When the apple doesn't fall far from the tree

To the Reformed thinker (which by this time it should be evident to the reader that John Frame is not), it is true that my existential person was created by God, but it was also wrecked by the fall, and in my sin I am quite bad at distinguishing which parts of my own opinions are divine in origin and which are corrupted.  It is also true that God has arranged my circumstances, but that these involve cultural and even doctrinal input from other fallen and corrupt men, and are no more trustworthy than my own internal impulses...The Reformed thinker, then, may acknowledge that his personality and his context play a role in his reading of Scripture, but he views this as a shameful fact, a result of his fallen nature and continuing sin – something to be fought against with all the power of the Spirit. 

http://chantrynotes.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/re-framing-reformed-baptist-doctrine/

Tom Chantry is a Reformed Baptist pastor. What's more, Tom Chantry is the son of a Reformed Baptist pastor. Is that just a coincidence? Or is that groupthink? 

I mean, what are the odds? Consider all the possible outcomes. Why did he turn out that way? Why not an atheist? Or Lutheran. Or Presbyterian. Or fundamentalist. Or Muslim. Or Arminian. Or Roman Catholic. Or Hare Krishna. Or devote of Ayn Rand. Or devotee of John Spong. America gives you so many options to choose from.

Yet, from what I can tell, Tom is basically a carbon copy of his dad's theological outlook. Doesn't seem as though Tom fought his socially conditioned reading of Scripture with all the power of the Spirit. 

Yet he faults Frame for being too independent. But doesn't that indicate that Frame is more resistant to theological peer pressure than Tom? And isn't that the very thing Tom commends?