An accidental blog

"If God is sovereign, then his lordship must extend over all of life, and it cannot be restricted to the walls of the church or within the Christian orbit." Abraham Kuyper Common Grace 1.1.

Tuesday, 24 January 2006

John Frame and the 'Amsterdam' theology

John Frame's polemical critique of Dooyeweerd - though Frame acknowledges it was more a critique of 'Toronto' (ostensibly the early days of the ICS) than Dooyeweerd - is now on-line (HT Gregory Baus via thinknet). The Amsterdam Philosophy: A Preliminary Critique is available here. It is part of a project to put all John Frame's and Vern Poythress's works on-line. One day we might see something similar for Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven!!

Frame in a 2005 preface to the on-line edition writes:
This booklet was published by Pilgrim Press in 1972, in the midst of some theological warfare. Representatives of the Amsterdam Philosophy were then taking a militant stance against traditional Reformed theology, and the controversy created partisan battles on the campus of Westminster Seminary, where I was a very young professor. It also threatened to split churches, Christian schools, and other Christian organizations. As a member of a committee of the Ohio Presbytery of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, I was asked to write a brief study of the movement, and the booklet resulted. Originally it was published together with another essay by Leonard Coppes, the Chairman of the Committee.

As I read the booklet today, I think my tone was far too shrill. The booklet also contains far too much smart-alecky stuff. I suppose I could have entirely rewritten it, but that would have made my 1972 efforts look better than they were. I prefer now to let readers judge me as I deserve, warts and all. I also think that the basic points of the pamphlet were never answered, though I received a lot of invective, and a lot of undocumented charges that I just didn’t know Dooyeweerd. On those issues also, I will let readers judge.

Andrew Basden has responded to Frame's original booklet here. Wether or not Andrew has answered the basic points of Frame's critique let the 'readers judge'.


No comments: