Talk:John Frame (theologian)

Wish list

I'd like to add a section about Frame's thought, especially as it differs from Van Til. --Flex 19:55, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd also like to see more details on Frame's presuppositionalism, his treatment of ethics, and his "biblicism." --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

The section on epistemology is well received, but it must be wikified and made neutral in accordance with Wikipolicy. --Flex 21:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Can you point out what is or is not POV? I'm seeing a few questionable phrases ("Christians such as Frame...", etc.) but nothing substantial. Remember that Wikipedia is not a debate, and the presentation of Frame's ideas does not endorse them nor does it particularly call out for rebuttal. However, if there is a notable opposition to or refutation of his ideas, then perhaps we should add some links to the appropriate pages. -Harmil 14:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I already neutralized it and removed the POV tag from the article. Sorry I didn't note that here. --Flex 13:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep, move, or disambiguate?

User:GeorgeWilliams inappropriately moved this page to John M. Frame by cutting and pasting the contents of another article. That left the history and the talk pages for both the new and old hanging (not to mention left a number of WP articles obviously pointing to the wrong article). If the page should be moved, the proper procedure is to use the Wikitools to move them, not do so manually, so that everything stays consistent. I have restored the old state until we come to resolution.

More to the point, by Google hits and publications, the philosopher/theologian seems to be much likelier the person sought than an athlete from the 1700s, so this was by no means a non-controversial move and should not have been made unilaterally. At the very least, I would argue this page should become a disambiguation page, but really, based on Google, I think a top link to the cricketer is the most appropriate solution under WP:DISAMBIG since the vast majority of people looking for John Frame will want this one. --Flex (talk|contribs) 22:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried the conventional move but it did not work because of a redirect page. I did not realise that a copy would cause problems on other pages. If there is a link to the cricketer I will be happy with that. --GeorgeWilliams 07:54, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. That's how we'll do it then. Thanks! --Flex (talk|contribs) 15:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Worship and music

I've added a brief section about Frame's views in this field. I haven't added any references yet but there are several articles on the internet from other notable reformed theologians who have publicly disagreed with Frame. I'll try to cite them shortly. Sidefall (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call. See the reference section at regulative principle of worship. Note, however, that those who advocate exclusive psalmody and/or a capella singing are a small minority, and we must be careful not to give their criticisms undue weight here -- this article should stress Frame's positions, not theirs. The disagreement over musical/worship style, on the other hand, has wider participation. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said in my edit, it's not just the two points you mention that have provoked dispute - Frame has also been criticised for his support of contemporary worship music (including modern instruments) and dancing. I'd guess there are quite a few who accept traditional hymns and the pipe organ, but are opposed to more recent developments. On the minority views, I don't know the sizes of the various factions. Have you any idea? I'd be very interested to find out. If the statistics are authoritative they would make a useful addition to Wikipedia. Another question is have any other prominent Presbyterian theologians expressed similar views to Frame? My feeling is probably not - maybe Frame is the only one who's dared to stick his neck out, which is why he's been criticised so much. But I don't move in these circles and I am anything but an expert. My personal research interest is in changes to styles of worship over recent years and the influence of the charismatic movement in this regard - any sources you know of relating to this would be much appreciated. Sidefall (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Consider the Presbyterian Church in America, the largest conservative Presbyterian denom in the US (about 340,000 members) and the denom in which Frame is ordained. It has churches with traditional, contemporary, and liturgical worship styles, and many PCA churches offer multiple styles. For instance, at one of the PCA's flagship churches, Tim Keller's Redeemer Pres in NYC, "[t]he morning services use primarily classical music and the evening services use primarily jazz and contemporary music."[1] Generally those who favor exclusive psalmody and a capella believe it is a matter of principle and separate from those who don't. Consequently, AFAICT, these practices are almost exclusively found in so-called micro-denominations like the Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, which has around 6500 members worldwide. (Compare the other articles that link to exclusive psalmody).

Other resources you might consider are Marva Dawn's Reaching Out without Dumbing Down, Royal Waste of Time, and How Shall We Worship?; the writings of Keven Twit, who spearheads Indelible Grace which re-sets hymns to modern music (e.g., "My Grandmother Saved It, My Mother Threw It Away, and Now I'm Buying It Back" from Reformed Worship, the articles on the right side of this page, "Criteria for Judging Rock Music", and "Why We Still Need Hymns in a Postmodern World: The Formative Power of Worship" [note especially the bibliography at the end]); and some of the articles found here (note also Richard L. Pratt, Jr.'s article on the regulative principle, which doesn't show up in that search). See also this Q&A for a summary of the debate from a PCA member representing an organization that is close to the PCA. --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for very comprehensive reply. I wasn't aware that exclusive psalmody was such a minority view and I agree with your comment about undue weight. I'll do some editing when I have time. Sidefall (talk) 07:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Link is incorrect - a query over this

This article, when it says Frame is an authority on Cornelius van Til, says the link is incorrect. The link takes us to Frame's own website which contains a list of works by Frame, so maybe some of these works discuss the work of van Til. Vorbee (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC) The article on Cornelius van Til does say that Frame is a sympathetic critic of van Til, so perhaps the link should be moved to this article. Vorbee (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Fixed, with a new citation. StAnselm (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I give up

I just spent hours at the Poythress article, trying to fix the fact that it seems to be a self-published promotional site, rather that an independent, third-party, academic/encyclopedic treatment. In doing so, I found and added the 2017 Festschrift, theretofore unmentioned, and added more independent sources than appeared to date.

But in wikilinking to this (Frame) biography, I throw up my hands. (I wikilinked, because of the regard held for the blog that the two have written together, etc.) Here I find the same situation—sentence after sentence without sourcing, another clear case of large volume early additions of "privileged text" (less politely put, non-independent content that is either WP:OR or plagiarised, and likely with COI issues attending).

Are there no standards of scholarly biography, here, in this sub-genre of WP biography? Is the whole of encyclopedic article-writing on contemporary theological persons similarly "just trust us, we know about this" in its underpinnings (that is, ignoring WP guidelines and policies, for personal knowledge or self-published information provided essentially directly by the title subject)? I give up. One cannot edit if, even with one's "family", one does not share common convictions regarding quality and submission to the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:8133:1B3B:F75D:70F4 (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Besides removing whole sections/paragraphs of self-published WP editor "scholarship" here—the single biggest, even screaming issue of the article (the article's attempt to pass off individual WP editor perspectives as independent, published, authoritative third-party thought)—the article as a whole needs restructuring, so it flows and makes sense to non-specialist readers. E.g., look at point at which the "Presuppositions" section appears, and look at the order of paragraphs relative to the order of the theological publications referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:C700:2DB2:8133:1B3B:F75D:70F4 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

These 10.5 kb of edits (the majority of the article), here and here, were done by an unlogged editor, from the same address, and it is ALL unsourced, interpretive content. These edits should never have been allowed to stand in the first place, because they are either WP:OR or plagiarism, perhaps from a non-independent editor. Please look to undo the huge self-published mess these earlier edits created. If local, dedicated editors do not do so, I will call the situation to the attention of administrators.

This whole article is a shambles. "citation needed" "citation needed" "citation needed"... I've never seen anything like it.

The only thing that is undebatable about John Frame is that he believes in food.  JohndanR (talk) 21:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The first addition linked here had mostly been cut. I have just removed the second. Article still needs attention from an expert, or someone with the time and inclination to re-write it completely with sourcing. Tacyarg (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2023 (UTC)