The Frame-Job

Whoa! I step away from the interwebs for just a week (to prepare for this), and something happens!  In trying to catch up, an observation occurred to me that I didn’t see in Clark’s or Hart’s re-responses, so I wanted to post it before somebody else does.  (I also wanted to claim this post-title before anyone else — I can’t fathom how Clark failed to capitalize on the term “hit-job”; but I have to admit Hart has won the catchy-title-contest hands-down!)

Like many, I am shocked that Frame would jump to Osteen’s defense:

when Osteen presents a message that almost entirely lacks a focus on justification, Horton replies with an emphasis entirely lacking in sanctification.

In this quote, and the rest of his remarks about Horton v. Osteen, Frame reminds me of the father of the bride from Holy Grail: “Let’s not bicker and argue about who killed who…” Osteen is weak on Justification, Horton is weak on Sactification (Frame claims), but if Horton were just not so devoted to bickering and arguing, maybe Horton and Osteen could team up; Horton would bring his Justification, and Osteen would bring his Sanctification, and wouldn’t everything be rosy!

Setting aside the unwarranted accusation that Horton cares nothing for sanctification, Horton’s point (which Frame seems to miss or discredit) is that Osteen’s attempt to bring Sanctification, without a foundation of Justification is precisely works-righteousness!  So if Osteen is lacking justification, he’s also lacking sanctification.  There’s nothing excusable or half-right about that, and Horton is right to lock and load Gal 1:6-9 and set sights on Osteen.

My opinion of Frame has fallen another notch.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Heidelblog, Horton, Law/Gospel Distinction, Old Life. Bookmark the permalink.

38 Responses to The Frame-Job

  1. RubeRad says:

    I also loved the irony of footnote 9: “Mike, pick on somebody your own size.”

    (I know, that’s a low blow, I’m horrible!)

  2. Hey, I believe I initiated the title “Frame Job.”

    But that’s OK, you can “name it and claim it” (tongue in cheek re: Schwarmer, enthusiasts, exhorters and charismatics who get no review, no analysis, no critique, and no development in the frame job)

    Also, additionally, I’m going to commission and edit my own Festschrift on myself, 1000-pages, and write three articles on myself as well (another tongue in cheek).

    Of course Horton’s correct to lock and load, get target acquisition and fire…when it comes to Osteen and an entire progeny like him (which again, Mr. Frame fails to engage).

    Thanks.

  3. RubeRad says:

    Drat! I knew “Frame Job” was too good to not be taken. Credit where due! Let’s shake hands and call it “independent discovery”. We can share the Nobel Prize for snarkiness.

  4. Zrim says:

    I wonder if, in the final analysis and personal-professional axes aside, the Osteen defense is really so very shocking. Quoth Frame:

    “And the gospel is not only a program for personal change, but societal as well.”

    Is it really so unbelievable that the moralistic-therapeutic deism of Osteen coincides with the social gospel of Frame? They both seem to presume that the gospel is good for personal and social transformation, something Horton regularly and rightly criticizes. One may be crass and the other more dignified, but prosperity gospel is still prosperity gospel. Sometimes I wonder if our collective gasp at a Framian endorsement of Osteen-o-sity might reveal a resident sympathy for a more learned prosperity gospel. Sort of like how conservative isn’t enough, mere disdain for crass prosperity gospel isn’t enough.

    But, yeah, props on the title.

  5. bs says:

    Make mine Horton, even if he is wrong.

  6. Ron Smith says:

    Great response by Frame. It is ludicrous to take a few extreme cases and infer that “data” to American evangelicalism as a whole. I haven’t read Horton’s book, but I would happily be corrected if anyone can come up with the data Frame was searching for to support Horton’s thesis.

    Rube, why not handle actual objections by Frame rather than erecting straw men? How about starting with the apparently sensational title of the book? And where did Frame say that Horton “cares nothing for Sanctification?” I find that accusation of *yours* unwarranted. I only saw Frame suggesting that “Horton’s own focus [seemed to need] rethinking.” (Look how softly and charitably Frame put it as opposed to your straw man.) And he is right.

    The Westminster catechisms have twice as much content RE what the Christian is to *DO* vs what the Christian is to *BELIEVE*, (the HC is pretty much 50/50 if you count from 65 to the end as regarding Christian practice with only +1 in the “practice” category), so I’d say the alleged overemphasis Horton decries is well within historic Reformed teaching.

  7. Raymond Coffey says:

    I do not think that Osteen is pushing sancitification at all. His is a different gospel, one of prosperity and self-esteem, not one of holiness. This is far different from his father. Frame has missed the point entirely, as have some of Frame’s critics. Osteen is nothing more than a motivational speaker in the frame of Tony Robbins. We would not say Robbins was pushing sanctification and we should think Osteen is either.

  8. Joe Brancaleone says:

    “The Westminster catechisms have twice as much content RE what the Christian is to *DO* vs what the Christian is to *BELIEVE*, (the HC is pretty much 50/50 if you count from 65 to the end as regarding Christian practice with only +1 in the “practice” category), so I’d say the alleged overemphasis Horton decries is well within historic Reformed teaching.”

    I’m not so sure the proportion itself is the issue. The (biblical) genius of the Westminster docs and notable Reformed theologians of centuries past is in how they describe the Christian’s duty towards God in such consistently Gospel-saturated terms. The indicatives are not a springboard to the imperatives. The imperatives are simply the indicatives being consciously worked out. And that’s how the Gospel reforms the church, in both her faith and practice.

    Personally, I interpreted the title as a warning. But I can see how others take it as overly sensational.

    j

  9. RubeRad says:

    where did Frame say that Horton “cares nothing for Sanctification?”

    Did you read the review? That’s Frame’s #1 point!:

    Scripture refers over and over again to sanctification and the inner life. Horton’s references to it are almost entirely negative….he cannot seem to reconcile himself to the fact that redemption involves sanctification as well as justification…Horton tends to avoid discussions of sanctification in favor of references to justification. And when authors discuss human responsibility in sanctification, he interprets them as bringing in works righteousness

    Dude, don’t be an Osteen-lover-lover!

  10. RubeRad says:

    Yes, that’s my point. Whatever Osteen is pushing, since it doesn’t contain justification, it can’t be labeled sanctification, and Frame is nutso to imply so (hey, that rhymes). And I think Horton’s designation “Law-Lite” is appropriate. At least real law could possibly convict somebody and drive them to Christ.

  11. Ron Smith says:

    Potent Quotable:

    When Horton confesses on 117, “…I am not an exemplary creature,” he perhaps unintentionally disqualifies himself for church office.

  12. Zrim says:

    Ron,

    Since when did confessing to be a sinner disqualify a man from holding office? I thought that was precisely the prerequisite to not only holding ordinary membership but extra-ordinary office.

    But that is one of the major problems of the evangelically Reformed as opposed to the confessionally Reformed, a low view of sin, or at least an under-realized understanding of its implications.

  13. GLW Johnson says:

    If Horton’s book had been authored by say, someone like CT’s Phillip Yancy or Mark Galli Frame wouldn’t have given it the time of day. This was just another opportunity for Frame to take another swing at WSCAL. Read his comments about Meredith Kline and WSCAL in his opening remarks in his self- produced Festschrift. I am sorry, but Frame in my opinion is being extremely petty and self-serving-and I had him as a professor!

  14. Ron Smith says:

    Zrim, I commend you to a faithful study of God’s Word (or you could have simply read Frame’s paper). Paul called himself the chief of sinners, yet he exhorted people to imitate him (1 Cor 11:1). Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive. You say Frame has a low view of his sin. Did Paul? Maybe you have a low view of the Spirit’s work of sanctification in the believer.

    As far as you being “confessionally reformed”, that is a tad bit self selective. On the ordination of ministers, The Form of Presbyterial Church-Government for the Church of Scotland (enacted 1645) states,

    After the sermon, the minister who hath preached shall, in the face of the congregation, demand of him who is now to be ordained, concerning how faith in Christ Jesus, and his persuasion of the truth of the reformed religion, according to the scriptures; his sincere intentions and ends in desiring to enter into this calling; his diligence in praying, reading, meditation, preaching, ministering the sacraments, discipline, and doing all ministerial duties towards his charge; his zeal and faithfulness in maintaining the truth of the gospel, and unity of the church, against error and schism; his care that himself and his family may be unblameable, and examples to the flock; his willingness and humility, in meekness of spirit, to submit unto the admonitions of his brethren, and discipline of the church; and his resolution to continue in his duty against all trouble and persecution.

    So even if you don’t think church officers should be exemplary (contra 1 Peter 5:3), you can hardly say that the view is not confessionally reformed.

  15. Wayne says:

    And it is this type of intramural rancor that turns Reformed inquirers off so maybe Frame should have thought about the Kingdom of God and the good that Horton’s book will do in bringing folks to Christ and the Truths of Reformed Theology before his own kingdom.

  16. Zrim says:

    Ron,

    First, I think it should be pointed out generally how fantastically uncharitable and sophomoric this point by Frame was, to the point of being negligible. It is pure boorishness. This was the equivalent of someone complaining literally about the figurative meaning in the common linguistic convention, “How are you today?” “Good, thanks.” It is a device used in social courtesy, not a thing that reveals how superficial we are. That you pick it up and run with it should be a source of embarrassment.

    Second, Paul called himself the chief of sinners, yet he exhorted people to imitate him (1 Cor 11:1). Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive.

    Horton, to my knowledge, has never called anyone to “imitate him.” He has done even less than Paul in that his comment only acknowledged personal sin, and that not even as extreme as Paul. Yet, while I would charitably assume Frame wouldn’t call for Paul’s defrocking, he suggests it for Horton. But if Frame wants to be consistent he should actually be calling for Paul to step aside, since “chief of sinners” is worse than “I’m not perfect.”

    Third, You say Frame has a low view of his sin. Did Paul? Maybe you have a low view of the Spirit’s work of sanctification in the believer.

    The Spirit’s work is two-fold: to magnify a personal sense of sin and to point to Jesus as its remedy. How is that a low view of the Spirit’s work of sanctification in the believer? But if you mean sanctification is to conceive of oneself as less sinful instead of more sinful, or is some glorified version of self-improvement, then, yeah, I have a low view of it.

    Fourth, So even if you don’t think church officers should be exemplary (contra 1 Peter 5:3), you can hardly say that the view is not confessionally reformed.

    They should be beyond reproach (read: unrepented sin), not sin. You’re not making that distinction. If they were to be beyond sin we’d have no officers, nor even a church. So what you and Frame are saying is that Horton isn’t beyond reproach, that he’s got unrepented sin. Unless you guys can prove that one it seems like making false charges and impugning character. Sheesh, even confessionalists don’t do that to theonomists.

  17. Wayne:

    Do not agree. We need the kind of engagement that is on offer by Rev. Frame and Dr. Horton. The intramural rancour is off-putting to some. But controversy is the stuff that produces insight…after the dust settles.

    The dust-up is still going on.

    I’ve re-read Frame again. It gets worse upon each re-read. He unsheathed his sword and, by that, may die on his own sword. He comes off a highly petulant, peevish, and unhelpful.

    Phil

  18. Ron Smith says:

    Zrim, for being a “negligible”, “boorish” point, you sure do stroke a lot of keys it its direction.

    Horton, to my knowledge, has never called anyone to “imitate him.”

    That’s the point. He should. He is an officer in Christ’s church, and so he should indeed be “an exemplary creature” (and I believe he is, btw, theological disputes notwithstanding).

    Funny how you feign charity wrt Frame’s view toward the apostle Paul, but this is nowhere wrt to his view toward Horton. Frame does not “suggest” defrocking Horton in the least, as you baselessly assert. You are reading that into the quote. Perhaps you could actually read the paper to see the context of the statement. He simply notes that Horton doesn’t realize what he is saying. Horton’s redemptive historical hermeneutic causes him to reject preaching any OC characters as examples, even when the scriptures themselves do so(!) This, in turn (or maybe it is the other way around), keeps him from acknowledging the fact that God has done a work in him (right here and now) and that while that work is not yet perfected (and I never said it needed to be in order for him to qualify for office, as you baselessly assert), Horton is indeed an example for his sheep to follow. So the point is tied clearly to the rest of Frame’s reply and is not negligible at all.

    Horton’s statement is overly self abasing, in Frame’s view (and mine). In your paradigm, I’m not sure if it is even possible to be overly self abasing. And it is so funny to me because your 2k view gives you a higher view of the pagans than I believe is scriptural.

  19. Paul says:

    We would all do well to understand that the same comments that are directed towards Frame’s treatment of WSCAl faculty (granting the complaints for the momment) can be directed at WTS faculty toward Frame. I have personally wittnessed some of their rude and self-serving comments toward not only Frame, but those who would ever say Frame was right on any matter they disagreed with whatever. I know dozens of people who sit under the teaching of WSC profs and hear some mean and rude comments directed towards Frame behind his back. many or most of them are not even theological. They are just mean.

    If both sides would get that point maybe we could move past the embarrassing and childish, not to mention lazy, way many are addressing Frame’s paper.

    Having said that, I am not in agreement with Frame’s paper, though one can find points here and there to agree with. I also gave Christless Christianity an very entheusiastic review.

    Last point, Ron said:

    That’s the point. He should. He is an officer in Christ’s church, and so he should indeed be “an exemplary creature” (and I believe he is, btw, theological disputes notwithstanding).”.

    For me, I’d rather my elder point me towards Christ and what he did for me. I’d rather see him to that, then I can immitate him looking towards Christ. We forget this point. We think that since we looked to Christ once, we can run off and transform our neighborhoods. Actually, we need to be told to look to Christ every day. If I am to imitate a man, I want to imitate a man who looks to Jesus. Horton doesn’t want people looking at him. I’m glad he pointed out that he’s not an “exemplary creature,” being the sinner that I am, I might try to rest in Mike, and not Christ.

  20. John Yeazel says:

    This all reminds me of Luthers bouts with Karlsdadt. Karlsdadt was Luthers superior at Wittenberg who became envious and jealous of Luthers superior theological genius and all the attention Luther was getting. There is historical evidence that while Luther was in hiding, after he was excommunicated by the Catholic Church, Karlsdadt began taking on a leadership role at Wittenberg and Luther was very leery of it because of some of their theological differences. This ended up splitting the ranks among the German Lutherans and it caused Luther to leave his hiding place earlier than many wanted him too. He left knowing that he might get killed by doing so. This type of stuff happens all the time and is more the result of our fallen natures than any real and honest theological debate.

  21. Zrim says:

    Ron,

    That’s the point. He should [call to be imitated]. He is an officer in Christ’s church, and so he should indeed be “an exemplary creature…”

    An officer isn’t an apostle. Why should he use apostle’s language?

    Frame does not “suggest” defrocking Horton in the least, as you baselessly assert.

    I believe the quote was, “When Horton confesses on 117, ‘…I am not an exemplary creature,’ he perhaps unintentionally disqualifies himself for church office.” How is this not a suggestion that Horton is unfit for office?

    Horton’s statement is overly self abasing, in Frame’s view (and mine).

    So when I ask you how you are doing today you really think I am literally interested in how you are doing today, as opposed to simply acknowledging your presence?

    And it is so funny to me because your 2k view gives you a higher view of the pagans than I believe is scriptural.

    Maybe you’re right, Ron. Calvin was so off his rocker when he praised the pagan philosophers, poets, artisans and craftsmen for their puny, unredeemed works. Aristotle and Einstein, what a dim wits. But, if you don’t mind, I have to hand it to Shakespeare, for you and Frame maketh “Much Ado About Nothing.”

  22. bs says:

    WackyF, is that you??? How’s GR treating you?

    Re:

    I know dozens of people who sit under the teaching of WSC profs and hear some mean and rude comments directed towards Frame behind his back. many or most of them are not even theological. They are just mean.

    You heard what you heard, nevertheless I attended WSCAL for 5 years and not once did I ever hear the name Frame mentioned. However, I certainly heard Profs skirt student’s references to controversy by scrupulously avoiding any mention of names while trying to deflect the interruptions back on topic.

  23. Ron Smith says:

    Zrim, you continue to make leaps from what I have said, so I am fearful of putting much more here for you to distort. So for the last time, I commend you to a faithful study of God’s Word (or at least read Frame’s paper before critiquing it). You said,

    An officer isn’t an apostle. Why should he use apostle’s language?

    If you had read Frame’s paper, you would have seen that he cited 1 Peter 5:3 which clearly states that overseers in Christ’s Church are to be examples to the flock (and examples are for imitating). That is general language concerning the qualifications for Church office, not special language reserved for apostles alone (if there even is such a thing).

  24. Zrim says:

    Ron,

    …he cited 1 Peter 5:3 which clearly states that overseers in Christ’s Church are to be examples to the flock (and examples are for imitating).

    First, 1 Pet 5:3 is concerned with lording it over the flock. Are you and Frame suggesting Horton is guilty of some sort of popery?

    Second, 2 Cor. 4:5 suggests we ought not “…preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake.” And 1 Cor. 2 says that “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Then there’s all that “I decrease so that Christ might increase” language. How does anyone get from those sorts of texts that officers are to preach themselves as examples instead of Christ alone? But like Paul says below:

    If I am to imitate a man, I want to imitate a man who looks to Jesus. Horton doesn’t want people looking at him. I’m glad he pointed out that he’s not an “exemplary creature,” being the sinner that I am, I might try to rest in Mike, and not Christ.

  25. Zrim says:

    Paul,

    I don’t think anybody is trying to justify ill side-line behavior on either side. I think it’s about taking public and formal language seriously. Can you point to any public and formal speech on the part of any WSCAL faculty that was flagrantly uncharitable and deliberately maligning of Frame (whichis different from serious critique)?

  26. Wayne says:

    Hi Phil,

    You misunderstand. I’m not saying that we can’t dialogue with one another regarding substantial differences within our own Reformed community. What I’m saying is that when the selection of that dialogue has ulterior motives other than the defense of the Faith once delivered it takes away from that Truth and our Witness for Christ and the Reformed Faith.

  27. Paul says:

    Zrim,

    That’s good.

    Regarding your question, you can search old archives at the Puritan Board, old comments sections at HB, and an old discussion somewhere on the web where a person went for Sem for a Day at WSCAl and wondered whether he should go there because he thought their apologetic dept. might be lacking since they lost Frame. Fair enough question. But the dude got ripped by one of yoru Saints. Needless to say, that didn’t help the guy decide to go to WSCAl.

    I have other information too, but one of your Saints says that I cannot make it public, he said so after he said what he said. Must be pretty bad if you’re ashamed that what you said will be publicly known.

    As far as any “flagrantly uncharitable and deliberately maligning ,” I’m unsure that can be found in Frame. Sometimes people are more touchy when friends are picked on. If this is all we’re talking about, then we don’t see it in Frame’s piece on Horton. If we do, then we see it in Clark’s salvo too.

    Closer to home we see a reference to Frame’s weight in this very thread. Frame is an ordained minister in the PCA. What is interesting to me is that a while back this blog complained about some speech by Wilson after Ted Kennedy’s death—which I did not find problematic or disrepesctful (but that’s another issue). This makes it look like it was just a chance to pick on Wilson rather than a real concern to watch how one behaves towards elders and authorities.

    So, I find all of this a little unfair and overly self-justifying, and it taints the whole thing with some insincerity.

  28. Paul says:

    BS,

    It’s pretty good, how’s Esco? Nice and sunny?

    I heard what I heard. I also have had it sad to me in emails from your profs that I am not allowed to reprint. Those who I heard it from are family members who audited some classes, as well as guys who left WSCAL and are now in PhD programs elsewhere. Guys who were respected students at WSCAL. And, interestingly, guys who are now not as quick to be “Yes men” for WSCAl. Guys who see problems there, not only theologically but also in character. Some of your profs have a bad reputation in the scholarly world. You would be suprised to hear what guys like Richard Muller have said about some unnamed profs at WSCAL. I do understand why students at WSCAL wouldn’t see this, though. When you’re there, the profs seem larger than life. Interestingly, if you talk to PCA and OPC and URC pastors who cut their teeth at WSCAL under Frame, they tell a different story about all of this. So, part of this is due to picking sides.

  29. Wayne:

    I copy that. Thanks.

    Phil

  30. Zrim says:

    Paul,

    What is interesting to me is that a while back this blog complained about some speech by Wilson after Ted Kennedy’s death—which I did not find problematic or disrepesctful (but that’s another issue). This makes it look like it was just a chance to pick on Wilson rather than a real concern to watch how one behaves towards elders and authorities.

    I try to make a distinction between a Presbyterian view of ecclesial authority and an authoritarian one. The former strikes a balance between having a high and respectful view of those in authority and remembering that all men are subject to rule and are not beyond criticism. The latter tends toward the lazier impulse to let ecclesial authority simply have its way (e.g. the popery of Romanism or radicalism). Civil authority is another matter, thus…

    I complained about Wilson’s disobedient public speech against civil authority, not because I wanted to pick on Wilson, but because I found the public speech reprehensible, obnoxious, unbiblical and out of step with the Reformed tradition. If I wanted to pick on a guy I think you’d see a lot more picking on. As it is, I have remained satisfied recently with engaging him at his own blog in the tucked away comments wrt to his dominionism.

    My interest is in public speech, not what a guy said to this other dude who told me something about something he heard somewhere in a hallway about…who were we gossiping–er, talking about again?

  31. Paul says:

    Zrim,

    This is odd.

    Look, no one can critique Frame for speech and not critique WSCAL. That is what is called an obvious truth. Everyone knows about the bad blood. Like former WSCAL profs, like Duguid and Scipione. Like the dozens of students who have reported what some profs say about Frame in class. These guys really dislike Frame, but they feel dirty listening to gossip and rude cut downs. So, this is an obvious truth. Now, when one only points out the speech of one side, it looks partisan. Looks like politics.

    Second, the verse you used to critique Wilson also has a problem with mocking Frame’s weight. That you can’t see the double-standard here is telling.

    That was my only point here, I thought it would be greated entheusiastically.

  32. Zrim says:

    Paul,

    I feel your pain. It’s a weird feeling when something you thought would be warmly embraced is rendered odd. Live and learn.

  33. RubeRad says:

    About the fat joke (this from a guy who registered “Obese” on the doctor’s BMI chart just the other day); my comment “(I know, that’s a low blow, I’m horrible!)” makes explicit that I just wanted to express a funny, without claiming to extend a substantive criticism of Frame’s character or position. (And you have to admit the joke is funny! Doubly funny, actually, because not only is Frame fat, Horton is well-known to be short — Horton and Godfrey both joke about who is taller, when they’re both, I would guess, about 5’6”)

    My joke I consider to be just about as substantive as Frame’s “disqualifies himself for church office” remark, but Frame doesn’t make clear whether he is jesting or serious. In fact, I think it’s a distinct possibility that Frame was just trying to use that remark to inject a little levity into an otherwise foul-tempered review, but flubbed the joke.

  34. RubeRad says:

    And about “no one can critique Frame for speech and not critique WSCAL“, yes I did recognize a little bit of “I know you are, but what am I?” in Clark’s piece.

    But the only point I tried to make in this post is that it is inexcusable for Frame to jump to Osteen’s defense. It’s barely credible that the best Frame can come up with is “In Osteen’s preaching and writing, there is not nearly enough emphasis on the source of this potential in God’s saving grace.” How about “In Osteen’s preaching and writing, there is ZERO GOSPEL!”

  35. Paul says:

    Zrim, just trying to look out for you. Didn’t want you to look like those Charger fans I grew up with. You know the type. Always hating on refs for throwing flags against them, but if their side gets away with a little holding it’s overlooked, if not laughed at. They always looked silly at the football parties. I think we called them “homers.”

    Rube, I’m not here to defend Frame’s review of Horton’s piece on Horton’s CC. I agree with your assessment of Osteen too. Furthermore, I only used your “joke” to make a point. Anyway, your apologetic doesn’t wash. Maybe Frame is sensitive about it? Maybe he got “joked on” his whole life? It’s kinda like people who say things and hurt others feelings and then say, “But I was just kidding.” The point for me was that things go both ways, and the dopgpile on Frame’s uncharitable and mean “hit piece” was unwarranted, especially if the other side’s character isn’t pointed out. To bring up “bad blood” when “your” side evidences just as much bad blood, makes the thing look schoolyard. Lastly, rather than agree with my point, Zrim puched it, so I had to point out his hypcrisy in jumping on Wilson about “disrespect” when his blog parted ways with 1 Peter 2:17 and not even a whimper was heard. Makes me think I’m right that Zrim didn’t really care about what Doug said to Teddy, he just used it as an excuse to pick on Douglas.

    But . . . that’s my opinion.

    I’m out.

  36. Zrim says:

    Paul,

    Thanks for having my back. But this little blog-row between me and a saint may go at least a small ways to show I’m not quite as double-minded as you might think (and there are more at this particular blog). Maybe KR is right and I’m wrong, but I didn’t leave his clunky 2K alone simply because he’s him and not Doug Wilson:

    http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/the-latest-post/2007/7/18/my-personal-voting-guide.html

  37. Paul says:

    Zrim, I don’t think you’re double-minded. Just forgettful sometimes. Hey, I heard the H1N1 vaccines were linked to alzheimers. You didn’t get yours, did you? 🙂 Thanks for the link, I’ll read it. Peace out.

  38. Pingback: How We Know Sola Fide is So Important | The Confessional Outhouse

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s