexcusable. L. Duncan was the editor for RAP '94 edition of  Carruthers' Everyday Work of the WAssembly, one chapter of which was actually entitled "The Metrical Psalms". But if you can't bother reading "Of Singing of Psalms" in the Directory for Public Worship, why let anything else get in your way?

                      >I hear that, though the
                      > parameters of CPJ safeguard it significantly. On Needham, yes, for its
                      > length it is surprisingly off the mark (not just in its conclusion but
                      > in its method). Mr. Winzer does a fine job taking Needham's case apart
                      > in considerably less space.

                      It is not that hard to do, though I haven't seen too many attempts. After all, Luther at first thought Erasmus was rather ridiculous on free will and wasn't going to bother.

                      The large Puritan work is Cawdrey and
                      > Palmer's Sabbatum Redivivum (1645; 1652) in four parts. No, I have not
                      > heard anything about the Bowles (the Ryken project right?); but such
                      > things take a long time.

                      Ryken at one time told me it was on hold, but I saw an excerpt reprinted somewhere and figured you might be in the know.

                      >On Dr. Smith's take on Frame, I suspect I'm
                      > not giving anything away if I say that the review is not favorable.

                      I would suspect as much. How could it be?
                      FWIW the Table of Contents for   Frame's latest, Doct. of the Chr. Life  is  here, but the links are dead.

                      thanks,
                      B

                      >
                      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "bob_suden"
                      > bsuden@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Thanks, Chris.
                      > >
                      > > It will be interesting to see what Smith makes of Frame's latest.
                      > > Re: "the text of a large Puritan work which needs editing for
                      > > publication". As in Oliver Bowles' Treatise on the Evangelical Pastor?
                      > > And if not, do you know anything about how that project is progressing?
                      > > Re: the baptist Needham essay on the WCF, psalmody and hymns in the WCF
                      > > in the 21st Century what was L. Duncan thinking? Are the PCA southern
                      > > presbyterians nominating him as a champion or a sacrificial lamb?
                      > >
                      > >
                    • Chris Coldwell
                      Bob, ... Yes; on the plain sense reading I think you are right, but some have insisted on controverting that and because opinion is varied outside the context
                      Message 10 of 10 , Aug 19, 2008
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Bob,
                        > It is not that hard to do, though I haven't seen too many attempts.
                        > After all, Luther at first thought Erasmus was rather ridiculous on free
                        > will and wasn't going to bother.

                        Yes; on the plain sense reading I think you are right, but some have
                        insisted on controverting that and because opinion is varied outside
                        the context of the Assembly it is a bit of work to assemble an answer.
                        But as I say, Mr. Winzer did a fine job.

                        > I would suspect as much. How could it be?
                        > FWIW the Table of Contents for Frame's latest, Doct. of the Chr. Life
                        > is here
                        Well, I did pick up the book; the text is somewhat spruced up (at
                        least the chapters under review) so the book is not a straight "dump"
                        of what used to be posted, though I suspect not significantly
                        different, so it was necessary to review the print version. It is a
                        big book certainly.

                        Chris
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.