Category: John Frame

Posted on

John Frame and Covenant

Frame argues that the most central role of God as Lord is his covenant communion with his people. Following Meredith Kline, Frame asserts that the suzerain treaty is the most common model of covenant. The theme of this treaty is established as a great King sets the terms for the relationship (18).

The Covenant follows this pattern:

a) The identification of the King.

b) A Historical Prologue,

c) Stipulations

d) Sanctions

e) Continuity.

Kline says that the Covenant God makes with Israel follows this pattern closely. He identifies as Yahweh, then he gives a summary of his dealings with Israel, He gives them his ten commandments, followed by stipulations for violating them, and then there are indications that continuity of obedience is crucial for the preservation of this covenant.

Posted on

John Frame on Theological Definitions

One of the greatest joys of my life was spending four years under Prof. John Frame at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL. Those four years also included an independent study with him on Abraham Kuyper. It was that one semester that cemented my affection for the Dutch theologian. Since then, I have not looked back. I started a website named Kuyperian Commentary, wrote articles on Kuyper, lectured on Kuyper, and most recently wrote a new introduction to a reprint of his classic work, “Lectures on Calvinism.”

The impetus for such pursuits always goes back to my old mentor, John Frame. He taught me what it meant to pursue biblical fidelity. As he states in his Systematic Theology, he taught me that theological definitions must measure up to Scripture, not the other way around.” ((Systematic Theology, 4)” Frame sealed my love for the Bible as more than one revelation, or one authority among many, but as the ultimate authority over other legitimate authorities. Further, he instilled the sense that biblical definitions are given as the grammar of heaven. It is not merely sufficient to see the Scripture as a place for safety from heresies but to look to it as the source of safety itself for the Christian.

Frame adds that while some may differ in their definitions from us, it does not necessarily mean that we are at odds but may be approaching things from a different perspective. We may even share distinct ideas on the application, but we may be in harmony regarding the nature of the task. Therefore, we have to seek points of commonality first and foremost before engaging in the task of polemics.

Posted on

John Frame on Seeing our Sins

So much of my pastoral theology can be summarized by John Frame’s theology, but the example below is the kind of synopsis that needs highlighting and underlining. It offers the uniqueness of the Spirit’s role in the application of the Bible. Frame walks us through the simple but yet overlooked task of “seeing” as more than “observing facts,” but “seeing” as acknowledging and being transformed by biblical knowledge. Theology is the application of Scriptures to every area of life. To remove that is to undermine the Spirit’s role.

~~~

-The following is an excerpt from John M. Frame, Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, 157, 158.

The Spirit’s work also helps us to use and to apply the word. Obviously, the Spirit cannot assure us of the truth of Scripture unless He also teaches us its meaning. And meaning, as we have seen, includes the applications. We can see this in 2 Samuel 11, and 12 for David sinned against God by committing adultery with Bathsheba and by sending her husband, Uriah, to his death. Here, David, the “man after God’s own heart,” seemed trapped in a particular spiritual blindness. What happened to David? In one sense, he knew Scripture perfectly well; he meditated on God’s law day and night. And he was not ignorant about the facts of the case. Yet he was not convicted of sin. But Nathan the prophet came to him and spoke God’s word. He did not immediately rebuke David directly; he told a parable – a story that made David angry at someone else. Then Nathan told David, “you are the man.” At that point, David repented of his sin.

What had David learned from that point? He already knew God’s law, and, in a sense, he already knew the facts. What he learned was an application – what the law said about him. Previously, he may have rationalized something like this: “Kings of the earth have a right to take whatever women they want; and the commander-in-chief has the right to decide who fights on the front line. Therefore my relation with Bathsheba was not really adultery, and my order to Uriah was not really murder.” We all know how that works; we’ve done it ourselves. But what the Spirit did, through Nathan, was to take that rationalization away.

Thus David came to call his actions by the right names: sin, adultery, murder. He came to read his own life in terms of the biblical concepts. He came to see his “relationship” as adultery and his “executive order” as murder…Much of the Spirit’s work in our lives is of this nature – assuring us that Scripture applies to our lives in particular ways. The Spirit does not add to the canon, but His work is really a work of teaching, of revelation. Without that revelation, we could make no use of Scripture at all; it would be a dead letter to us.T

Thus in one sense, the Spirit adds nothing; in another sense, He adds everything.

Posted on

John Frame Retires: Three Lessons I’ve Learned From Him

Today one of the five most influential living theologians in my life retires. I had the joy of studying under John Frame and to spend some additional time with him on an independent study on the theology of Abraham Kuyper. Here are three brief lessons I’ve gained from Professor Frame:
1) The importance of persuasion: Frame once wrote that “We are not seeking merely to validate statements but to persuade people” Human beings are emotionally invested in the beliefs and opinions they hold. Frame taught me to persuade in love lest you persuade in vain.
2) Theology as application: Frame taught me that theology becomes fruitful only when it’s applied. He defined theology as: “The application of the Word of God by persons to all areas of life.” This has deeply shaped my pastorate.
3) We are multi-perspectival: We are not imprisoned by one way of looking at certain ideas. God has made us creative in our thinking, therefore ideas can be shaped by what is normative, situational, or existential. We are holistic image bearers which humble us as we dialogue with other image-bearers.
Posted on

How I Have Changed

Photo: Circa 2002, Senior Year at CCC...good times. Now: Ministers, missionary, pharmacist, military chaplain, financial advisor. God has been faithful! Kenneth James Conklin, Timothy J Russell, Matthew Fisher, Tom YuI spent a couple of hours today chatting with an old friend of mine. He is now a pastor of a Lutheran congregation. He is a fine fellow whom I long to re-acquaint face to face with a pipe and a fine beer. After all these years we have kept a relatively lively relationship over the phone. We have even joined forces to write a lengthy piece combating an evangelical prohibitionist advocate of our day.

Interestingly what brought us together even more so in these last few years have been our theological journeys. We both attended a fundamentalist college, but even back then we were already pursuing dangerous literature. One time he brought a book back from home that had a warning sign on its first page written by his mother. The first page stated that we were to be careful as we read this book for it was written by a Calvinist. Lions, and tigers, and Calvinists, oh my!

How far we have come! It has been over 10 years since we parted those glory college days, and now we both are pastoring healthy congregations. We are in different theological traditions, but very rooted in our Protestant commitments. Beyond that, we are rooted in a vastly historic tradition.

As I pondered that conversation I wondered just how much I have changed over this last decade. I went from a revival preacher to a liturgical minister. Now don’t get me wrong, I long for revival, I just don’t long for the same type my brothers long for. This revival I long for is filled with beautiful images, a pattern-filled story, tasty bread, and delightful wine; church colors, rituals– in the best sense of the term—and lots of feasting. While my fundamentalist brothers longed for the sweet by and by, and times they would gather at the river to sing of that ol’ time religion. Those romantic days no longer appeal to me.

How have I changed? In so many ways! But my changes were not just theological. I have held the same convictions I have today on a host of issues for over 10 years. My changes were more situational and existential (and normative for the tri-perspectivalists out there). My reality has changed. I now treasure different things that I did not treasure a decade ago. You may say marriage does that, but the reality is I have taken my sola scriptura to the next level. I have begun to see its applicability beyond the sphere of the mind. The arm-chair theologian no longer seems admirable. Even marriage carries a symbolic significance to me. This is not just a privatized institution; it is, to quote Schmemann, “for the sake of the world.” Yes, I have changed.

I have also changed existentially. I have learned to delve deeply into personal piety and have found it refreshing. In the past my piety led me into the valley of pietism. It was discouraging; pessimistic. Now my piety keeps me in green pastures. My existential struggle with doubt is no longer a reality. I have found objectivity in the most unlikely places. They have kept me secure and alert to my own tendencies; to the idols that I have failed to crush. Jesus has become more than an intellectual pursuit, but the heart of the issues, because he is the heart of history.

Yes, I have changed since my college days. I would like even to affirm that this is the new me; a “me” broken by idolatry and restored and renewed by word, water, and wine. Thanks be to God!

Posted on

John Frame on Theology as Application

Theology is the application of the Word by persons to the world and to all areas of human life. We need theology not because there is something wrong with the Bible, an improper form perhaps, but because there is something wrong with us. The Bible is fine, just as it is. The problem is that we are slow to grasp it, both because of our weakness and because of our sin. So the theologian, like a good preacher, takes the biblical text and explains it to us.

Posted on

Preaching Law/Gospel

In light of recent discussions on law/gospel, I was reminded of this short gem from my former professor John Frame:

We should be reminded of course that there is also an opposite extreme: preaching “gospel” in such a way as to suggest that Christ makes no demands on one’s life. We call that “cheap grace” or “easy believism.” We might also call it preaching “gospel without law.” Taken to an extreme, it is antinomianism, the rejection of God’s law. The traditional law/gospel distinction is not itself antinomian, but those who hold it tend to be more sensitive to the dangers of legalism than to the dangers of antinomianism.

Such considerations may lead us to distinguish in a rough-and-ready way between preaching of the law and preaching of the gospel. Of course, even in making that distinction, our intention ought to be to bring these together. None of these considerations requires us to posit a sharp distinction. And certainly, this rough-and-ready distinction should never be used to cast doubt on the integration of command and promise that pervades the Scriptures themselves.

 

Posted on

Frame on Higher Education

I am a strong proponent of theological seminaries. As a graduate of RTS/Orlando (pictured on the left), I have been immensely privileged to sit under godly scholars. In particular, Professor John Frame highly affected my thinking in apologetics and ethics. As a result my understanding of how higher education should be reformed is also framed by John’s thinking. Here is a sample of how he would re-structure seminary education today:

I cannot help but mention my conviction that this problem is partly the result of our present system for training theologians. To qualify for college or seminary positions, a theologian must earn a PhD, ideally from a prestigious liberal university. But at such schools, there is no training in the kind of systematic theology I describe here. Liberal university theologians do not view Scripture as God’s Word, and so they cannot encourage theology as I have defined it, as the application of God’s infallible word. Students are welcome to study historical and contemporary theology, and to relate these to auxiliary disciplines such as philosophy and literary criticism. But they are not taught to seek ways of applying Scripture for the edification of God’s people. Rather, professors encourage the student to be “up-to-date” with current academic discussion and to make “original contributions” to the discussion, out of his autonomous reasoning. So when the theologian finishes his graduate work and moves to a teaching position, even if he is personally evangelical in his convictions, he often writes and teaches as he was encouraged to do in graduate school: academic comparisons and contrasts, minimal interaction with Scripture.

In my judgment, this is entirely inadequate for the needs of the church. It is one source of the doctrinal declension of evangelical churches, colleges, and seminaries in our day. Evangelical denominations and schools need to seek new methods of training people to teach theology, educational models that will force theologian candidates to mine Scripture for edifying content. To do this, they may need to cut themselves off, in some degree, from the present-day academic establishment. And to do that, they may have to cut themselves off from the present-day accreditation system.

—John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God, p. 278 n. 6.