The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Machen's Warrior Children

I suppose that several members of The Highway are already familiar with this document, but for those of us who don't have a Reformed background and have never learned the history of Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America, I found this document to be very helpful. I realize it is only a very brief summary and certainly more detailed and in-depth histories have been written elsewhere. Also, there are perhaps areas of disagreement with some of the facts stated in this document, and this is a forum for mature debate and discussion, so have at it.

Here's the link.

Let me first say that I know John Frame personally... I studied under him when he was on the faculty at WTS Philly. I have also followed his "transition" both via personal communication, e.g., the "Framework Theory" regarding creation and through his other writings and books.

I once had high regard and sincere respect for John Frame. Let me emphasize the once had regard and respect for the man. But I can no longer say that is true due to his "shift" in theology and the resulting views he now holds.

As for the article, it is deceptive and should be read with MUCH discernment. His motivation is to promote "toleration" by showing alleged unnecessary conflicts and judgments that have taken place historically within Reformed churches. As with most all error/untruth, there is a smattering of truth weaved throughout with the intention to deceive. As with Solomon, I must echo the truth that "there is nothing new under the sun", and Frame's tactics are old and very familiar to those of us who have read through the various historical trials within the Reformed churches that have taken place even going back and especially going back nearly 400 years.

What am I referring to? The same devilish ploy which the serpent used in the Garden to deceive Eve has been used by nearly every dissenter that has brought a grievance against the established Church of our Lord Jesus Christ. The three main areas of their modus operandi have been and continue to be:

1. An insistence that they adhere to the Confessional Standards and only seek to revise them and not reject them. In layman's terms, the are "one of us" who simply have a different way of expressing what the church has always believed.
2. Their new insights are biblically based and scripturally sound, although they have been hidden until now. They use familiar "terms" but redefine them without making it known and/or clear that what they mean by those terms is substantially different than how they have been used.
3. There is the constant cry for toleration, academic freedom, understanding, and love of the brethren, all of which are meant to give them an open door to have their aberrant views considered, accepted and adopted.

I would be foolish to deny that with some of the 21 controversies Frame mentioned, there was some harsh rhetoric on one side or the other or both. But in most of those controversies, they were worthy of debate and rejection and some are still ongoing and in some cases these heresies have been allowed entrance into the churches and even seminaries.

In my estimation, John Frame is using the same 3 tactics in order that his erroneous views will receive acceptance. I pray that there will be some that will see through this ruse and not give him an ear. I also fear that the major Reformed denominations have all but sold their birthright and they are all on the verge of dissolution due to their allowing heretical teachings to come into their respective churches and seminaries.

Indeed... we are in the Last Days and such men and heresies will continue to attack the Church and cause no little falling away. Will the Lord bring reformation and then revival again to the Church before He returns? Or, will things continue to become progressively worse to the point that the Lord will indeed return lest even the elect be carried away?

In His grace,

Independent of Frame's intention to promote toleration over doctrinal purity, is the document historically accurate as far as the developments and people he mentions? Perhaps the benefit here is the brief history of Reformed and Presbyterian churches in North America in the last 150 years for those of us unfamiliar with this history. Your point is well taken and readers should be aware that the author has a specific, undeniable ulterior motive. Even I sensed this when reading Machen's Warrior Children in spite of the fact that I am not acquainted with Frame or the movements he chronicles.

When I read through Frame's list, I got the distinct impression that he overstated that which pertained to those who were holding the line and minimized those who brought in their "new views". In short, he put a "spin" on things so that the traditionalists looked bad and the innovators looked good. I was particularly struck by his bias in the case of Norman Shepherd whose views on justification were and remain damnable heresy. I can't help but wonder what Frame's view is on the current NPP/Federal Vision controversy (damnable heresy) which is more than similar to Shepherd's view.

Now, was Frame "accurate" as far as the historical facts? As with all deceit, the answer here, I believe, is Yes and No. There is much that is accurate, e.g., names, dates, places, etc. But due to his "spin" how he described what actually happened is not wholly true. I'll let you decide if he was "accurate" or not.

In His grace,