Comments on: John Frame on Homeschooling http://biblearchive.com/blog/2010/apologetics/john-frame-on-homeschooling/ Thoughts from Plymouth Brethren Blogger Rey Reynoso Wed, 08 Feb 2012 16:21:06 +0000 hourly 1 By: rey http://biblearchive.com/blog/2010/apologetics/john-frame-on-homeschooling/comment-page-1/#comment-3334 rey Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:55:24 +0000 http://biblearchive.com/blog/?p=1626#comment-3334 Frame seems to rightly push his positions to the Word of God because God has spoken authoritatively but I, admittedly, haven't read enough of Frame to know if he pushes that far in the relativist direction. And to hear the why of it is a bit off-putting so I'll have to keep digging. I'll have to also read Van Til closely to see if I can pinpoint some statements that highlight that wackiness. Frame seems to rightly push his positions to the Word of God because God has spoken authoritatively but I, admittedly, haven’t read enough of Frame to know if he pushes that far in the relativist direction. And to hear the why of it is a bit off-putting so I’ll have to keep digging.

I’ll have to also read Van Til closely to see if I can pinpoint some statements that highlight that wackiness.

]]> By: Jeremy Pierce http://biblearchive.com/blog/2010/apologetics/john-frame-on-homeschooling/comment-page-1/#comment-3332 Jeremy Pierce Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:37:40 +0000 http://biblearchive.com/blog/?p=1626#comment-3332 If Frame's meta-ethics is the same as Van Til's, then he's basically a subjectivist about ethics, but the only subjective view that matters is God's. Any ethical position could have been true if God had said so. If God had wanted the causing of pain to be the highest calling for humanity, then it would have been. I have to register that I find this view to be completely nuts. There's no point if praising God by calling him good if that claim is true by definition rather than saying substantive about God based in an objective standard. All we'd be saying is that might makes right. I've heard that Frame departs from this a bit, but it's not in a more orthodox direction. It's in fact in a more relativist direction. But I've never read anything by Frame on this. I'm just going by someone who was once taken in by Van Til who discovered the craziness of it after some time and eventually rejected it as untenable. If Frame’s meta-ethics is the same as Van Til’s, then he’s basically a subjectivist about ethics, but the only subjective view that matters is God’s. Any ethical position could have been true if God had said so. If God had wanted the causing of pain to be the highest calling for humanity, then it would have been.

I have to register that I find this view to be completely nuts. There’s no point if praising
God by calling him good if that claim is true by definition rather than saying substantive about God based in an objective standard. All we’d be saying is that might makes right. I’ve heard that Frame departs from this a bit, but it’s not in a more orthodox direction. It’s in fact in a more relativist direction. But I’ve never read anything by Frame on this. I’m just going by someone who was once taken in by Van Til who discovered the craziness of it after some time and eventually rejected it as untenable.

]]>