Customer Reviews

Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This introduction by Frame is to be commended for recognizing proper apologetic priorities - that our biggest apologetic battles should not be with other Christians over apologetic method, but with non-Christians who are outside the Kingdom. Frame refuses to play contentious games over apologetic method, choosing instead to take what he believes is the best (the most Biblical) from each approach and incorporate it into a generally presuppositional approach that emphasizes his version of the transcendental argument.

Frame, following Van Til, spends a good bit of time in this book arguing that atheism in particular, and all non-Christian thought in general, is guilty of being both rationalistic and irrationalistic at the same time in ways that are incoherent. Frame strongly believes that only Christianity is capable of avoiding this serious problem, and that in our discussions with non-Christians, the incoherence of his system should be an important part of our apologetic in terms of playing offense.

His transcendental twist on more traditional forms of apologetics is good for several reasons. First, contra Van Til, Frame acknowledges that a transcendental argument, in order to be persuasive, needs to incorporate elements of classical and evidential apologetics (though Van Til was not totally against these things at all, he just seemed a bit reticent to incorporate them into his own system). The transcendental twist is clearly driven by Frame's conviction that metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics inform each other and are all essential to knowledge. Frame's basic point is that without God, intelligibility is impossible. We cannot understand concepts like cause, motion, evidence, ethics, or anything else without presupposing God. It is here that the reader will see Frame's Calvinist theology, where Romans 1 takes center stage in appraising man's ability to think rightly without God. Frame's discussion of what unregenerate man does and doesn't know about God, and how this impacts on how much 'common ground' the Christian and non-Christian share is quite good and in my view, is far more helpful than Van Til's or Clark's formulation of this problem.

The strengths of Frame's apologetic, first of all, is that it is flexible. His perspectivalism, coupled with his transcendental twist, really enables the Christian to start just about anywhere with a non-Christian in terms of apologetic discussion. Frame provides good tools for starting with metaphysics in dealing with philosophically sophisticated non-Christians, or for non-Christians who care far more about things like ethics, the Christian can start there as well. His appraisal of atheism as incoherent is also quite good, and he provides solid tools upon which we can demonstrate its incoherence to folks who subscribe to it. His secondary embrace of evidentialism as defensive apologetics is also welcome, as is his insistence that positive apologetics are needed in order to make a persuasive argument for Christianity, rather than simply doing negative apologetics in the hopes that people will see that Christianity is the only thing left standing.

Frame's treatment of the problem of evil is good, in that he attempts to erect a Biblically based theodicy rather than a philosophical one without Biblical warrant. As others have pointed out, his rejection of the free-will defense is courageous and absolutely correct as a matter of exegesis. However, his greater-good defense is something I found to be a bit lacking, in that it's good for as far as it goes, but actually raises serious concerns that Frame does not really address.

The other weakness is that while Frame does try to make presuppositional apologetics accessible at the street level (which was a major failure of both Van Til and Clark), I suspect many readers who are not fanatical about apologetics will still be confused and unsure of how to use a good bit of the central pieces of Frame's approach in their interactions with non-Christians. It seems somewhat clear to me that absent a background in philosophy and epistemology, too much of Frame's approach will fall on bewildered ears that don't know what to do with most of the material in this book. In this respect, while those who are familiar with Frame's perspectivalism will indeed find this book to be an introductory work, I suspect that most who are not familiar with Frame's approach will find this book to be far more difficult to get through and practically use.

So this is a good, but improveable effort.

My motivation for buying this book was to learn how to be a more effective evangelist, and while my need was met, it was at times a bit difficult to translate Frame's information into practical, everyday methods. It answered my questions about how to converse with unbelievers without assuming a position of neutrality. It also brought apologetics out of the academy and back into "the highways and by-ways". I believe the author wanted to address two audiences at the same time, which led to a careful blending of technical philosophy and Sunday school Scripture.

Why I would recommend this book: Christ is Lord and is placed at the center of the apologetics instead of man. Even as an academically untrained Christian, I saw the need for the church to quit putting man at the center of everything and put Christ and His Word back on the throne. It may be harder to take the faith approach because it strips us of the ability to woo people with wise and persuasive words, and returns us to a place where we trust God to demonstrate His power in genuine heart conversion.

This was a nice book, in that it shows and introduces the reader to the method of defending Christianity by reasoning transcendentally (ie, argument by presupposition). The book does not go that far into the subjects and never gets very complex, but it is nice for what it intends to accomplish as an introduction.

If you like(d) this book, be sure to check out Greg L. Bahnsen's _Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis_ (generically speaking- Bahnsen agrees more with Van Til than Frame does) and also Stephen E. Parrish's _God and Necessity: A Defense of Classical Theism_ for more on this kind of argumentation.

In the book, Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction, John Frame gives the reader a sound, understandable groundwork for the discipline of Reformed Apologetics. According to Frame, the apologist must begin with a strong commitment to the Lordship of Christ and must display that commitment through his use of the Scriptures. The book builds on this foundation to instruct the apologist in responding to different philosophical arguments. The final chapter illustrates these principles practically by providing a sample dialogue between a pastor and a non-believer. This book helps prepare the Christian to be a confident witness for Christ.

A brief look at the essence of presuppositional apologetics may make one think that this approach will not go too far since those who have a different presupposition will most likely immediately say, "Well, you have your own presupposition and I have mine. End of the story. Good bye!" Another reason why one might think twice before applying this apologetic method is considering the circular nature, narrow and broad, of the presuppositional arguments. Yet another critique that is covered also in the Appendix from the so-called Ligoniers Group by Sproul, Gestner and Lindsey says presuppositional apologetics is irrational. In answering these objections, first, instead of stopping at the conclusion that each one has his or her own presupposition, even though it might be true, further steps need to be taken, which are the meat of this book. These steps involve laying out the arguments why a biblical presupposition is the most rational and corresponds to the truth of the realities we face everyday in the world, which Prof. Frame divides into three sections; the proofs, the defense and the offense; the latter involves exposing the irrationality and inconsistencies of non-biblical presuppositions resulting from the fallen human nature that resists divine revelation in conscience, nature, universe and the Scriptures and so consequently, embraces an autonomous self presupposition. In answering the charge of circularity, Prof. Frame correctly responds that every argument, even that given by classical or traditional apologetics, in the end is inevitably circular, though it may not be explicit due to the broadly circular nature of it. It eventually returns to a fundamental assumption or believe that one embraces; an ultimate presupposition, a basic heart commitment or an ultimate trust, as Prof. Frame calls it (p. 6).

These answers to the first two objections themselves to me are adequate to cover the Ligoniers authors' charge of irrationality as well. But Prof. Frame goes extra miles by exposing the weaknesses of evidentialism, particularly that promoted by the Ligoniers authors. The one that is most alarming is the argument of neutrality, the implied denial of the natural hostility toward God of the natural men, "the lack of seriousness in the application of the doctrine of depravity to apologetics" (p.235), considering these authors are modern day proponents of Reformed Theology. Prof. Frame rightly asks, "Seriously now, is this [the idea of natural men being sincere seekers after truth] a doctrine of depravity worthy of Calvinists?" (p.235).

What Prof. Frame is promoting in this book is a biblical presupposition as both apologetic and evangelistic methods since he has a high view of the Scriptures as inerrant, inspired and infallible divine revelations. Despite robust and compelling arguments to support the case for presuppositional apologetics, however, it doesn't mean that it has all the answers, including the answer to the problem of evil. None of the apologetic methods does. Nevertheless it teaches the right response and attitude toward the problem of evil, again, on the basis of biblical presupposition. Here is what Prof. Frame writes,

"My own verdict is that we are unlikely to find complete answers to all these questions (the problem of evil, pain and suffering) - answers which are not subject to further questions. But I do think we can provide answers in another sense. If what you want is encouragement to go on believing in the midst of suffering, Scripture provides that, and provides it abundantly (the best argument being the account of Job's interview with God). If you want help to go on trusting God despite unexplained evil, yes, we can help" (p.152).

At first, presuppositional apologetics may seem pedestrian or even boring, but upon a deeper study, it is a more powerful argument than any apologetic methods. I am not saying it is more effective, but it is more powerful. Ultimately, the effectiveness of the apologetic method, whether it be used as a defense of the Christian faith or simultaneously as for an evangelistic purpose, does not depend on human effort or the type of approach one employs, but on divine influence. In other words, it is God who eventually makes the call how effective He would cause a particular apologetic endeavor to be; whether to the one "the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life" (2 Cor 2:16).

This introduction to apologetics is of great value. While admittedly not being nearly as in depth as in The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (A Theology of Lordship) John Frame does a wonderful job of presenting a Biblical view of apologetics.

Frame has a good way of making things clear and orderly. And he presents a very compelling theory and method of argumentation in this book. At the same time, however, some of his thoughts raise questions for the reader that he does not answer. (Although he seemingly anticipates this and frequently references DKG in his footnotes).

While not strictly adhering to Van Tillian presuppositionalism, Frame does a great job of introducing apologetics from a Biblical mindset - that is, as Christians we should defend the faith without departing from it to some alleged "neutral" ground. And he demonstrates an interesting active method of encountering unbelievers.

For those unsure if they are ready to study the theoretical aspect of Biblical apologetics, Frame encourages the reader to read Chapter 9 first (a hypothetical conversation between a Christian and a non-Christian). this will help the reader to see whether or not he would be interested in pursuing the theoretical discussions behind that conversation. I did, and it was compelling enough!

While this book was a great read and introduced apologetics in an orderly fashion: proof, defense, offense - a companion volume that I would highly recommend is Greg Bahnsen's book, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, which has a great impact on the heart and application of Biblical apologetics.

Presuppositionlist scholar John Frame is a moderate Van Tilian and he delivers an apologetic work designed to clarify numerous apologetic and epistemic controversies.

He furnishes his notion of what is the essential presuppositional system and its application. The author answers the anti-Vantilian scholars who claim that Van Til's apologetic (VTA) ultimately offers a mere circular argument. All worldviews, Frame asserts, must reason in a circular fashion. But VTA is not a vicious circular and it provides the essential pre-environment for knowledge. Many will briskly read past his solution, but it is compelling to many who make the effort to comprehend his argument.

Frame discusses the notions of reason, faith, evidence, certainty, neutral ground and common ground, and proof. He, like Van Til, argues that VTA is not opposed to evidence for the Christian faith (or the classical arguments): nevertheless these truths must be contended for within the context of the a priori necessities that only Christian Theism can furnish.

The book contains chapters on:
- Definitions and Apologetic Basics
- The Message of Apologetics
- The Method of Apologetics
- Proof: Proving God and the Gospel
- Two chapters on the Problem of Evil
- Essay on Ligonier Apologetics
- Letter to Jay Adams

I do not affirm all Frame's epistemic resolutions, but I am delighted that I have this volume in my library. My favorite section is on God's Absolute Personality (p. 34). The two chapters discussing the Problem of Evil, alone, make this an important resource for a minister, evangelist, apologist, or the untutored.

By Mike A Robinson author of: "Presuppositional Apologetics Examines Mormonism" and other Christian books including:
One Way to God: Christian Philosophy and Presuppositional Apologetics Examine World Religions

Frame is professor of systematic theology and philosophy at RTS. He is quickly becoming one of my favorite contemporary theologians. He begins the book by making it clear that he is a follower of Cornelius Van Til (presuppositional), but has some questions concerning the consistency of Vant Til's thought in places. He defines apologetics as "the discipline that teaches Christians how to give a reason for their hope" (1). Frame is famous for his 'multiperspectivalism' and is no different in this little book. He distinguishes apologetics as proof, defense, and offense. He also argues biblically that there is no neutrality with the non-Christian (contra classical apologetics). Believers must always presuppose God and his truth in every aspect of our lives. Revelation must govern apologetics. This fact seems obvious enough but you'd be surprised at the way some view apologetics. Frame also establishes the fact that unbelievers know God, but suppress the truth (Rom 1:21). He lists a few different values of apologetics. This is already getting long, so I must skip the details.
In chapter 2, Frame lays out the message of the apologist. He breaks it up into two sections: Christianity as a philosophy, and good news. The section on philosophy was great! This chapter contained a lot of excellent details about the significance of the Christian worldview, but I cannot take the time to reproduce them here. He basically argues that the Christian worldview is the alternative to the conventional wisdom of the day.
Chapter 3 consists of methodological considerations for the task of apologetics. Here he introduces the reader to the famous transcendental argument (basically arguing that without God, nothing is possible or rational). This method is very helpful, for by using it, the apologist can basically start from anywhere since all facts only make sense with the existence of an absolute personality. Frame parts ways with Van Til here though as he believes it needs supplementation while Van Til thought the TA was sufficient in itself. The point of contact with the non-believer is their knowledge of God. Presuppositional apologetics would not exist without Romans 1.
Chapter 4 is an assessment and reworking of the traditional arguments for God's existence (teleological, moral, cosmological, ontological), with an emphasis on objective moral values. (apologetics as proof).
Chapter 5 continues with proof focusing on proving the gospel. Here Frame lays out Scripture's doctrine of Scripture, with an excursus on modern biblical criticism.
Chapter 6 & 7 are apologetics as defense. These two chapters cover the problem of evil, and are quite helpful. Chapter 6 lays down some groundwork and evaluates several options for answering the problem, and their shortcomings. In Chapter 7, he seeks to answer it by appealing to the greater good argument redefined theocentrically. Frame does allow for a sense of mystery though.
Chapter 8 is apologetics as offense, attacking unbelief, aiming at atheism and idolatry. Both are essentially an attempt to escape responsibility. Frame closes out the book with a chapter called 'Talking to a Stranger' where John and Al have a conversation in a plane in which John uses the presuppositional method to share the gospel with Al. This is obviously the lightest chapter in the book and is helpful in seeing the method fleshed out. There are also two appendices. One reviewing a book by Sproul/Gerstner/Lindsley called 'Classical Apologetics' in which they go after Van Til's method. Turns out, their book is filled with misunderstanding and misrepresentation. The last appendix in a response to Frame from Jay Adams concerning the problem of evil. Adams just appeals to Rom 9.17 and says it is settled. Frame does not think its that easy.

This is the first book of John Frame's that I have read and I will have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is very well done and covers a lot of ground in a mere 250 pages. Although you can tell that Frame and Schaeffer have a lot in common, the way that they write is thoroughly different. Schaeffer focuses in on showing the historical understanding of thought and then showing the holes and practice of those in the past, while Frame skips all that and goes more general in thought and shows the holes in the thoughts of the atheist, the agnostic and the practical atheist. The former is one who says there is a god but lives like there is none.

I haven't read much of Van Til, but what I have read, I figured that Frame would be a lot like him and give him much praise. While I didn't find the direct opposite in Frame, Frame was very honest when he found Van Til to be lacking and where he found him to be strong. Van Til was known to stay mainly on the defensive and poking holes in the atheist's arguments, but rarely, if ever, went offensive with the atheist. Frame showed both, like Schaeffer did.

Frame's book is technical in parts but also very readable and very enjoyable. He opens up with showing the basics of apologetics and then he goes into showing what the apologist must show while writing or speaking to others. He, like Schaeffer and many others, points to the metaphysical (the study of being), epistimology (the study of knowledge) and ethics.

After giving this lengthy defense, he then shows the gospel as proof and then gives a lengthy answer to the problem of evil. Through this answer he shows that the previous answers to evil, although sometimes helpful, don't really give the final or most thorough answers in of themselves. What he does show is that they almost all have some of the answer, but not the complete answer to the problem of evil. I do like his honest answer in the end to evil though. He simply says that we can give some explanation to evil, but we really don't know the entirety of the answer of why there is evil.

After this section, the final section is devoted to showing why the gospel is true and he does so in a way that I have yet to see. He biblically walks one through the entirety of the Bible to show the problem of man and sin and the redemption of man through Christ. Through this he also dismantles other religions in a few sentences as though they were a mere sidebar to the discussion.

The final chapter is a mock conversation to guide the reader. Admittedly, Frame says this conversation is a bit simplistic and "perfect" in responses from both the defender of the gospel and the opposer. What I found to be helpful in this discussion is that it really served as a conclusion and recap to the entirety of the book.

I truly enjoyed this book and will be one that I continually go to, to aid in my discussions with others that oppose the faith. I will be now picking up some more Frame books to add to my collection and will put him in the top scholars of our era in regards to presuppositional apologetics. I highy recommend this book to any who are looking to answer the tough questions posed by the atheist or seekers of our Saviour.

Apologetics to the Glory of God" is a good introduction to presuppositional apologetics. In this book, John M. Frame outlines three main types of apologetics: proof, defense, and offense. Basic terms of presuppositional apologetics are defined and explained. Charges of circular reasoning are addressed and the short-comings of presuppositionalism are identified. Also, the author discusses the transcendental argument while providing new formulations of the traditional arguments for the existence of God (e.g. the cosmological, the teleological and the ontological arguments). In addition, the author provides an interesting discussion concerning the "point of contact" and the "presuppositionalism of the heart."