I'm going to take a moment away from my political ranting to offer you a suggestion for some (late) summer reading. I was looking to read through a Systematic Theology (hereafter ST) for the first time when I stumbled across an online interview with John Frame. I had heard of Frame, but had not read any of his works. I had heard that he was an outlier, occupying the fringe of the Reformed world. The interview (the link to which I wish I could now find) was intriguing enough to evince from me a trip to Amazon to purchase a copy of Frame's ST. After reading it through in its entirety, I'd like to offer offer a few thoughts.
First of all, Frame's reputation as an outlier is well-earned. His approach to pretty much everything is rather unique (more on that later). This appears immediately as he opens by telling his reader that he is not going to follow the traditional order or methodology one would expect to find in a Reformed ST. His reluctance to affirm certain Reformed principles also leaves him somewhat on the outside looking in (though I would certainly still call him solidly Reformed). For one, he is not a huge fan of the Regulative Principle of Worship, a conservative Reformed mainstay. He is also quite ecumenical and diplomatic when it comes to views that many Reformed folks find reprehensible, the continuation of spiritual gifts being one example. He comes down as a Cessationist, but he is not as dogmatic as some would like. There are many other examples one could list.
Speaking of not being dogmatic, the second thing I noticed about Frame's ST is how humbly he approached issues that aren't 100% clear. Reformed people are sort of known for thinking that their particular way of formulating any given doctrine is the only possible way. Worship is probably the best example of this. Frame, on the other hand, is open and honest about when he holds to a traditional Reformed doctrine despite the lack of explicit Scriptural data, such as God's covenant with Adam before the Fall.
Thirdly, sometimes Frame can seem arbitrary. His interpretive framework (pun intended) is called Triperspectivalism. Basically he see God's Lordship as the overarching them of Scripture, with Lordship being broken down into three categories: authority, command, and presence, which occupy three perspectives: normative, situational, and existential, respectively. Most everything in the book (and apparently in life) boils down to these three perspectives. Sometimes Triperspectivalism seems genius. Sometimes it seems forced--really forced--so much so that he admits that there aren't clear lines and that each of the perspectives includes the others anyway. I found the philosophy to be sometimes helpful, sometimes baffling, and usually intriguing.
Fourthly, Frame's ST offers a pretty noticeable lack of balance. You can definitely tell which portions were his passions and which were obligatory. I thought he did an awfully large amount of philosophizing, especially when it came to the Word of God (and words/revelation in general). His sections dealing with the work and nature of Christ were far shorter than his sections dealing with God and revelation. His section on ethics was quite short, though many STs apparently don't feature any such section at all. The lack of balance was mitigated somewhat by his constant devotional and practical tone. His definition of theology emphasizes application. To be fair, this lack of balance is probably directly tied to the fact that large sections of the book are derived (if not copied) from his preceding books and lectures. Other sections seem like they were hastily thrown together.
Fifthly, Frame is an unabashed Biblicist. This is, perhaps, his strongest trait. He focuses more on Biblical evidence for arguments than on historical debates. He probably could've included more historical information, but I would much prefer more of the Bible than more of the history of theology. His sections on revelation and the Word are particularly powerful.
Finally, this is a readable Systematic Theology. I have a Bachelor's degree in theology, so I've read more theology than your average American, but I'm no genius, and I found this book to be very readable. It certainly has moments where you have to stop and reread a couple of times, but, generally speaking, the book is accessible to most people who would have the desire to read it.
Overall I really liked this book. I found it both challenging and enjoyable. The author exposes his reader to many subjects they have probably never encountered before. His unique perspective as a theologian complements his unique voice as an author. His literary style is somewhere between a professor and a pastor. If I could only own one ST, it probably wouldn't be this one. Thankfully I already have Calvin's, Berkhof's, and Grudem's, so Frame's, instead of being redundant, has its own place in the rich tradition of Reformed STs.
First of all, Frame's reputation as an outlier is well-earned. His approach to pretty much everything is rather unique (more on that later). This appears immediately as he opens by telling his reader that he is not going to follow the traditional order or methodology one would expect to find in a Reformed ST. His reluctance to affirm certain Reformed principles also leaves him somewhat on the outside looking in (though I would certainly still call him solidly Reformed). For one, he is not a huge fan of the Regulative Principle of Worship, a conservative Reformed mainstay. He is also quite ecumenical and diplomatic when it comes to views that many Reformed folks find reprehensible, the continuation of spiritual gifts being one example. He comes down as a Cessationist, but he is not as dogmatic as some would like. There are many other examples one could list.
Speaking of not being dogmatic, the second thing I noticed about Frame's ST is how humbly he approached issues that aren't 100% clear. Reformed people are sort of known for thinking that their particular way of formulating any given doctrine is the only possible way. Worship is probably the best example of this. Frame, on the other hand, is open and honest about when he holds to a traditional Reformed doctrine despite the lack of explicit Scriptural data, such as God's covenant with Adam before the Fall.
Thirdly, sometimes Frame can seem arbitrary. His interpretive framework (pun intended) is called Triperspectivalism. Basically he see God's Lordship as the overarching them of Scripture, with Lordship being broken down into three categories: authority, command, and presence, which occupy three perspectives: normative, situational, and existential, respectively. Most everything in the book (and apparently in life) boils down to these three perspectives. Sometimes Triperspectivalism seems genius. Sometimes it seems forced--really forced--so much so that he admits that there aren't clear lines and that each of the perspectives includes the others anyway. I found the philosophy to be sometimes helpful, sometimes baffling, and usually intriguing.
Fourthly, Frame's ST offers a pretty noticeable lack of balance. You can definitely tell which portions were his passions and which were obligatory. I thought he did an awfully large amount of philosophizing, especially when it came to the Word of God (and words/revelation in general). His sections dealing with the work and nature of Christ were far shorter than his sections dealing with God and revelation. His section on ethics was quite short, though many STs apparently don't feature any such section at all. The lack of balance was mitigated somewhat by his constant devotional and practical tone. His definition of theology emphasizes application. To be fair, this lack of balance is probably directly tied to the fact that large sections of the book are derived (if not copied) from his preceding books and lectures. Other sections seem like they were hastily thrown together.
Fifthly, Frame is an unabashed Biblicist. This is, perhaps, his strongest trait. He focuses more on Biblical evidence for arguments than on historical debates. He probably could've included more historical information, but I would much prefer more of the Bible than more of the history of theology. His sections on revelation and the Word are particularly powerful.
Finally, this is a readable Systematic Theology. I have a Bachelor's degree in theology, so I've read more theology than your average American, but I'm no genius, and I found this book to be very readable. It certainly has moments where you have to stop and reread a couple of times, but, generally speaking, the book is accessible to most people who would have the desire to read it.
Overall I really liked this book. I found it both challenging and enjoyable. The author exposes his reader to many subjects they have probably never encountered before. His unique perspective as a theologian complements his unique voice as an author. His literary style is somewhere between a professor and a pastor. If I could only own one ST, it probably wouldn't be this one. Thankfully I already have Calvin's, Berkhof's, and Grudem's, so Frame's, instead of being redundant, has its own place in the rich tradition of Reformed STs.
Comments
Post a Comment