What do you think?
Rate this book
A Theology of Lordship
The Doctrine of God by Frame, John M. [P & R Publishing,2002]
The Doctrine of God by Frame, John M.. Published by P & R Publishing,2002, Hardcover
Hardcover
First published May 1, 2002
112 people are currently reading
979 people want to read
About the author
John M. Frame
91 books219 followersFor his education, Frame received degrees from Princeton University (A.B.), Westminster Theological Seminary (B.D.), Yale University (A.M. and M.Phil., though he was working on a doctorate and admits his own failure to complete his dissertation), and Belhaven College (D.D.). He has served on the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary and was a founding faculty member of their California campus. He currently (as of 2022) teaches Apologetics and The History of Philosophy and Christian thought at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, FL.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews
September 2, 2023
The best book of theology I have read in some time. Others have written great reviews on this book, but for me, this book helped me solidify my thoughts on a number of doctrines, and especially helped me think through the Classical Theism approach to things that appears to be gaining steam in theologians like Matthew Barrett, Craig Carter, Hans Boersma, etc. Frame's critique of Scholasticism in general was extremely helpful to me and struck me is both educated (he didn't misrepresent Aquinas, for example) and reasonable (nothing was dismissed wholesale). I will be looking to read more by Frame in the future.
April 18, 2018
Frame's "The Doctrine of God" is a traditional systematic theological work, with Frame's thoughtful, perspectivalist approach. He begins with "Lordship"which is expressed in three "Lordship attributes": control, authority, and covenant presence.
As Frame develops these three attributes, he naturally encounters some difficult subjects, he deals with them more comprehensively in part two--specifically "human responsibility and freedom" and "the problem of evil".
Frame then develops some of the traditional systematic doctrines, such as ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, miracle, providence, creation, names, images, attributes, knowledge, time, etc.
He concludes with three chapters on the Trinity. There are, in customary Frame fashion, nine appendices.
Some of the highlights from the book include his discussion of miracles. His definitions are remarkably simple and clear. For example, his definition of miracle is simple, to the point, and uncontroversial: "miracles are unusual events caused by God's power, so extraordinary that we would usually consider them impossible."
Related to his discussion of miracles is his discussion of whether miracles continue today and cessationism. He writes, "there is a pattern in Scripture, in which the extraordinary serves as preparation for the ordinary. We often value spectacular experience over day-t0-day routine. But God's priorities are different." Yet he is very open to the idea that, "...God sometimes performs wonders to accredit his missionaries, to defeat opposition to the gospel, and to put the new church on a firm footing." p. 265
A few other nuggets:
"Holiness, then, is God's capacity and right to arouse our reverent awe and wonder." p. 28
"God does bring evil into the world, he does it for a good reason. Therefore, he does not do evil in bringing evil to pass." p. 170
"...the real persuasive power of the theory of evolution is not the evidence adduced in its favor, but rather the fact that it is the only viable alternative to theism." p. 311
I've never been disappointed with anything I've read by Frame, and there is much profit to be had in this volume.
As Frame develops these three attributes, he naturally encounters some difficult subjects, he deals with them more comprehensively in part two--specifically "human responsibility and freedom" and "the problem of evil".
Frame then develops some of the traditional systematic doctrines, such as ethics, epistemology, metaphysics, miracle, providence, creation, names, images, attributes, knowledge, time, etc.
He concludes with three chapters on the Trinity. There are, in customary Frame fashion, nine appendices.
Some of the highlights from the book include his discussion of miracles. His definitions are remarkably simple and clear. For example, his definition of miracle is simple, to the point, and uncontroversial: "miracles are unusual events caused by God's power, so extraordinary that we would usually consider them impossible."
Related to his discussion of miracles is his discussion of whether miracles continue today and cessationism. He writes, "there is a pattern in Scripture, in which the extraordinary serves as preparation for the ordinary. We often value spectacular experience over day-t0-day routine. But God's priorities are different." Yet he is very open to the idea that, "...God sometimes performs wonders to accredit his missionaries, to defeat opposition to the gospel, and to put the new church on a firm footing." p. 265
A few other nuggets:
"Holiness, then, is God's capacity and right to arouse our reverent awe and wonder." p. 28
"God does bring evil into the world, he does it for a good reason. Therefore, he does not do evil in bringing evil to pass." p. 170
"...the real persuasive power of the theory of evolution is not the evidence adduced in its favor, but rather the fact that it is the only viable alternative to theism." p. 311
I've never been disappointed with anything I've read by Frame, and there is much profit to be had in this volume.
September 11, 2023
Frame is a gift to the church. This was an incredibly helpful and fruitful read as it helped me deepen my understanding of the Trinity. While this is only a small section in this tome, the Trinitarian portions tied the whole book together and gives a fantastic Biblical understanding for Lordship of Christ.
August 19, 2020
There is much I could say about this book. Frame's primary goal is to show the exegetical roots of his systematic exploration of the doctrine of God.
Overall this is a wonderful book. It's surprisingly accessible for tome this size and edifying throughout. Frame, in his characteristic way, models humility and a healthy reverence of mystery throughout.
I think the greatest strength of this book is his methodology (this is probably the greatest weakness as well). He wants to show how theological words have Biblical content and how these terms shape our everyday discipleship to our Covenant Lord.
My one critique is that Frame's methodology prevents him from articulating certain aspects of the Classical doctrine of God in ways that I think are Biblical and helpful. You see this in his treatment of the metaphysical dimension of this doctrine.
But, overall I'd highly recommend this book to anyone.
Overall this is a wonderful book. It's surprisingly accessible for tome this size and edifying throughout. Frame, in his characteristic way, models humility and a healthy reverence of mystery throughout.
I think the greatest strength of this book is his methodology (this is probably the greatest weakness as well). He wants to show how theological words have Biblical content and how these terms shape our everyday discipleship to our Covenant Lord.
My one critique is that Frame's methodology prevents him from articulating certain aspects of the Classical doctrine of God in ways that I think are Biblical and helpful. You see this in his treatment of the metaphysical dimension of this doctrine.
But, overall I'd highly recommend this book to anyone.
September 27, 2025
*I only read first 200 pages for a class.
Frame presents the doctrine of God through a paradigm of Lordship, which encompasses authority, control, and covenant presence. I appreciated his understanding of lordship as the primary way God is revealed in Scripture. He offers a philosophical defense of God’s control in relation to the “problem of evil.” The vast majority of his book is very readable, with great illustrations to boot.
Frame presents the doctrine of God through a paradigm of Lordship, which encompasses authority, control, and covenant presence. I appreciated his understanding of lordship as the primary way God is revealed in Scripture. He offers a philosophical defense of God’s control in relation to the “problem of evil.” The vast majority of his book is very readable, with great illustrations to boot.
April 2, 2008
I got to read Doctrine of God while in class with John Frame. It wasn't even bound yet. We got it in notebook form. Nothing like having to answer questions from a professor about his own text. And just so you know, not the best thing in the world to question an author/professor about why they include topics in their book. A smidgen presumptuous, but I did it anyways!
Frame isn't the best verbal communicator, but his written communication is amazing. To this day I continue to remember things that he wrote in the text and use them in my daily life.
To know who this God is - Supreme, Creator, Planner of the universe. The One God who actually knows His people -- the text brings these ideas to the front of our meager minds and allows us to try and grapple with them.
It's not an easy read - it is a Master's Degree text - but, worth it!
Frame isn't the best verbal communicator, but his written communication is amazing. To this day I continue to remember things that he wrote in the text and use them in my daily life.
To know who this God is - Supreme, Creator, Planner of the universe. The One God who actually knows His people -- the text brings these ideas to the front of our meager minds and allows us to try and grapple with them.
It's not an easy read - it is a Master's Degree text - but, worth it!
January 2, 2021
There's lots to like about this book. It's wonderfully accessible for a start: Frame consistently writes clearly and simply, to be understood. That is not a given in this field! More than that, it aims to be biblical. Rather than seeing the revelation of God in Scripture as the jumping off point for a constructive and evolutionary theological enterprise that wants to take us further than what the Bible authors could ever have believed, Frame assumes that the job of the theologian is to articulate and apply the doctrine of God we have received in the Scriptures. Of course, that doesn't mean that we disregard the interpretive tradition or that we reject extra-biblical terminology: Frame defends both. But the value of the tradition and this language is that it helps us to understand and apply what the Lord has actually said in his word, and it is therefore ministerial rather than magisterial. One of the benefits of this 'something close to biblicism' approach is that he gives due weight to the Old Testament revelation of God - and we see this both in his starting point (Exodus 3/6) and in his frequent recourse to the prophets and the Psalms. Another benefit is that he's sceptical of philosophical formulations that take us away from what the Bible actually says: he would want to uphold 'simplicity', 'aseity', 'impassibility', 'transcendence' and 'atemporoality'. But at each point he wants to subordinate them to the way that God is actually described in the Scriptures. He shows a similarly'appreciative skepticism' with regard to the key Trinitarian vocabulary: this is why they said it, and we're unlikely to do better, but we should be careful about getting too hot under the collar about whether or not someone is using the right technical term. I'm quite sure that there are points at which his formulations could be better. I think I'd want to strengthen his case for eternal generation, for example. But I'm also sure that the centre of gravity of this book is right: if in doubt, go back to what the Bible says. Actually, whether you're in doubt or not, that's what you should be doing. What else is theology for? In that regard, he's much closer to Calvin than to Aquinas. A third benefit is his focus on Lordship. Quite simply, Frame is right that 'who is the Lord?' is a better starting point than 'what is God?' There were times when he didn't make as much of this starting point as he might have done - and I think his tri-perspectivalism is at least partly to blame here. But there were other times that it really helped: his discussion of the deity of Christ (centering on the fact that he is Lord) for a start.
Still, if I'm honest, four stars feels a bit generous. I've said that he's clear and simple, and he is. But the written style is also a bit pedestrian. I read about half of this book years ago, and ran out of steam about 60% of the way through. It took some staying power to get through this time. Perhaps it's the subject matter - it's difficult to really prosecute an argument when your aim is to be comprehensive. But I still think it could be better written. Then there's the tri-perspectivalism. I'm personally unpersuaded that his control/authority/presence normative/situational/existential paradigm is nearly as illuminating as he thinks it is. There were times when it became a new grid, squandering lots of the benefit of his 'something close to biblicism' method. For example, his discussion of the oneness of God was striking both in his instinct to pick all the really key Old Testament passages (good!) and in his failure to draw them together nearly as compellingly as, for example, Richard Bauckham in his 'Jesus and the God of Israel.' I think tri-perspectivalism was the culprit: no sooner had he summoned the key texts than he marshalled them under the headings of authority, control and presence. A shame. Then there's the over focus on questions of sovereignty and free will. It felt to me that for all that these questions matter, they got more space in this book than they really deserved. There's the fact that his bible handling is adequate rather than good. There's the flatness of his mono-covenantalism - it's great that he gave adequate attention to the Old Testament, but the New Testament does not feel as climactic as I think it ought to in Frame's presentation. And the biggest casualty of that is the Trinity: the sending of the Son and the Spirit comes last in DoG, and it feels that this isn't just a question of the order of the discussion. Although lots of what Frame says about the Trinity - especially the Lordship of Christ - coheres well with the story of the Bible and the climactic revelation of the Lord in the sending of his Son, it felt like an appendix to a book that could have stood pretty well without it. There's a tricky balance here: I don't think we should be Barthian, artificially making the Trinity the starting point for all theology when the Bible is happy for it to be the climax. We ought to notice that the Bible is happy to start with the revelation of the LORD in the Old Testament, and that in God's providence this is the right introduction to the New Testament. But the lack of a sense of drama, or progression, or argument in the book meant that the final three chapters on the Trinity felt, well, optional. Frame would probably point out that he talked about Jesus and the Spirit plenty in the first 500 pages - and he did. And yet... And finally there's the starting point: I said that by starting with Exodus 3/6 and the name of the LORD he'd picked the right one... Which might be true. But it felt as though he could have been stronger on the doctrine of Creation. Maybe Genesis 1 is the best starting point of all?
So what am I saying? Well, it'd be easy for me to be harsh, knock off another star, focus on the faults and give him three. But then the strengths - the focus on Lordship, the willingness to submit to what the Bible actually says, the skepticism about things that, frankly, I think we ought to be a bit skeptical about, and the simplicity are such strengths that four stars feels about right. Let's be generous: whatever else the Lord is, he's certainly that!
Still, if I'm honest, four stars feels a bit generous. I've said that he's clear and simple, and he is. But the written style is also a bit pedestrian. I read about half of this book years ago, and ran out of steam about 60% of the way through. It took some staying power to get through this time. Perhaps it's the subject matter - it's difficult to really prosecute an argument when your aim is to be comprehensive. But I still think it could be better written. Then there's the tri-perspectivalism. I'm personally unpersuaded that his control/authority/presence normative/situational/existential paradigm is nearly as illuminating as he thinks it is. There were times when it became a new grid, squandering lots of the benefit of his 'something close to biblicism' method. For example, his discussion of the oneness of God was striking both in his instinct to pick all the really key Old Testament passages (good!) and in his failure to draw them together nearly as compellingly as, for example, Richard Bauckham in his 'Jesus and the God of Israel.' I think tri-perspectivalism was the culprit: no sooner had he summoned the key texts than he marshalled them under the headings of authority, control and presence. A shame. Then there's the over focus on questions of sovereignty and free will. It felt to me that for all that these questions matter, they got more space in this book than they really deserved. There's the fact that his bible handling is adequate rather than good. There's the flatness of his mono-covenantalism - it's great that he gave adequate attention to the Old Testament, but the New Testament does not feel as climactic as I think it ought to in Frame's presentation. And the biggest casualty of that is the Trinity: the sending of the Son and the Spirit comes last in DoG, and it feels that this isn't just a question of the order of the discussion. Although lots of what Frame says about the Trinity - especially the Lordship of Christ - coheres well with the story of the Bible and the climactic revelation of the Lord in the sending of his Son, it felt like an appendix to a book that could have stood pretty well without it. There's a tricky balance here: I don't think we should be Barthian, artificially making the Trinity the starting point for all theology when the Bible is happy for it to be the climax. We ought to notice that the Bible is happy to start with the revelation of the LORD in the Old Testament, and that in God's providence this is the right introduction to the New Testament. But the lack of a sense of drama, or progression, or argument in the book meant that the final three chapters on the Trinity felt, well, optional. Frame would probably point out that he talked about Jesus and the Spirit plenty in the first 500 pages - and he did. And yet... And finally there's the starting point: I said that by starting with Exodus 3/6 and the name of the LORD he'd picked the right one... Which might be true. But it felt as though he could have been stronger on the doctrine of Creation. Maybe Genesis 1 is the best starting point of all?
So what am I saying? Well, it'd be easy for me to be harsh, knock off another star, focus on the faults and give him three. But then the strengths - the focus on Lordship, the willingness to submit to what the Bible actually says, the skepticism about things that, frankly, I think we ought to be a bit skeptical about, and the simplicity are such strengths that four stars feels about right. Let's be generous: whatever else the Lord is, he's certainly that!
April 13, 2025
Thankful for Frame. Very blessed to have read him in 2015. It was wonderful to return to him to see the ways my own thinking has changed and were now I disagree with him. What was comforting was the ways I still concur with him. Reminded me I’m more reformed than I believe at times.
It shows the importance for people to find that one theologians they care about and drink deeply. But also to remember that that theologians is not infallible.
96% Lots of citations.
It shows the importance for people to find that one theologians they care about and drink deeply. But also to remember that that theologians is not infallible.
96% Lots of citations.
December 11, 2021
4.5 stars. The most raved (an ECPA Gold Medallion Award winner), at the same time the most controversial entry of John Frame's 4-volume Theology of Lordship series. It is somewhat a daunting task to attempt to summarize and review this 800-page tome.
Following the motif of Frame's Theology of Lordship series, the second volume attempts to comprehensively delineate the doctrine of God, or what we call "Theology Proper," which attempts to describe who God is/what He does. The motif of Frame is "Lordship" and he presents biblical Lordship through the dialectics of both transcendence and immanence, governed by his triperspectivism of authority, control (the first two are "transcendence attributes"), and covenantal presence ("immanence attributes"). If you are not new to the works of John Frame and Vern Poythress, you'll know that "triperspectivalism" is an approach to reality/theological-philosophical worldview/framework that Frame-Poythress advocates by building upon the work of Van Til, that all reality is best understood as a plurality in unity as an analogy of the Triune God. Therefore, even Lordship is understood as such, and therefore much of Frame's Doctrine of God is governed by the biblical transcendence and immanence dialectics, set against non-biblical views that lead to confusion with rationalism and irrationalism. Biblical Lordship, as Frame presents, is the only framework in which we can have a biblical transcendental and immanent, absolute personal God that is at the same time the ground of all ethics, epistemology and metaphysics.
Since Frame's Doctrine of God is governed by the transcendent-immanence dialectics, this volume is arranged from, according to Frame, God's "immanence attributes" to his "transcendental attributes": from the acts of God, to biblical description (names, portraits, attributes), to the Triune God. Frame argues that this is the way in which progressive revelation and redemptive history reveals God: He first acts before He reveals both descriptively and dogmatically about Himself. My Van Tilian-Vossian instincts would disagree with Frame's presentation, it is true that God in redemptive history reveals Himself in that manner, but Vossian biblical theology would also argue that we must take the complete revelation "the entire Bible" to shed light on the single portion of the Bible. Calvin and Van Til's doctrine of God begins precisely with the Triune God before going into other loci, because that Triunity governs and controls the rest of Calvin and Van Til's Theology Proper. But I believe Frame would not disagree vehemently with me, as he notes that the methodology or pedagogy in the presentation of theology is just a matter of "perspective."
So, is Frame's Doctrine of God orthodox? Or is he a "theistic mutualist" as Dolezal (and others who have read and agreed with Dolezal) claimed him to be? For context, Dolezal released a whirlwind of a book in 2017, "All That is in God," which both called out a plethora of respected reformed evangelical theologians for compromising classic Christian theism (simplicity, aseity, immutability, impassibility and so on) and attempts to teach the correct views instead. For the record, Kevin DeYoung notes that is probably unfair to lump all of these "called out" theologians in a single camp as "theistic mutualists" because any reader of Dolezal's book (or other books as such) can identity that these theologians' views are not all the same, and some, of course (i.e. Bruce Ware) are more serious in betraying erroneous views than others, and Dolezal does not devote equal space or attention of polemics to all of them (poor Bruce Ware gets most of the attention in these series of books).
So is Dolezal's examination of Frame accurate? Well, personally, I would say both yes and no. No, because the way Frame presents his transcendence-immanence dialectics is not always in the same sense of classical Christian theism. For example, he ardently defends that God is unchanging, but at the same time claims that God "changed" in the sense that He works inside of time. Another example, Frame defends divine simplicity and even calls it "absolute personality," which in my opinion, is an accurate description. Simplicity holds that God is not a "bag of attributes" as there is nothing more "basic" to God, such as His attributes, God is just His attributes, but they are not separated attributes but one and the same in and with the person of God. Frame's absolute personality is saying as much: God is an absolute/transcendent person, and therefore He is Himself all His attributes, the "personality of God (God as a person)" would then deter the idea that God is a combination of many basic impersonal attributes. But then, Frame also says that God is "complex." But obviously, Frame is saying that God is "complex" not in the sense that is contrary to divine simplicity, but that God is "not simple" in a way that we could comprehend Him. Nay, He is far above our imagination and ideas and hence, in Frame's word "complex." Evidently, this would draw criticism from Dolezal (hence "theistic mutualist") as Frame's way of describing God's transcendent and immanence tends to then present two opposing descriptions of God (simple and complex) as God’s attributes, but a careful and charitable reading of Frame would reveal that such as accusation is perhaps not too accurate. We do describe God in "apparent contradiction," the doctrine of the Trinity is the best example. God is "one" in one sense and "three" in another. Or God's "freedom," God is free to act according to His will but not free according to His nature. Hence, Dolezal assessment of Frame could be more charitable.
On the other hand, Frame's problem is not in the things that he says, but the things he doesn't say. Historical theology has reflected on issues such as God working in time or God's incomprehensibility (in Frame's word, God's is complex) and other issues to resolve theological dilemmas or apparent contradictions, and it would serve to clear away misunderstanding if Frame has been more willing to use historical languages. He does provide historical reflection here and there but maintains that his model is a form of "mere biblicism," that is, employing as much biblical language as possible and avoiding the overly technical terms. If Frame could be more intentional in the more detailed historical-philosophical presentation or be more "orthodox" in his language, perhaps that could avoid the charge of theistic mutualism. But his "mere biblicism" language is intentionally inviting for beginners in reading theology.
In conclusion, we may ask, what kind of systematic theology is this and who would I recommend it for? Well, for more seasoned theology readers, Frame's model might be a bit alarming as he doesn't follow the conventional methods, and it messes with our "neat and tight" theological categories a fair bit. But it also does stretch one's theological categories as Frame introduces many senses/uses of biblical language and theological ideas. There is a wealth of theological reflection that is not found in traditional systematic theology on the doctrine of God: Frame's distinction of historical and eternal election, God's "freedom" in different senses, the "biblical portraits of God (God is light, God is judge and so on),” the problem of evil, and many more remarkable theological and biblical reflections, at then same time the volume is permeated with gospel implications. Frame's "mere biblicism" will be welcoming to new readers of systematic theology, and the comprehensiveness in-breath rather than in-depth is a refreshing read for the soul's meditation upon the self-contained, a se, absolute personal, Triune God.
Following the motif of Frame's Theology of Lordship series, the second volume attempts to comprehensively delineate the doctrine of God, or what we call "Theology Proper," which attempts to describe who God is/what He does. The motif of Frame is "Lordship" and he presents biblical Lordship through the dialectics of both transcendence and immanence, governed by his triperspectivism of authority, control (the first two are "transcendence attributes"), and covenantal presence ("immanence attributes"). If you are not new to the works of John Frame and Vern Poythress, you'll know that "triperspectivalism" is an approach to reality/theological-philosophical worldview/framework that Frame-Poythress advocates by building upon the work of Van Til, that all reality is best understood as a plurality in unity as an analogy of the Triune God. Therefore, even Lordship is understood as such, and therefore much of Frame's Doctrine of God is governed by the biblical transcendence and immanence dialectics, set against non-biblical views that lead to confusion with rationalism and irrationalism. Biblical Lordship, as Frame presents, is the only framework in which we can have a biblical transcendental and immanent, absolute personal God that is at the same time the ground of all ethics, epistemology and metaphysics.
Since Frame's Doctrine of God is governed by the transcendent-immanence dialectics, this volume is arranged from, according to Frame, God's "immanence attributes" to his "transcendental attributes": from the acts of God, to biblical description (names, portraits, attributes), to the Triune God. Frame argues that this is the way in which progressive revelation and redemptive history reveals God: He first acts before He reveals both descriptively and dogmatically about Himself. My Van Tilian-Vossian instincts would disagree with Frame's presentation, it is true that God in redemptive history reveals Himself in that manner, but Vossian biblical theology would also argue that we must take the complete revelation "the entire Bible" to shed light on the single portion of the Bible. Calvin and Van Til's doctrine of God begins precisely with the Triune God before going into other loci, because that Triunity governs and controls the rest of Calvin and Van Til's Theology Proper. But I believe Frame would not disagree vehemently with me, as he notes that the methodology or pedagogy in the presentation of theology is just a matter of "perspective."
So, is Frame's Doctrine of God orthodox? Or is he a "theistic mutualist" as Dolezal (and others who have read and agreed with Dolezal) claimed him to be? For context, Dolezal released a whirlwind of a book in 2017, "All That is in God," which both called out a plethora of respected reformed evangelical theologians for compromising classic Christian theism (simplicity, aseity, immutability, impassibility and so on) and attempts to teach the correct views instead. For the record, Kevin DeYoung notes that is probably unfair to lump all of these "called out" theologians in a single camp as "theistic mutualists" because any reader of Dolezal's book (or other books as such) can identity that these theologians' views are not all the same, and some, of course (i.e. Bruce Ware) are more serious in betraying erroneous views than others, and Dolezal does not devote equal space or attention of polemics to all of them (poor Bruce Ware gets most of the attention in these series of books).
So is Dolezal's examination of Frame accurate? Well, personally, I would say both yes and no. No, because the way Frame presents his transcendence-immanence dialectics is not always in the same sense of classical Christian theism. For example, he ardently defends that God is unchanging, but at the same time claims that God "changed" in the sense that He works inside of time. Another example, Frame defends divine simplicity and even calls it "absolute personality," which in my opinion, is an accurate description. Simplicity holds that God is not a "bag of attributes" as there is nothing more "basic" to God, such as His attributes, God is just His attributes, but they are not separated attributes but one and the same in and with the person of God. Frame's absolute personality is saying as much: God is an absolute/transcendent person, and therefore He is Himself all His attributes, the "personality of God (God as a person)" would then deter the idea that God is a combination of many basic impersonal attributes. But then, Frame also says that God is "complex." But obviously, Frame is saying that God is "complex" not in the sense that is contrary to divine simplicity, but that God is "not simple" in a way that we could comprehend Him. Nay, He is far above our imagination and ideas and hence, in Frame's word "complex." Evidently, this would draw criticism from Dolezal (hence "theistic mutualist") as Frame's way of describing God's transcendent and immanence tends to then present two opposing descriptions of God (simple and complex) as God’s attributes, but a careful and charitable reading of Frame would reveal that such as accusation is perhaps not too accurate. We do describe God in "apparent contradiction," the doctrine of the Trinity is the best example. God is "one" in one sense and "three" in another. Or God's "freedom," God is free to act according to His will but not free according to His nature. Hence, Dolezal assessment of Frame could be more charitable.
On the other hand, Frame's problem is not in the things that he says, but the things he doesn't say. Historical theology has reflected on issues such as God working in time or God's incomprehensibility (in Frame's word, God's is complex) and other issues to resolve theological dilemmas or apparent contradictions, and it would serve to clear away misunderstanding if Frame has been more willing to use historical languages. He does provide historical reflection here and there but maintains that his model is a form of "mere biblicism," that is, employing as much biblical language as possible and avoiding the overly technical terms. If Frame could be more intentional in the more detailed historical-philosophical presentation or be more "orthodox" in his language, perhaps that could avoid the charge of theistic mutualism. But his "mere biblicism" language is intentionally inviting for beginners in reading theology.
In conclusion, we may ask, what kind of systematic theology is this and who would I recommend it for? Well, for more seasoned theology readers, Frame's model might be a bit alarming as he doesn't follow the conventional methods, and it messes with our "neat and tight" theological categories a fair bit. But it also does stretch one's theological categories as Frame introduces many senses/uses of biblical language and theological ideas. There is a wealth of theological reflection that is not found in traditional systematic theology on the doctrine of God: Frame's distinction of historical and eternal election, God's "freedom" in different senses, the "biblical portraits of God (God is light, God is judge and so on),” the problem of evil, and many more remarkable theological and biblical reflections, at then same time the volume is permeated with gospel implications. Frame's "mere biblicism" will be welcoming to new readers of systematic theology, and the comprehensiveness in-breath rather than in-depth is a refreshing read for the soul's meditation upon the self-contained, a se, absolute personal, Triune God.
April 22, 2018
Remarkable and fruitful. When it comes to explaining who God is and what He is like, Frame does here what he always does: makes you pause and wonder at doctrines you usually take for granted. In this way, reading Frame has always been surprisingly devotional for me. For example Frame can take a concept like God's "glory" (how, vanilla, it might seem), bring the scripture to bear, and make you really pay heed. Glorious.
November 4, 2024
Read again 2024. This book has to be in my top 5 all time greatest books. Years later, and it was as enjoyable and rewarding as ever.
Wonderful book! In sections that I thought would be boring, frame covered with enough brevity and clarity that I found myself enjoying and learning as much in these sections as any of the others (the names of God for example.).
Very balanced and clear rationale. He tentatively affirms things that he is less sure of, and dogmatically affirms what he sees to be clear scriptural teachings. His honest assessments of subjects like God's existence in time, gods desire to save all, the age of the earth, are all models for the church to learn from. This is how we should argue with one another.
Wonderful book! In sections that I thought would be boring, frame covered with enough brevity and clarity that I found myself enjoying and learning as much in these sections as any of the others (the names of God for example.).
Very balanced and clear rationale. He tentatively affirms things that he is less sure of, and dogmatically affirms what he sees to be clear scriptural teachings. His honest assessments of subjects like God's existence in time, gods desire to save all, the age of the earth, are all models for the church to learn from. This is how we should argue with one another.
March 18, 2013
I am not sure I liked this book quite as much as I enjoyed "The Doctrine of Knowledge of God." Still Frame's approach makes you think and pushes you in directions you would not normally go. This can be good and bad. He is certainly one of the more influential modern reformed theologians. Many of the ideas in this book I have seen expressed in simpler fashion by popular pastors and preachers. Reading Frame made me want to think things through more thoroughly. I am still too shallow a thinker and do not have the ability to interact with those I disagree with very well.
December 30, 2013
In this in-depth examination of God (this is the second of four volumes in Frame’s Theology of Lordship series), Frame shows how God has made Himself known so that we might truly know Him. Frame addresses main issues thoroughly and is careful to answer critical objections. He writes with a tenor both academic and accessible, a rare feat. Any book of this size is daunting, but careful determination here will reap powerful dividends from Frame’s work.
July 8, 2008
Frame does an excellent job of being thorough without being wordy and abstract (which is honestly a weakness of a lot of theologians). His chapter on the problem of evil is particularly good.
January 7, 2014
This is a Biblically sound, theologically nuanced, and practically rich work. It deserves careful, reflective reading if it is to yield its treasures.
January 25, 2013
Most influential book in my life - outside of Scripture.
March 17, 2013
(This review is edited from my review at www.mydigitalseminary.com)
A.W. Tozer’s The Knowledge of the Holy and J.I. Packer’s Knowing God have received (much deserved) wide popularity for faithfully bringing a countless number of Christians to a deeper understanding of God's character and nature. However, both of these books only go so far; for Christians wanting the next level, where should one turn?
I submit John Frame’s The Doctrine of God, a book devoted to providing a deep foundation on what Scripture says about God.[...] While I have read much theology, this is the first major work on the Doctrine of God (Theology Proper) that I have read, so I won’t be able to comment on how Frame’s compares to others. That said, I know of many who consider this as the book to get on the subject, so I think my high regard for it is warranted.
Frame’s approach is unique: he begins with the tangible before moving to the intangible. This isn’t usual in theology, mostly due to the influence of philosophy on theological discussion. Philosophy tends to move from the abstract to the concrete, but Frame believes that most students today don’t have the background in philosophy to find such an approach useful. Instead, Frame flips the approach on its head by addressing the text of Scripture before philosophical questions, God’s actions before descriptions, and examining the Trinity last. Even within individual topics such as God’s actions, Frame begins with miracles and moves to creation last. His approach attempts to mirror the approach that we get from the Word; we experience God’s actions before receiving revelation. God acts so that we might know that He is Lord. Whether this approach and his triperspectivalism are more helpful than not is a matter of opinion. However, I did find his approach very refreshing and natural and am surprised if he is alone in this approach.
Some will take issue with Frame leaving the Trinity until last. Frame anticipates this and argues that since God's attributes, actions, and Trinitarian nature are all different perspectives of understanding the Person of God, they can be covered in any order. With Frame’s approach of concrete to abstract, it makes sense that the Trinity would come last. This is not to say that the Spirit’s deity and Christ’s are not mentioned until near the end of the book; they are constantly presupposed.
My issue is not with so much with the order of addressing the Trinity, because I understand Frame’s approach and see the strengths of it. However, I still can’t help but feel that this book lacks a Trinitarian flavour that may have been more tangible if Frame had established the Trinity from the outset. I wonder if having the Trinity first would have resulted in any significant difference in other discussions, such as God’s attributes and actions?
Frame’s writing style is surprisingly clear and even conversational. It’s very easy to read, considering the subject matter! Frame is able to make complex concepts understandable without oversimplifying them. However, a downside of this clarity is the fact that this book is 896 pages, and thereby intimidating for many the average reader. I can’t help but think that most of the appendices could have been removed - and not been missed too much - in order to help this book be more approachable.
Due to the size and thorough nature of this book, I expect many will expect to use it as a reference. I have done so myself, and it has been very helpful. However, with Frame’s conversational, flowing style, it wouldn’t hurt to read this book more or less from beginning to end, as I did. It’s a quicker read than it sounds, it has large block quotations from Scripture, and it’s surprisingly devotional!
On the other side of the coin, his conversational style may hinder this book’s usefulness as a reference. Most expect reference books to have data easily digestible, perhaps with lots of tables and lists. This book isn’t put together quite that way, but instead is full of engaging writing that can't be taken in bite-sized chunks – which makes for such a good read. This book must be taken on its own terms.
As to Frame’s thesis of God as Lord, I think it has much going for it. It is the most commonly given title to our God and it is the title that He most consistently chooses. I do wish that Frame had been clearer on the fact that God’s name YHWH, translated as LORD in our English Bibles, doesn’t actually mean ‘lord’, but is a proper name with a meaning closer to 'to be'. He does address this, but it may leave some readers confused. However, the attributes of Lordship (control, authority, and presence) are all implied in God’s self-revelation of His name (Ex 3), so I don’t think Frame is wrong in using ‘LORD’ passages to support his assertion that God reveals Himself as Lord.
One clear strength was Frame’s reliance upon Scripture rather than philosophy or popular theological concepts. Every discussion was continually brought back to the text and if it couldn’t be seen in the Bible, Frame didn’t have much time for it. I consider this a strength, though some may wish that he gave more space to theological and philosophical discussion (which he does do, don’t get me wrong!).
Lastly, Frame’s Calvinist theology must be noted. Among non-Calvinists, some will find this more frustrating than others. Frame doesn’t go out of his way to 'sound Calvinistic'; but with a topic such as God Himself, it's impossible to cover areas such as God’s sovereignty and human responsibility without Frame laying his cards clearly on the table. On that note, his discussions of that topic is considered by many worth the price of the book alone, so if you want a good presentation of the Reformed understanding of freedom and evil, this is a great place to turn. Back to the point, he is very fair in his assessment and responses to Arminianism and other forms of non-Calvinism, but also has no fear of strongly criticizing them where he thinks they are wrong. On the other hand, his Calvinism doesn't make itself known in every section and there are substantial sections with insights from which all Christians should be able happily receive. It would be a shame if more did not read this book simply because of some of his conclusions.
I greatly enjoyed this book. The subject matter, content, approach and writing style all contributed to make this book surprisingly enjoyable given its size and scope. It's difficult to review a large book such as this because the actual content has to be summarized to the extent that the real gems aren't discussed as much as I would have liked. This book is full of great truths.
The Doctrine of God would be a wonderful reference (though see my comments above) for any pastor or serious student to have on their shelf. It would also be a great book to read through beginning to end! Don’t be put off by the size; as mentioned already, Frame’s writing is very enjoyable and easy to follow. His unique approach and insistence on staying close to the Scripture makes this topic much easier to comprehend for those who would otherwise never pick up this kind of book.
I sincerely hope that this (now ‘old’) book receives a much wider recognition, as I think it stands as a very unique and thoroughly-Biblical contribution on the Doctrine of God.
A.W. Tozer’s The Knowledge of the Holy and J.I. Packer’s Knowing God have received (much deserved) wide popularity for faithfully bringing a countless number of Christians to a deeper understanding of God's character and nature. However, both of these books only go so far; for Christians wanting the next level, where should one turn?
I submit John Frame’s The Doctrine of God, a book devoted to providing a deep foundation on what Scripture says about God.[...] While I have read much theology, this is the first major work on the Doctrine of God (Theology Proper) that I have read, so I won’t be able to comment on how Frame’s compares to others. That said, I know of many who consider this as the book to get on the subject, so I think my high regard for it is warranted.
Frame’s approach is unique: he begins with the tangible before moving to the intangible. This isn’t usual in theology, mostly due to the influence of philosophy on theological discussion. Philosophy tends to move from the abstract to the concrete, but Frame believes that most students today don’t have the background in philosophy to find such an approach useful. Instead, Frame flips the approach on its head by addressing the text of Scripture before philosophical questions, God’s actions before descriptions, and examining the Trinity last. Even within individual topics such as God’s actions, Frame begins with miracles and moves to creation last. His approach attempts to mirror the approach that we get from the Word; we experience God’s actions before receiving revelation. God acts so that we might know that He is Lord. Whether this approach and his triperspectivalism are more helpful than not is a matter of opinion. However, I did find his approach very refreshing and natural and am surprised if he is alone in this approach.
Some will take issue with Frame leaving the Trinity until last. Frame anticipates this and argues that since God's attributes, actions, and Trinitarian nature are all different perspectives of understanding the Person of God, they can be covered in any order. With Frame’s approach of concrete to abstract, it makes sense that the Trinity would come last. This is not to say that the Spirit’s deity and Christ’s are not mentioned until near the end of the book; they are constantly presupposed.
My issue is not with so much with the order of addressing the Trinity, because I understand Frame’s approach and see the strengths of it. However, I still can’t help but feel that this book lacks a Trinitarian flavour that may have been more tangible if Frame had established the Trinity from the outset. I wonder if having the Trinity first would have resulted in any significant difference in other discussions, such as God’s attributes and actions?
Frame’s writing style is surprisingly clear and even conversational. It’s very easy to read, considering the subject matter! Frame is able to make complex concepts understandable without oversimplifying them. However, a downside of this clarity is the fact that this book is 896 pages, and thereby intimidating for many the average reader. I can’t help but think that most of the appendices could have been removed - and not been missed too much - in order to help this book be more approachable.
Due to the size and thorough nature of this book, I expect many will expect to use it as a reference. I have done so myself, and it has been very helpful. However, with Frame’s conversational, flowing style, it wouldn’t hurt to read this book more or less from beginning to end, as I did. It’s a quicker read than it sounds, it has large block quotations from Scripture, and it’s surprisingly devotional!
On the other side of the coin, his conversational style may hinder this book’s usefulness as a reference. Most expect reference books to have data easily digestible, perhaps with lots of tables and lists. This book isn’t put together quite that way, but instead is full of engaging writing that can't be taken in bite-sized chunks – which makes for such a good read. This book must be taken on its own terms.
As to Frame’s thesis of God as Lord, I think it has much going for it. It is the most commonly given title to our God and it is the title that He most consistently chooses. I do wish that Frame had been clearer on the fact that God’s name YHWH, translated as LORD in our English Bibles, doesn’t actually mean ‘lord’, but is a proper name with a meaning closer to 'to be'. He does address this, but it may leave some readers confused. However, the attributes of Lordship (control, authority, and presence) are all implied in God’s self-revelation of His name (Ex 3), so I don’t think Frame is wrong in using ‘LORD’ passages to support his assertion that God reveals Himself as Lord.
One clear strength was Frame’s reliance upon Scripture rather than philosophy or popular theological concepts. Every discussion was continually brought back to the text and if it couldn’t be seen in the Bible, Frame didn’t have much time for it. I consider this a strength, though some may wish that he gave more space to theological and philosophical discussion (which he does do, don’t get me wrong!).
Lastly, Frame’s Calvinist theology must be noted. Among non-Calvinists, some will find this more frustrating than others. Frame doesn’t go out of his way to 'sound Calvinistic'; but with a topic such as God Himself, it's impossible to cover areas such as God’s sovereignty and human responsibility without Frame laying his cards clearly on the table. On that note, his discussions of that topic is considered by many worth the price of the book alone, so if you want a good presentation of the Reformed understanding of freedom and evil, this is a great place to turn. Back to the point, he is very fair in his assessment and responses to Arminianism and other forms of non-Calvinism, but also has no fear of strongly criticizing them where he thinks they are wrong. On the other hand, his Calvinism doesn't make itself known in every section and there are substantial sections with insights from which all Christians should be able happily receive. It would be a shame if more did not read this book simply because of some of his conclusions.
I greatly enjoyed this book. The subject matter, content, approach and writing style all contributed to make this book surprisingly enjoyable given its size and scope. It's difficult to review a large book such as this because the actual content has to be summarized to the extent that the real gems aren't discussed as much as I would have liked. This book is full of great truths.
The Doctrine of God would be a wonderful reference (though see my comments above) for any pastor or serious student to have on their shelf. It would also be a great book to read through beginning to end! Don’t be put off by the size; as mentioned already, Frame’s writing is very enjoyable and easy to follow. His unique approach and insistence on staying close to the Scripture makes this topic much easier to comprehend for those who would otherwise never pick up this kind of book.
I sincerely hope that this (now ‘old’) book receives a much wider recognition, as I think it stands as a very unique and thoroughly-Biblical contribution on the Doctrine of God.
September 24, 2021
Don't misunderstand me, this is a good book. Orthodox, helpful, readable, useful for new Christians and those who want to deepen their knowledge of God. But, it doesn't zing. The first volume in the Theology of Lordship series did, and I could barely put it down.
Frame sparkles when addressing controversial issues. He is witty, thought-provoking and insightful. Most of this book relates to standard theological topics and their presentation is clear, peppered with scripture references. Frame's three perspectives are constantly used. He acknowledges these are a heuristic, but a helpful heuristic nonetheless.
As expected in considering which attribute of God is fundamental Frame plumps for Lordship. Though even here he is right to say that no attribute of God is ultimately more fundamental than another. He can be approached from the perspective of any attribute.
This type of approach was something I valued from the first volume and have applied it widely in all sorts of debates. How many arguments in the church, and the wider world, arise not because one person is right and another is wrong, but because each person is looking at a problem from a particular perspective, which seems to prioritise one aspect of truth and these seem incompatible. Often that is not the case. This is not at all the same as saying truth is relative but that our finite perspectives on truth need to recognise their limitations. Frame would firmly hold to truth being normed by Scripture but, again, those of us who read their Bibles regularly know how approaching passages and doctrines from different perspectives reveals deeper and wider truth, not self-contradictory or arbitrary truth.
Following a discussion of God's Lordship, Frame moves to address the problem of evil, then philosophical issues of ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. These latter chapters could be skimmed by the novice. He then looks at the acts of the Lord in history before turning to God's attributes and the doctrine of the Trinity. These latter were the most engaging in the book as might be expected from one who likes Threes!
Frame sparkles when addressing controversial issues. He is witty, thought-provoking and insightful. Most of this book relates to standard theological topics and their presentation is clear, peppered with scripture references. Frame's three perspectives are constantly used. He acknowledges these are a heuristic, but a helpful heuristic nonetheless.
As expected in considering which attribute of God is fundamental Frame plumps for Lordship. Though even here he is right to say that no attribute of God is ultimately more fundamental than another. He can be approached from the perspective of any attribute.
This type of approach was something I valued from the first volume and have applied it widely in all sorts of debates. How many arguments in the church, and the wider world, arise not because one person is right and another is wrong, but because each person is looking at a problem from a particular perspective, which seems to prioritise one aspect of truth and these seem incompatible. Often that is not the case. This is not at all the same as saying truth is relative but that our finite perspectives on truth need to recognise their limitations. Frame would firmly hold to truth being normed by Scripture but, again, those of us who read their Bibles regularly know how approaching passages and doctrines from different perspectives reveals deeper and wider truth, not self-contradictory or arbitrary truth.
Following a discussion of God's Lordship, Frame moves to address the problem of evil, then philosophical issues of ethics, epistemology and metaphysics. These latter chapters could be skimmed by the novice. He then looks at the acts of the Lord in history before turning to God's attributes and the doctrine of the Trinity. These latter were the most engaging in the book as might be expected from one who likes Threes!
March 6, 2012
In this volume John Frame applies his “perspectival approach” (Frame, 1987) to issues relating to the doctrine of God. In other volumes, Frame analyzed a topic by placing it within its normative (law), situational (fact), and existential (person) dimensions. The approach is quite clever and does shed light on many issues. In this volume, Frame approaches the doctrine of God in terms of authority (normative), control (situational), and presence (existential).
Aside from the above triad, Frame’s work covers much of the same ground as many other manuals on theology proper. The book’s value, though, is that it is quite recent and responds to issues that 300 year dead Puritans had not dreamed of. In this book Frame confesses God as “covenant lord” (Frame, 11). The covenant Lord interacts with his people according to the above triad: authority, control, and presence. Frame is obviously interacting with Meredith Kline’s work on suzerainty treaties (Kline, 1997). That is: The Name of the Great King; Historical Prologue; Stipulations; Sanctions; Continuity (Frame, 2002: 438).
Despite some of the hysteria that usually accompanies Frame’s works, this book remains solidly within the Reformed tradition, even if Frame questions large sections of that tradition at times. Sometimes, I suspect, Frame himself does not realize he is doing it. Frame deals squarely with issues relating to man’s interaction with God (free will) and with one another (ethics). In other words, as far as books concerning the doctrine of God go, this one is quite relevant.
Observations
It’s difficult to review a systematic theology textbook. They all follow the same general order and in reviewing one, you have already reviewed about 35% of the next one. Frame’s book is that, to be sure, but he also deals with specific issues that do require a response.
Libertarian Free Will
Frame ridicules the alternative to what he perceives the Augustinian tradition to be. He defines compatibilism (determinism) as the “view that every event has a sufficient cause other than itself” (136). Libertarian free will (not to be confused with the economic position) argues that humans have the power to choose between different alternatives (138). Frame then gives fourteen or so reasons why libertarianism is false (139-144). Most of his reasons hinge on a specific exegesis of passages which are self-evident only to Calvinists. Secondly, when approached with counter texts (like in Ezekiel when God pleads with his people not to die, but turn and live) he interprets them in light of his prior Calvinist commitments. But how do we know beforehand, given sola scriptura, that we should interpret them by this framework and not that one?
His only interesting objection is that Scripture never grounds human responsibility in libertarian freedom? Well, the verse in Ezekiel notwithstanding, I would reply, “Fine, ground it in the person of God.” Does God have libertarian freedom? If he doesn’t, then Frame is hard-pressed to explain how God isn’t bound by causal necessity, along with all of the Origenist problematic that entails. Frame seems aware of that criticism and says that in heaven, we won’t be able to choose to sin, so therefore we don’t have libertarian freedom (141). However, that’s valid only if we assume a form of simplicity that reduces the choice between good and evil. St. Maximus the Confessor, however, said we choose between many goods. Ergo, no Origenism.
Election
His discussion on election, like his take on free will, assumes a Calvinistic slant on the exegesis. That’s not a fault, to be sure, but one should be aware that his tradition’s exegesis is by no means self-evident. Interestingly, a Calvinist view of election (also known here as individual election) is not even necessary to his triad of God’s authority. He begins by rightly noting that the elect one is Jesus Christ (322). He asserts, but not quite argues, that Old Testament election was both corporate and individual. He never offers an Old Testament verse demonstrating this, though. His take on Romans 9 ignores the fact that Romans 9-11 was dealing with the corporate body of apostate Israel. He further equates election with new covenant membership. The problem, though, is that he has yet to show that election is used in an individual sense. Perhaps it is, but when the New Testament speaks of election, and Reformed people hold to the principle of continuity (especially circumcision = baptism), then we must also conclude that election must be grounded in its Old Testament, corporate sense.
The Triune God
Much of this section of the book reads like a proof-text list arguing for the deity of the Son or Spirit. That’s not a fault, but the question often facing people is not whether the texts say this person is divine, but how does his divine status relate to the questions of unity and plurality. Frame gives a helpful list on how the Church confessed the Trinity throughout history. There are very good critiques of Aquinas and Boethius. For example, take Boethius’ definition of a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature” (700). If this is the case, and there are three persons in the Godhead, then how are there not three (four?) natures in the godhead?
Frame draws upon the soon-to-be published work of Federal Visionist Ralph Smith (2003) in critiquing Thomas Aquinas. If the persons are simply alternative names for the divine essence, then how is this not modalism? Frame concludes, following Smith, “ And when we take Father, Son, and Spirit as names of relations…are we not reducing concrete persons to abstract entitites” (702)?
Frame’s take on the Filioque is interesting, largely because he doesn’t really care (718). He affirms the Western view and offers the same standard arguments for it, namely since there is an analogy between temporal sending and ontological procession, therefore they are the same (717). However, besides the fact that the above isn’t even an argument, one could argue that since Jesus came into the world by work of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary (sending, if you will), then Jesus eternally proceeds from the Spirit!!!! Anyway, Frame says it’s bad theology to build doctrines off analogies.
Conclusion
This book is a welcome addition to the Reformed community. Frame passionately interacts with the texts and there is much material for sermons and lessons. The book has some weaknesses, though. There is little (nothing?) in the way of historical understanding and the student leaves the discussion without a real knowledge of how this worked out in history.
Aside from the above triad, Frame’s work covers much of the same ground as many other manuals on theology proper. The book’s value, though, is that it is quite recent and responds to issues that 300 year dead Puritans had not dreamed of. In this book Frame confesses God as “covenant lord” (Frame, 11). The covenant Lord interacts with his people according to the above triad: authority, control, and presence. Frame is obviously interacting with Meredith Kline’s work on suzerainty treaties (Kline, 1997). That is: The Name of the Great King; Historical Prologue; Stipulations; Sanctions; Continuity (Frame, 2002: 438).
Despite some of the hysteria that usually accompanies Frame’s works, this book remains solidly within the Reformed tradition, even if Frame questions large sections of that tradition at times. Sometimes, I suspect, Frame himself does not realize he is doing it. Frame deals squarely with issues relating to man’s interaction with God (free will) and with one another (ethics). In other words, as far as books concerning the doctrine of God go, this one is quite relevant.
Observations
It’s difficult to review a systematic theology textbook. They all follow the same general order and in reviewing one, you have already reviewed about 35% of the next one. Frame’s book is that, to be sure, but he also deals with specific issues that do require a response.
Libertarian Free Will
Frame ridicules the alternative to what he perceives the Augustinian tradition to be. He defines compatibilism (determinism) as the “view that every event has a sufficient cause other than itself” (136). Libertarian free will (not to be confused with the economic position) argues that humans have the power to choose between different alternatives (138). Frame then gives fourteen or so reasons why libertarianism is false (139-144). Most of his reasons hinge on a specific exegesis of passages which are self-evident only to Calvinists. Secondly, when approached with counter texts (like in Ezekiel when God pleads with his people not to die, but turn and live) he interprets them in light of his prior Calvinist commitments. But how do we know beforehand, given sola scriptura, that we should interpret them by this framework and not that one?
His only interesting objection is that Scripture never grounds human responsibility in libertarian freedom? Well, the verse in Ezekiel notwithstanding, I would reply, “Fine, ground it in the person of God.” Does God have libertarian freedom? If he doesn’t, then Frame is hard-pressed to explain how God isn’t bound by causal necessity, along with all of the Origenist problematic that entails. Frame seems aware of that criticism and says that in heaven, we won’t be able to choose to sin, so therefore we don’t have libertarian freedom (141). However, that’s valid only if we assume a form of simplicity that reduces the choice between good and evil. St. Maximus the Confessor, however, said we choose between many goods. Ergo, no Origenism.
Election
His discussion on election, like his take on free will, assumes a Calvinistic slant on the exegesis. That’s not a fault, to be sure, but one should be aware that his tradition’s exegesis is by no means self-evident. Interestingly, a Calvinist view of election (also known here as individual election) is not even necessary to his triad of God’s authority. He begins by rightly noting that the elect one is Jesus Christ (322). He asserts, but not quite argues, that Old Testament election was both corporate and individual. He never offers an Old Testament verse demonstrating this, though. His take on Romans 9 ignores the fact that Romans 9-11 was dealing with the corporate body of apostate Israel. He further equates election with new covenant membership. The problem, though, is that he has yet to show that election is used in an individual sense. Perhaps it is, but when the New Testament speaks of election, and Reformed people hold to the principle of continuity (especially circumcision = baptism), then we must also conclude that election must be grounded in its Old Testament, corporate sense.
The Triune God
Much of this section of the book reads like a proof-text list arguing for the deity of the Son or Spirit. That’s not a fault, but the question often facing people is not whether the texts say this person is divine, but how does his divine status relate to the questions of unity and plurality. Frame gives a helpful list on how the Church confessed the Trinity throughout history. There are very good critiques of Aquinas and Boethius. For example, take Boethius’ definition of a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature” (700). If this is the case, and there are three persons in the Godhead, then how are there not three (four?) natures in the godhead?
Frame draws upon the soon-to-be published work of Federal Visionist Ralph Smith (2003) in critiquing Thomas Aquinas. If the persons are simply alternative names for the divine essence, then how is this not modalism? Frame concludes, following Smith, “ And when we take Father, Son, and Spirit as names of relations…are we not reducing concrete persons to abstract entitites” (702)?
Frame’s take on the Filioque is interesting, largely because he doesn’t really care (718). He affirms the Western view and offers the same standard arguments for it, namely since there is an analogy between temporal sending and ontological procession, therefore they are the same (717). However, besides the fact that the above isn’t even an argument, one could argue that since Jesus came into the world by work of the Holy Spirit in the virgin Mary (sending, if you will), then Jesus eternally proceeds from the Spirit!!!! Anyway, Frame says it’s bad theology to build doctrines off analogies.
Conclusion
This book is a welcome addition to the Reformed community. Frame passionately interacts with the texts and there is much material for sermons and lessons. The book has some weaknesses, though. There is little (nothing?) in the way of historical understanding and the student leaves the discussion without a real knowledge of how this worked out in history.
April 24, 2020
Read this for Ethics class at Reformed Theological Seminary. Honestly wasn’t massively excited about the subject, but complete turn around by the end of the semester, hugely thanks to this book. Love it and I would say essential reading for every pastor or teacher or counselor in any church/ministry setting. Love that Frame gives you a biblical model for ethics, not just telling you his opinions on what he thinks is good or not. So it helps you think through any issue too, even those not covered in the book. That said he covers a lot of issues, through a broad application of the Ten Commandments. The book also covers other things like Christ and culture debates (so helpful), the relationship of law and the gospel, secular ethics and is pitfalls and others. The book is long alright but a page turner so you get through it no problem. While I would be more Baptistic than Frame, what strikes me is throughout the book he is balanced, fair, generous towards other Christians and exudes the best of what Reformed theology should offer: those with a mind for truth and a heart for God. Read this book!
April 12, 2021
What a journey! What a book!
This was my first major theological work and it has made me crave for more thick books like this. I'm so glad I finally picked it up after buying it last year!
Frame really zooms in on the Lordship of God as the main thing when it comes to knowing who God is. Who is God? He is the Lord in CONTROL of all things, with the AUTHORITY to reveal Himself and to demand a response of obedience and to evaluate/judge His creatures and He is PRESENT with His people (Control, Authority, Presence are the three key elements of Lordship in Frame's opinion).
In regards to that triad, I can definitely see where he is coming from. His argument is quite compelling and I think I will use it in the future when discussing who God is. Now, it can be argued that it may look a bit arbitrary and too neat. But trust me, stick with Frame. Even if you're suspicious of the structure, he really gives us a gold mine of theology!
What a fantastic book. And I love how he keeps coming back to his 3 key elements of lordship. Give this one a go. You won't regret it!
This was my first major theological work and it has made me crave for more thick books like this. I'm so glad I finally picked it up after buying it last year!
Frame really zooms in on the Lordship of God as the main thing when it comes to knowing who God is. Who is God? He is the Lord in CONTROL of all things, with the AUTHORITY to reveal Himself and to demand a response of obedience and to evaluate/judge His creatures and He is PRESENT with His people (Control, Authority, Presence are the three key elements of Lordship in Frame's opinion).
In regards to that triad, I can definitely see where he is coming from. His argument is quite compelling and I think I will use it in the future when discussing who God is. Now, it can be argued that it may look a bit arbitrary and too neat. But trust me, stick with Frame. Even if you're suspicious of the structure, he really gives us a gold mine of theology!
What a fantastic book. And I love how he keeps coming back to his 3 key elements of lordship. Give this one a go. You won't regret it!
December 7, 2020
I did not give this book 5 stars for two reasons. First, Frame organizes his work quite differently from most on the doctrine of God, which is both refreshing and frustrating at times. Second, Frame either rejects or significantly nuances several of the traditional theological categories in the history of the church (e.g. immutability, atemporality, impassibility, simplicity, etc.), but he doesn’t exactly leave you with a concrete alternative. Rather, he seems to emphasize where the traditional formulation is unhelpful or incomplete, without clearly and positively presenting his counter-proposal. Unfortunately, this left me with more questions than answers on many of these points.
Those two issues aside, this is a very edifying read. Having unpacked his theology of Lordship, the last two pages left me quite stirred by God’s glorious covenant with his people in Christ.
Those two issues aside, this is a very edifying read. Having unpacked his theology of Lordship, the last two pages left me quite stirred by God’s glorious covenant with his people in Christ.
December 30, 2020
An excellent book by John Frame on the doctrine of God Himself. As always, Frame's writing style is clear and thorough, and even the formatting of the book itself lends itself towards clarity. The aspects of God which are clearly laid out in Scripture are most focused on, and the aspects of God which are derived from philosophical speculation in the history of the church are less focused on (which is ideal).
I still give this book five stars for all the good in it, but it does give a lot of attention to silly ideologies, such as whether or not God can know the future, and whether or not He exists solely in the future. The blessing for the true Christian is that the answers to these questions are obvious. It may, however, do some good that he addresses these strange discussions here.
All told, it elaborates well on the Reformed doctrine of God's providence, and God's relationship to all things as their Lord.
I still give this book five stars for all the good in it, but it does give a lot of attention to silly ideologies, such as whether or not God can know the future, and whether or not He exists solely in the future. The blessing for the true Christian is that the answers to these questions are obvious. It may, however, do some good that he addresses these strange discussions here.
All told, it elaborates well on the Reformed doctrine of God's providence, and God's relationship to all things as their Lord.
December 31, 2017
Holy moly...so good! Kinda like a martial arts instructor that not only expertly stomps you into a pulp, reminding your arrogant self that you are a mere white belt, but also proceeds to patiently repeat the lesson over and over and over again until you realize that you've got a lifetime to go to even begin to understand how awesome what you are studying is. One of my life goals is to finish this book, and the entire series it comes from.
October 11, 2022
This morning, I finished reading The Doctrine of God by John Frame. I’ve been reading a few pages a day each morning for what I thought was the past 10 months. But I discovered on completion in GoodReads that I’ve been reading it since Christmas of 2019. I wonder if that’s accurate. It’s the deepest and most thought-provoking work I’ve read outside of the Bible, and has been completely engrossing.
November 9, 2018
A significant contemporary systematic theology by a conservative and learned Reformed theologian and philosopher. There is much to interact with here, much to agree with, and some even with which to disagree.
August 15, 2020
This book is great, but it is a slow read.
I did not enjoy working my through it as much as “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God” but it was still tremendously helpful.
The Kindle version is nice because it is searchable, but there are no page numbers or table of contents.
I did not enjoy working my through it as much as “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God” but it was still tremendously helpful.
The Kindle version is nice because it is searchable, but there are no page numbers or table of contents.
July 12, 2017
Excellent.
September 4, 2017
This was an absolute delight.
Read
September 10, 2019The Doctrine of God is not currently available at local libraries.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 52 reviews