The Triune God of Unity in Diversity

An Analysis of Perspectivalism, the Trinitarian Theological Method of John Frame and Vern Poythress

Timothy E. Miller

• Publisher: P Publishing
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781629953106
• eBook ISBN: 9781629953113
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Theology

Tim Miller defends and develops the multi-perspectival method of John Frame and Vern Poythress, showing that it is a foundationally Trinitarian, historically Reformed, and eminently useful tool for understanding all creation.

1
Justification and Introduction to the Study

During the late twentieth-century controversy over theonomy within American Reformed Orthodoxy, both Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia and Westminster Seminary in California opposed the modern application of the Mosaic Law to the state.¹ But despite agreement that theonomy was exegetically and theologically problematic, individual critics of theonomy disagreed on both (1) what alternative should be offered and (2) how theonomy should be handled. Meredith Kline, one the one side, argued for an alternative, intrusion ethic, which closely resembled a two-kingdom approach.² His essay, Comments on an Old-New Error, indicates that theonomy is “a delusive and grotesque perversion of the teaching of Scripture.”³ John Frame and Vern Poythress, on the other hand, argued for a more nuanced position—embracing neither the intrusion ethic nor a theonomy approach. Instead, they attempted to write sympathetically and critically, finding within theonomy both helpful and problematic elements.

During the controversy, Meredith Kline published a faculty paper at WSC arguing against Frame and Poythress’s analysis.⁴ The substance of his critique focused on the theological method of perspectivalism that Frame and Poythress embraced as they critiqued theonomy. Kline maintained that perspectivalism had impaired both theologians’ abilities to critically assess theonomy. Further, Kline believed that perspectivalism could cause further problems in Reformed theology if not adequately addressed. In the faculty paper, written twenty-nine years ago (1986), Kline challenged his colleagues, “If we are to be responsible guardians of Reformed orthodoxy we must add to our agenda of study and discussion a scrutiny of multiperspectivalism. Is it an acceptable method of doing theology?”⁵

While theonomy and the intrusion ethic will not be the focus of the dissertation, that theological battle provided one of the earliest expressions of Reformed concern over perspectivalism. To date, no study of significant depth has been done on perspectivalism by anyone other than Frame and Poythress.⁶ This dissertation will seek to partially fulfill Kline’s request. More specifically, the dissertation will seek to confirm, as John Frame and Vern Poythress have argued, that perspectivalism is a distinctively Trinitarian, creatively Reformed, and therefore eminently useful theological paradigm.⁷ The remainder of this chapter will seek to further justify the study and lay out the method of the study.

Justification of the Study

We will mention four reasons an extended discussion of perspectivalism is needed. First, the influence of both Frame and Poythress in American Reformed Orthodoxy is vast and extensive. Because perspectivalism always follows in their wake, the broader their influence, the more important it is to evaluate their method. Second, perspectivalism has grown in influence, appearing in fields foreign to the expertise of Frame and Poythress. As perspectivalism multiplies in breadth of use, the importance of analyzing the method similarly multiplies. Third, the claims of perspectivalism—particularly that it is distinctively Trinitarian, principally Reformed, and eminently useful—are worthy of consideration. If they are true, perspectivalism deserves a wider hearing than it has heretofore obtained. Finally, Frame and Poythress have received very little thoughtful and critical engagement. This work seeks to provide some remedy for that lack.

The Influence of Frame and Poythress

John Frame is one of the most significant figures in twentieth-century conservative American Reformed Orthodoxy.⁸ His influence can be discerned in the following ways: first, Frame has taught in the classroom for forty-five years at three of the most influential American Reformed schools (Westminster Theological Seminary, Westminster Seminary in California, and Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando). Second, because of his prolific teaching career, Frame has influenced thousands of students. Of particular importance are the influencers he has influenced. Influencers are those who have a wide audience for their own teaching. Consider the following list of influential influencers Frame has taught:⁹ Greg Bahnsen (previously Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary),¹⁰ Richard Bedsoe (Professor at Rivendell College, Boulder), Mark Futato (Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, Orlando), Wayne Grudem (Professor of at Phoenix Seminary),¹¹ Frank A. James (Professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary), James B. Jordan (Director of Biblical Horizons), Peter Leithart (Senior Fellow at New St. Andrews College), Vern Poythress (Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary), Richard Pratt (President of III Millennium Ministries and Adjunct at RTS, Orlando), John Sowell (President of The Reformed Theological Seminary, Atlanta), Lane Tipton (Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary), Kevin Vanhoozer (Professor at Wheaton College and Graduate School).¹² Added to these are those who have held professorships at Westminster in California: S. M. Baugh, R. Scott Clark, J. Van Ee, Bryan D. Estelle, Darryl G. Hart, Michael S. Horton, Dennis E. Johnson, Joel E. Kim, Julius J. Kim, James R. Lund, and David M. VanDrunen. While not everyone represented in the list above has embraced each (or any) of Frame’s distinctive teachings, certainly his influence has been extended through this theological progeny.

Third, and perhaps the most important way Frame’s influence has been evident, is through his writings. D. A. Carson states that Frame is among “a list of major contemporary figures whose works have helped shape me but whom I do not really know.”¹³ R. J. Gore, after noting the influence of Frame’s writing on his own life, notes, “Like many others, I have never studied under John Frame, although I have been his student for two decades.”¹⁴ Frame’s Lordship series has been his greatest and most influential work.¹⁵ Beyond this series, Frame has written both extensively and widely,¹⁶ delving into topics far beyond the range of most theologians.¹⁷ While these works have not seen the popularity Frame’s more systematic works have, nevertheless, they have broadened the reach of Frame’s prolific, perspectival pen.¹⁸

A final element of Frame’s influence comes through his online presence. His partnership with Vern Poythress on the Frame-Poythress website, where much of their published material is available for free, has given open access to Frame’s (and Poythress’s) perspectival method. Further, Reformed Theological Seminary’s iTunes University audio ministry provides free access to two of Frame’s classes,¹⁹ giving Frame a wider hearing than the physical classroom alone.²⁰

We have emphasized Frame’s influence in order to show the extent to which perspectivalism has had a hearing within (and beyond) the American Reformed community. Wherever Frame has gone, his perspectival method has accompanied him. While the first major exposition of perspectivalism would not be written until the Doctrine of the Knowledge of God in 1987,²¹ articles, reviews, and personal testimony show that Frame had already developed the perspectival method early in his career.²² These early essays indicate that while Frame’s method would undergo some clarification in later years, even his earliest students and readers were introduced to his perspectival triads.²³ Indeed, William Edgar has argued, “John’s triperspectival approach to knowledge . . . is essential for the entire structure of his worldview.”²⁴ As such, there is relatively little within Frame’s corpus of literature (either early or late) that has not been subject to perspectival exploration. In sum, it could be accurately said that all who have been exposed to John Frame have been exposed to perspectivalism.²⁵

To the extent that Frame’s widespread influence and ministry have been shown, we would argue an analysis of his perspectivalism is justified. But Vern Poythress, who describes himself as a student of Frame, has also embraced and developed perspectivalism.²⁶ Poythress’s fields of study show only incidental connection to Frame’s. That is, while Frame is a systematic theologian with a penchant for church unity, Poythress is a New Testament scholar with a penchant for the natural sciences. Where Frame’s most distinctive work is his Lordship series in systematic theology, Poythress’s most distinctive work is his series of A God-Centered Approach, which seeks to show how Biblical presuppositions influence various scientific and sociological fields.²⁷

The distinction between Frame’s and Poythress’s areas of expertise indicates both that perspectivalism is flexible enough to be applied to a wide range of topics and also that the influence of perspectivalism reaches beyond Frame’s theological works. Vern Poythress’s bibliography is just as impressive as Frame’s in both breadth of material and theological acumen.²⁸ If we include the influence Poythress has had in the classroom as well,²⁹ we find that two of the most prolific and influential theologians in American Reformed Orthodoxy have embraced a theological method that has not been subject to any considerable external evaluation.

Uses of Perspectivalism Outside of Frame and Poythress

While Frame and Poythress have applied perspectivalism to a wide range of issues, including epistemology, theology proper, ethics, science, math, language, logic, and other disciplines, their followers have developed new applications of the method. The following are examples of perspectivalism in which the authors claim Frame as the origination of their organizational ideas.³⁰ The purpose of this section is not to develop others’ views in detail. Rather, we will seek only to (1) show the general way each author uses perspectivalism and (2) make a notation of the author’s reliance on Frame. Here it will be argued that the diversity of the ways perspectivalism has been applied provides ample justification for a study on the method.

In ethics, David Clowney, who previously held a professorship at WTS and presently teaches at Rowan University in New Jersey, has used perspectivalism as a method of developing environmental ethics.³¹ While Clowney does not explicitly cite Frame as the origin point for his perspectival analysis, Frame has elsewhere argued that while Clowney was at Westminster the latter made “ample use of Van Til’s work and of my multi-perspectival approach.”³² Further, Clowney verified thro...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Series Introduction
• Foreword by Vern S. Poythress
• Preface
• 1. Justification and Introduction to the Study
• 2. Method and Basis of General Perspectivalism
• 3. Implications of General Perspectivalism
• 4. Method and Basis of Triperspectivalism
• 5. Perichoretic-Simplicity
• 6. Triperspectivalism and the Trinity
• 7. Lordship, Trinity, and Perspectivalism
• 8. Processional Triperspectivalism
• 9. Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index of Scripture
• Index of Subjects and Names