This review is dedicated to Kevin Johnson.
I won’t give a whole review of each thinker in this book. I’ve done some of that here.
What new material can a survey of Philosophy cover? I was wrong. Frame’s text has numerous ‘lagniappe’ that you won’t find in other texts (links to audio, references to modern Reformed thinkers, etc). In other words, it’s fun. But more importantly, it’s conducive to piety. Frame defines theology as the application, by persons, of God’s word to all of life (Frame 4). Sure, there is a Kuyperian thrust and that can be abused, but on the whole I appreciate it.
He reduces metaphysical discussions to: Is reality One, Many, or Both? (Hint: It’s both). *God is absolute tri-personality (16-17). He relates to his creation in terms of Lordship. Lordship is explained as authority (normative), control, and presence.
I think this is a good move, but there is a subtle anti-substance metaphysic involved. Substance metaphysics would usually say that reality is “cut at the joints,” meaning a universe of parts, whole, etc. That’s fine as far as it goes and few would disagree. Traditionally, though, that concept would get applied to God.
Frame (perhaps subconsciously) does not allow that. We aren’t now speaking of God’s transcendence in a way that he is spatially “above” or separated from the universe (though certainly not identical with it). The language is no longer spatial, but covenantal.
Perspectives on Human Knowledge
*Our knowledge is related to God in 3 ways (19):
- Control (our situation governed by his providence)
- Authority (what God reveals in his Word and Creation)
- Presence (Covenant)
Frame’s account is light on early philosophy and focuses more on early modern and recent philosophy.
His thesis: The two renaissance themes–humanism and antiquarianism–couldn’t be integrated. Do we gain knowledge by reflecting on the past or do we gain knowledge by using our autonomous reason divorced from tradition (167)?
Presented alternatives in metaphysics and epistemology. Luther: in his metaphysics he turned away from the NeoPlatonic “One” and back to the absolute and personal God of revelation (169).
Calvin marks a new move: he begins his Institutes with the knowledge of God. Knowledge of God is never apart from reverence and love towards him. This also determines man’s self-knowledge: “how can we imagine knowing anything without knowing ourselves, that is, knowing our knowing” (Frame 173 n16)? Calvin’s epistemology breaks with Renaissance and medieval models. Correlated with Calvin’s absolute personal theism.
After the Enlightenment, Frame makes the rather strange suggestion that the two worst heresies the church faced are Deism and Liberalism (220). I…um…don’t know about that. But it does explain much of the book. He defines liberal as anyone who doesn’t submit to the authority of Scripture (216ff). This definition of liberalism is very important for Frame’s text and it allows him to misinterpret a number of key thinkers.
Frame has a magnificent chapter on Kant and Hegel. Without explaining Kant’s philosophy, it allows Frame to make another important observation: the conservative drift in liberal theology. Liberals began to use more conservative language while retaining liberal constructs.
His chapter on Barth is just bad. I’ve blogged on it elsewhere. His take on Pannenberg is slightly better, though ruined by Frame’s definition of liberal theology. Pannenberg is not a liberal just because he doesn’t hold to inerrancy.
But when Frame sticks to material in which he is an acknowledged authority, such as linguistic analysis, he shines. The chapters on Russell and Wittgenstein were outstanding. He ends his text with a survey of recent Evangelical theologians.
Should you buy this text? I think so. It has a number of drawbacks and he only rarely engages in more than a surface-level analysis, but it is better than most one-volume treatments. Frame includes annotated bibliographies, pictures, diagrams, and links to audio lectures.