What do you think?
Rate this book
Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief
Renowned theologian John Frame sheds much-needed light on the message and method of genuinely Christian apologetics in this landmark title. He insightfully examines apologetics in terms of proof, defense, and offense and clarifies the relationships of reason, proofs, and evidences to faith, biblical authority, and the lordship of Christ.
Two subjects of particular note are Frame’s fresh look at probability arguments and a stimulating investigation into the problem of evil.
Some of the most valuable elements of this book are Frame’s extensive use of Scripture and his presentation of specific lines of argument. There is also a model dialogue in the concluding chapter that shows how these lines of argument work in conversation.
This is an extensively redeveloped and expanded version of Frame’s previous work, Apologetics to the Glory of God.
Two subjects of particular note are Frame’s fresh look at probability arguments and a stimulating investigation into the problem of evil.
Some of the most valuable elements of this book are Frame’s extensive use of Scripture and his presentation of specific lines of argument. There is also a model dialogue in the concluding chapter that shows how these lines of argument work in conversation.
This is an extensively redeveloped and expanded version of Frame’s previous work, Apologetics to the Glory of God.
427 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 30, 2015
125 people are currently reading
368 people want to read
About the author
John M. Frame
92 books222 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 46 reviews
August 25, 2015
I've done quite a bit of reading on presuppositional apologetics over the last few years, reading Bahnsen, Frame, and Oliphant. But I'd never read Frame's "Apologetics." In fact, I'd not been aware of its existence until the 2015 revised edition. I naturally picked it up, eager to read another book by Frame on the subject.
I began studying with Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" and followed that up by Frame's "Cornelius Van Til." So I knew to expect that Frame would be both critical of Van Til, but also advance his work in a slightly different direction. Indeed, he continues that trajectory in "Apologetics".
Frame is not quite so convinced of the power of Van Til's method, as Van Til and Bahnsen attempt to argue the point. Frame has received the chastening of postmodernism and applied its uncertainty to presuppositionalism. Some might say that he's compromised on the certainty of the logic of presuppositionalism, though he still insists upon the premise that only Trinitarian Christianity can adequately account for the world around us.
The book is a sort of text book, though it doesn't read in the way one would expect a text book to read. Frame has a unique style--writing as a teacher to lay people, without talking down to them, or becoming pedantic. He's easy to read, easy to understand, even when he's communicating big ideas. In short, he's a great writer, and I would imagine he's a great teacher.
One of the most helpful chapters in the book, is an imaginary conversation between a self-professed agnostic and a presuppositional apologist. Unlike others, writing similar dialogs, this one is actually instructive for the average churchman. It isn't written as though you're debating Richard Dawkins, but an average guy you'd encounter in the seat next to you on an airplane.
In reflecting upon the differences between Bahnsen's and Frame's method, I think they are both valid, and are best understood as geared toward different audiences. Bahnsen's is best suited for intellectual debate, as shown in the famous Stein debate, whereas Frame's is much more practical, and should be used in arguing with laymen.
I still believe Bahnsen's "Pushing the Antithesis" is the best introductory work on presuppositional apologetics, but Frame's "Apologetics" is a probably the best companion volume, in terms of scope and an alternate, even critical perspective. Highly recommended.
I began studying with Bahnsen's "Van Til's Apologetic" and followed that up by Frame's "Cornelius Van Til." So I knew to expect that Frame would be both critical of Van Til, but also advance his work in a slightly different direction. Indeed, he continues that trajectory in "Apologetics".
Frame is not quite so convinced of the power of Van Til's method, as Van Til and Bahnsen attempt to argue the point. Frame has received the chastening of postmodernism and applied its uncertainty to presuppositionalism. Some might say that he's compromised on the certainty of the logic of presuppositionalism, though he still insists upon the premise that only Trinitarian Christianity can adequately account for the world around us.
The book is a sort of text book, though it doesn't read in the way one would expect a text book to read. Frame has a unique style--writing as a teacher to lay people, without talking down to them, or becoming pedantic. He's easy to read, easy to understand, even when he's communicating big ideas. In short, he's a great writer, and I would imagine he's a great teacher.
One of the most helpful chapters in the book, is an imaginary conversation between a self-professed agnostic and a presuppositional apologist. Unlike others, writing similar dialogs, this one is actually instructive for the average churchman. It isn't written as though you're debating Richard Dawkins, but an average guy you'd encounter in the seat next to you on an airplane.
In reflecting upon the differences between Bahnsen's and Frame's method, I think they are both valid, and are best understood as geared toward different audiences. Bahnsen's is best suited for intellectual debate, as shown in the famous Stein debate, whereas Frame's is much more practical, and should be used in arguing with laymen.
I still believe Bahnsen's "Pushing the Antithesis" is the best introductory work on presuppositional apologetics, but Frame's "Apologetics" is a probably the best companion volume, in terms of scope and an alternate, even critical perspective. Highly recommended.
March 22, 2018
The Bible is the ultimate standard for truth.
How do we know the Bible is the ultimate standard for truth? Because God says so.
How do we know God says so? Because the Bible tells us He does.
This is the ultimate foundation of what is called presuppositional "apologetics". Frame is one of the leading proponents of this style of "apologetics" and this book is pretty much a university level textbook defining and explaining his view. The fact that I have the word in quotes should make it clear enough that I do not in any way think this is a valid form of apologetics. Apparently I am not alone in this view. As the book itself acknowledges:
"The presuppositional apologetic formulated by Cornelius Van Till is largely unheard of by most unbelievers. Those of the evidentialist camp [real apologists] are far better at popularizing their arguments than presuppositionalists."
No. I think it is just more likely that no one takes Van Till's (and Frame's) circular reasoning seriously.
To be fair, Frame acknowledges that his argument is circular. He defends this being so in two ways. First, that there is a difference between what he calls vicious circles and virtuous circles. He says the first set begs the question and the second set doesn't. His second defence is to say that all finite human reasoning is ultimately circular and that his circular reasoning is no less valid than the unbeliever using reasoning to reason that human reasoning is the ultimate standard for truth.
While I think that the book does have some valuable tools for epistemology, for those who believe to better understand how and why they believe, I think it fails as a form of apologetics. I would highly doubt that anyone who is not a believer reading this book would be convinced in the slightest. I will take that a step further. This book is actually an excellent example of how *not* to do apologetics.
How do we know the Bible is the ultimate standard for truth? Because God says so.
How do we know God says so? Because the Bible tells us He does.
This is the ultimate foundation of what is called presuppositional "apologetics". Frame is one of the leading proponents of this style of "apologetics" and this book is pretty much a university level textbook defining and explaining his view. The fact that I have the word in quotes should make it clear enough that I do not in any way think this is a valid form of apologetics. Apparently I am not alone in this view. As the book itself acknowledges:
"The presuppositional apologetic formulated by Cornelius Van Till is largely unheard of by most unbelievers. Those of the evidentialist camp [real apologists] are far better at popularizing their arguments than presuppositionalists."
No. I think it is just more likely that no one takes Van Till's (and Frame's) circular reasoning seriously.
To be fair, Frame acknowledges that his argument is circular. He defends this being so in two ways. First, that there is a difference between what he calls vicious circles and virtuous circles. He says the first set begs the question and the second set doesn't. His second defence is to say that all finite human reasoning is ultimately circular and that his circular reasoning is no less valid than the unbeliever using reasoning to reason that human reasoning is the ultimate standard for truth.
While I think that the book does have some valuable tools for epistemology, for those who believe to better understand how and why they believe, I think it fails as a form of apologetics. I would highly doubt that anyone who is not a believer reading this book would be convinced in the slightest. I will take that a step further. This book is actually an excellent example of how *not* to do apologetics.
April 20, 2020
This is my favorite book on apologetics so far! It was readable and clear, but didn’t shy away from the difficult arguments that need to be made. I would recommend it as an introduction to reformed apologetics, or a precursor to reading Van Til.
February 9, 2018
John Frame provides a useful gateway into the world of presuppositional apologetics. Building on such Christian thinkers like Van Til, he endeavors to show why Christian apologetics needs to operate with certain assumptions in place. In essence, we must avoid the temptation to think of reason as able to "stand on its own." All arguments for, or against, Christianity must use reason and logic (some arguments are stronger or more compelling), but for the Christian apologist we must not lean upon logic alone to "get us there." Rather, Frame builds on Van Til and endeavors to show that it is impossible to stand in "neutral territory." The very moment we reach for rational arguments for (or against) we are reaching for something which God made and intended to be used in knowing and trusting Him.
In essence, we must avoid the temptation to cede to godless wordlviews the idea that man is autonomous or that there is a "blank slate" from which to start from. In fact, for the presuppositionalist, man is not able to somehow start from scratch; all men know there is a God, but unbelieving man has suppressed this knowledge. That knowledge is there nonetheless and is inescapable.
This would be a helpful introduction to thinking about apologetics in a presuppositional vein, and overall the book was very accessible, but of course takes some dedicated brain energy to follow extended arguments. What I'm saying is, this isn't the sort of book to read right before bed...
In essence, we must avoid the temptation to cede to godless wordlviews the idea that man is autonomous or that there is a "blank slate" from which to start from. In fact, for the presuppositionalist, man is not able to somehow start from scratch; all men know there is a God, but unbelieving man has suppressed this knowledge. That knowledge is there nonetheless and is inescapable.
This would be a helpful introduction to thinking about apologetics in a presuppositional vein, and overall the book was very accessible, but of course takes some dedicated brain energy to follow extended arguments. What I'm saying is, this isn't the sort of book to read right before bed...
June 6, 2019
There are few books that as soon as I complete them I feel like I should or want to read again. This may in fact be the first. After finishing the book I feel like I have a sufficient basis to read it the first time. I would suspect that this would be the case with many. There were portions that I slogged through, I found benefit from it all. Take my rating as tentative, and from an unqualified reviewer though I have attempted to carefully read the book and process the thought.
One insight I would give is that I believe I would have benefited from reading this book in a different order. I found that some of the appendices were very helpful in solidifying (well at least making gelatinous) concepts that were presented in earlier chapters. While some might be tempted to skip them I think just the contrary is merited. Reading the appendices prior to the main content would have been helpful. Maybe reading them first and then again afterward.
One insight I would give is that I believe I would have benefited from reading this book in a different order. I found that some of the appendices were very helpful in solidifying (well at least making gelatinous) concepts that were presented in earlier chapters. While some might be tempted to skip them I think just the contrary is merited. Reading the appendices prior to the main content would have been helpful. Maybe reading them first and then again afterward.
July 21, 2018
Dr. John M Frame's book Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief has long been regarded as one of the gold standards for textbooks in Apologetics by many as the glowing recommendations on this book by John Piper, Al Mohler and James N. Anderson clearly show. So, I had been excited to get into it myself, having read quite a bit of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bahnsen's work - John Frame stands in that same line of Westminster Presuppositional Apologetics. However, he doesn't merely recite what Van Til and Bahnsen had said from before, but his book offers a helpful expansion on the area of Presuppositional Apologetic methodology in a few notable ways.
Frames first few chapters are introductory, covering the basics of Presuppositions, Circular Argumentation, Logic, Scripture & Natural Revelation, Philosophy & Metaphysics, etc. These provide a solid groundwork to launch into more detail on various topics and apologetic methods, critiques and arguments. The rest of the book is divided up into 3 sections: (1) Apologetics as Proof, (2) Apologetics as Defense and (3) Apologetics as Offense.
In the first section - Apologetics as Proof - Frame goes through the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG).
After this is where I think Frame's work shines as distinct from Van Til. Whereas traditional VanTilian apologists may be skeptical of using direct argumentation (offering various evidences and proofs), and preferring instead to us indirect methodologies (arguing from the impossibility of the contrary and not putting the unbeliever in the 'judgment seat' over God's existence), Frame here offers a sort of 'hybrid' apologetic method.
I think this is where this book may be helpful to those who are committed to a Presuppositional Apologetic Methodology to open up their consideration as to how to use other apologetic arguments in their dialogs.
Frame then presents Theistic Arguments suchas The Moral Argument, The Epistemological Argument, and some Metaphysical Arguments (Teleological, Cosmological and Ontological). He also considers Scripture's doctrine of scripture, arguments from prophecy and the rationale for the Gospel.
His section on Apologetics as Defense deals with answering one of the biggest questions: The Problem of Evil. His discussion on this is thorough and comprehensive. Frame considers a number of possible defenses (such as the Free Will Defense, Best Possible World Defense - a la William Lane Craig, The Character Building Defense) and offers critiques of their strengths and weaknesses in light of philosophical and biblical considerations. His second part of dealing with the Problem of Evil posits his Biblical Response. These chapters were especially helpful to me.
Lastly, Frame puts forward the method of Apologetics as Offense - giving a critique of unbelief in various forms. He also includes a chapter as an example apologetic conversation to help envision what an exchange based on the methodology he has laid out in the book might look like. The Appendixes of the book deal with Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic, Some interactions with other theologians, Fideism, Circular Reasoning, Divine Aseity and Espistemological Perspectives in Evangelicalism and are helpful discussions on these topics.
I found overall the book was well written, however, I did find myself slugging through some parts of it (which is understandable for a book of this size which is attempting to address a wide array of topics comprehensively). I think for what it is, this book is definitely one of the top resources in its category. I'd recommend it for any student of apologetics, pastors, lay-leaders, or those with such a bent. It would be difficult reading though for those totally unfamiliar with the topic, but would serve as a great textbook for a course. My disagreements with Frame's thoughts were minor and few, and for the most part I found many areas of agreement and enlightenment. It was worth the read, and I can definitely see myself coming back to it as a reference material in the future.
Frames first few chapters are introductory, covering the basics of Presuppositions, Circular Argumentation, Logic, Scripture & Natural Revelation, Philosophy & Metaphysics, etc. These provide a solid groundwork to launch into more detail on various topics and apologetic methods, critiques and arguments. The rest of the book is divided up into 3 sections: (1) Apologetics as Proof, (2) Apologetics as Defense and (3) Apologetics as Offense.
In the first section - Apologetics as Proof - Frame goes through the Transcendental Argument for the existence of God (TAG).
"Without God, there is no meaning (truth, rationality, etc.); therefore, God exists..." It is a proof from the impossibility of the contrary and was one of the main areas of development by Van Til. "God exists, in other words, because without Him it would not be possible to reason, to think, or even attach a predicate to a subject (predication)." [pg 69]At the outset, this argument can seem like it is simplistic and not very compelling, but Frame does a great job of fleshing out how this very simple concept works itself out in apologetic dialogue and answering the questions why things like science, logic and ethics demand the existence of God.
After this is where I think Frame's work shines as distinct from Van Til. Whereas traditional VanTilian apologists may be skeptical of using direct argumentation (offering various evidences and proofs), and preferring instead to us indirect methodologies (arguing from the impossibility of the contrary and not putting the unbeliever in the 'judgment seat' over God's existence), Frame here offers a sort of 'hybrid' apologetic method.
"This way of thinking opens to the presuppositional apologist many, perhaps all, of those arguments generally associated with traditional apologetics in the past. We should no longer be embarassed... to argue for the existence of God on the basis of cause, purpose, and values. These can be elements in an overall argument that has a transcendental purpose... A direct argument can, as easily as an indirect one, spring from the conviction that nothing is intelligible except through God." [pgs 91-92]
I think this is where this book may be helpful to those who are committed to a Presuppositional Apologetic Methodology to open up their consideration as to how to use other apologetic arguments in their dialogs.
Frame then presents Theistic Arguments suchas The Moral Argument, The Epistemological Argument, and some Metaphysical Arguments (Teleological, Cosmological and Ontological). He also considers Scripture's doctrine of scripture, arguments from prophecy and the rationale for the Gospel.
His section on Apologetics as Defense deals with answering one of the biggest questions: The Problem of Evil. His discussion on this is thorough and comprehensive. Frame considers a number of possible defenses (such as the Free Will Defense, Best Possible World Defense - a la William Lane Craig, The Character Building Defense) and offers critiques of their strengths and weaknesses in light of philosophical and biblical considerations. His second part of dealing with the Problem of Evil posits his Biblical Response. These chapters were especially helpful to me.
Lastly, Frame puts forward the method of Apologetics as Offense - giving a critique of unbelief in various forms. He also includes a chapter as an example apologetic conversation to help envision what an exchange based on the methodology he has laid out in the book might look like. The Appendixes of the book deal with Van Til and the Ligonier Apologetic, Some interactions with other theologians, Fideism, Circular Reasoning, Divine Aseity and Espistemological Perspectives in Evangelicalism and are helpful discussions on these topics.
I found overall the book was well written, however, I did find myself slugging through some parts of it (which is understandable for a book of this size which is attempting to address a wide array of topics comprehensively). I think for what it is, this book is definitely one of the top resources in its category. I'd recommend it for any student of apologetics, pastors, lay-leaders, or those with such a bent. It would be difficult reading though for those totally unfamiliar with the topic, but would serve as a great textbook for a course. My disagreements with Frame's thoughts were minor and few, and for the most part I found many areas of agreement and enlightenment. It was worth the read, and I can definitely see myself coming back to it as a reference material in the future.
July 1, 2022
Great introduction to apologetics. Really solid response to the problem of evil. Frame writes so clearly, always maintaining biblical fidelity. Would recommend any of his work. Seminarians should be familiar with his writings.
May 19, 2023
Another good take on apologetics from a Van Tillian perspective.
August 24, 2024
Much more digestible than other books on presuppositionalism.
September 29, 2025
This is a fine apologetics book, but I think there are betters out there (but to be fair, I haven't done much reading on presuppositional apologetics). On the spectrum of "theologian" to "biblical scholar," the author is far on the theologian side.
September 29, 2017
A very comprehensive case for the presuppositional approach to apologetics.
April 1, 2023
Reasonable defense of presuppositionalism. I am intrigued by the arguments about circularity and the need for the Bible to be the criterion of truth for the Christian. Some weak positive arguments for the truth of Christianity.
Summary:
Chapter 1, Apologetics: The Basics
- Apologetics is the discipline that teaches Christians how to give a reason for their hope.
- Three aspects of apologetics: proof, offense, and defense.
- Presuppositions: The apologist must presuppose the word of God, since it is his ultimate commitment by virtue of his Christian faith. This presupposition determines our interpretation of the evidence we experience in life. It is futile and unbiblical to find a neutral criteria by which we measure the truth of different worldview. We ought to presuppose the criteria offered by Scripture, even as we communicate the gospel with unbelievers. The Word of God is our ultimate standard and basic criteria for truth. There is no neutrality.
- Circular Argument: God’s rationality is the rational basis for human faith, which is the rational basis for human reasoning. Human reasoning is not autonomous, but is dependent on God’s reasoning as revealed in Scripture. Evidence is appropriate in apologetics if it is applied to the criteria offered by Scripture. We use scriptural standards to prove scriptural conclusions. This is circular, but in a broad sense. All worldviews are circular in this same sense. When arguing for a worldview, one must use the criteria offered by that worldview or else face the reality of being inconsistent. To use the criteria from another worldview to verify one’s proclaimed worldview is inconsistent. Does this end conversation between worldviews? No, for several reasons: 1) The unbeliever already knows the truth (Rom. 1:21). 2) Our witness is not alone. The Holy Spirit witnesses alongside us. 3) We do this in other circumstances (when helping someone who is paranoid, for example). 4) There is a huge variety of possible topics for apologetics. When proof isn’t working, do offense. 5) Not all circularity is the same.
- God’s Responsibility and Ours: Apologetics and preaching are different perspectives on the same act.
- Sola Scriptura: It is consistent with sola scripture to use extra-biblical data. Theology is the application of scripture to reality. This requires the use of extra-biblical data. Still, this data is measured against the standard of scripture.
- Sola Scriptura and Natural Revelation: Natural revelation is legitimate, but scripture has priority. This is because scripture helps us correctly interpret natural revelation. The two books of nature and Scripture do not carry equal weight in every respect, since scripture is meant to correct our view of natural revelation. There are times when nature needs to adapt our interpretation of scripture, but even here, scripture must give its consent somehow.
- Values: Apologetics helps both the believer and the unbeliever. For the believer, it helps their faith and displays the rationality of scripture. For the unbeliever, it confronts his suppression of the knowledge of God.
- Dangers: Holiness is necessary for the apologist.
Chapter 2, The Message of the Apologist:
- The apologist presents the whole bible, but in two different perspectives. Christianity as a philosophy, and Christianity as gospel.
- Philosophy: Christianity as a philosophy is simply the biblical worldview.
- Christian Metaphysics: God is the absolute personality. What is more ultimate, personality or impersonality? God alone is the creator, all else is creation. He is immanent and transcendent. God is sovereign. God is trinity.
- Epistemology: If God is sovereign, human thought ought not be autonomous.
- Ethics: Moral reasoning is not autonomous.
- Good News: Christianity is unique in its gracious gospel offer.
Chapter 3, Apologetics as Proof: Some Methodological Considerations:
- Faith, Scripture, and Evidence: Faith is trust that rests on evidence. Biblical faith honors God’s Word as sufficient evidence.
- The Concept of Proof: It is fatal to settle for probability. How important is persuasiveness in apologetics? A pragmatic response.
- The Need for Proof: There should be objective evidence to support faith, but there is no need for this evidence to be articulated in a syllogism. Objective evidence vs. subjective evidence. The folly of unbelief. Openness to creation.
- Point of Contact: The point of contact is the suppressed knowledge of God.
Chapter 4, Apologetics as Proof: Transcendental Argument:
- Background: History of transcendental thinking. What are the necessary conditions of human knowledge?
- TAG in Outline: God is the necessary condition of human knowledge. God must exist if there is to be any meaning to the world. Frame explains this in terms of logic, ethics, and science.
- Questions: Can TAG function without subsidiary arguments? Do traditional arguments conclude with something less than the biblical God?
- TAG and the Trinity
- Negative and Positive Arguments: Van Til stresses negative arguments (reduction ad absurdum). Frame says that we will eventually need positive arguments.
- Absolute Certainty and Probability: God’s evidence is certain. There is no excuse for disbelief. However, an argument is not an infallible carrier of that certainty. Therefore, arguments can be described as probably, even though God’s evidence is so obvious it can be the grounds of certainty.
Chapter 5, Apologetics as Proof: Theistic Arguments:
- Atheism and Agnosticism: Agnostics don’t often live out their agnosticism consistently.
- The Moral Argument: We think and act as if moral values are objective. Truth has an ethical obligation aspect to it. Ethical values are hierarchically structured. Ethical obligations are either from personal or impersonal sources. If impersonal, there is no sense of obligation. But we experience obligation, so it must be from a personal source. If one tries to deny this positive argument, they must face the negative consequences of lacking objective moral values.
- The Epistemological Argument: The biblical God explains human rationality.
- Metaphysical Arguments: Teleology - If God made the world, we would expect analogy and dis analogy between the world and products o human design; teleology is reduced to epistemological argument, which is reduced to moral argument. Cosmological: Causes and reasons are roughly the same thing; to deny causes is to embrace irrationalism. Ontological: God has all perfections; existence is a perfections; therefore, God exists.
Chapter 6, Apologetics as Proof: Proving the Gospel:
- We do not accept the Bible on blind faith. The Bible presents its own rationale to evidence its claims.
- Scripture’s Doctrine of Scripture: God rules his people by a written constitution. If one wants to be committed to the Christian tradition, they must accept the Bible as the Word of God. “Faithfulness to that tradition renounces autonomy.”
- But What about Biblical Criticism: “On the conventional wisdom, the biblical doctrine of Scripture is implausible; but if you presuppose a Christian worldview, no other doctrine of revelation is conceivable.”
- Argument from Prophecy: Spirit-created faith is not blind. This is not to say that Jesus fulfills many specific predictions, but that Jesus is the center of the entire biblical narrative.
- The New Testament Witness to Christ: The impression Christ left on his followers is evident in the New Testament. This impression has to be accounted for.
- Miracle and Resurrection: “One cannot deny [the resurrection], save by a radical skepticism that calls all knowledge into question.”
- We are persuaded of the certainty of the Bible by the witness of the Holy Spirit as he reinforces the credibility inherent in the text itself.
Chapter 7, Apologetics as Defense: The Problem of Evil, Part 1 - Questions, General Principles, and Blind Alleys:
- Is There a Problem of Evil? Is There an Answer?: Difference between defense and theodicy. Difference between moral and natural evil. Natural evil is due to the curse of Gen. 3. Review of Jay Adams and The Grand Demonstration.
- Focus on the Bible: Revisions of biblical teaching lose more than they gain.
- What the Bible Does Not Say: Unreality of Evil Defense. Best Possible World Defense. Free Will Defense. Character Building Defense. Stable Environment Defense. Divine Weakness Defense. Indirect Cause Defense. Ex Lex Defense. Ad Hominem Defense.
Chapter 8, Apologetics as Defense: The Problem of Evil, Part 2 - A Biblical Response:
- Three perspectives on the biblical defense. 1. Normative Defense (God sets the standards). 2. Situational Defense (Greater good). Existential Defense (A new heart).
- God is the Standard for His Actions. God is not subject to our judgements, but sets the norms for all judgements in his Word.
- Scripture Gives Us a New Historical Perspective. The cross transforms our view of the past. It shows God’s faithfulness to resolve suffering.
Chapter 9, Apologetics as Offense: Critique of Unbelief:
- The Unbeliever’s Twin Strategies. Rationalism and irrationalism, or atheism and idolatry.
- Rationalism and Irrationalism. Attempt to trust human reasoning over divine reasoning (rationalism) while also failing to account for ultimate presuppositions (irrationalism).
- Atheism. Theoretical and practical atheism. Loss of objective values.
- Idolatry. “Giving one’s ultimate allegiance to some being other than the God of Scripture.”
Summary:
Chapter 1, Apologetics: The Basics
- Apologetics is the discipline that teaches Christians how to give a reason for their hope.
- Three aspects of apologetics: proof, offense, and defense.
- Presuppositions: The apologist must presuppose the word of God, since it is his ultimate commitment by virtue of his Christian faith. This presupposition determines our interpretation of the evidence we experience in life. It is futile and unbiblical to find a neutral criteria by which we measure the truth of different worldview. We ought to presuppose the criteria offered by Scripture, even as we communicate the gospel with unbelievers. The Word of God is our ultimate standard and basic criteria for truth. There is no neutrality.
- Circular Argument: God’s rationality is the rational basis for human faith, which is the rational basis for human reasoning. Human reasoning is not autonomous, but is dependent on God’s reasoning as revealed in Scripture. Evidence is appropriate in apologetics if it is applied to the criteria offered by Scripture. We use scriptural standards to prove scriptural conclusions. This is circular, but in a broad sense. All worldviews are circular in this same sense. When arguing for a worldview, one must use the criteria offered by that worldview or else face the reality of being inconsistent. To use the criteria from another worldview to verify one’s proclaimed worldview is inconsistent. Does this end conversation between worldviews? No, for several reasons: 1) The unbeliever already knows the truth (Rom. 1:21). 2) Our witness is not alone. The Holy Spirit witnesses alongside us. 3) We do this in other circumstances (when helping someone who is paranoid, for example). 4) There is a huge variety of possible topics for apologetics. When proof isn’t working, do offense. 5) Not all circularity is the same.
- God’s Responsibility and Ours: Apologetics and preaching are different perspectives on the same act.
- Sola Scriptura: It is consistent with sola scripture to use extra-biblical data. Theology is the application of scripture to reality. This requires the use of extra-biblical data. Still, this data is measured against the standard of scripture.
- Sola Scriptura and Natural Revelation: Natural revelation is legitimate, but scripture has priority. This is because scripture helps us correctly interpret natural revelation. The two books of nature and Scripture do not carry equal weight in every respect, since scripture is meant to correct our view of natural revelation. There are times when nature needs to adapt our interpretation of scripture, but even here, scripture must give its consent somehow.
- Values: Apologetics helps both the believer and the unbeliever. For the believer, it helps their faith and displays the rationality of scripture. For the unbeliever, it confronts his suppression of the knowledge of God.
- Dangers: Holiness is necessary for the apologist.
Chapter 2, The Message of the Apologist:
- The apologist presents the whole bible, but in two different perspectives. Christianity as a philosophy, and Christianity as gospel.
- Philosophy: Christianity as a philosophy is simply the biblical worldview.
- Christian Metaphysics: God is the absolute personality. What is more ultimate, personality or impersonality? God alone is the creator, all else is creation. He is immanent and transcendent. God is sovereign. God is trinity.
- Epistemology: If God is sovereign, human thought ought not be autonomous.
- Ethics: Moral reasoning is not autonomous.
- Good News: Christianity is unique in its gracious gospel offer.
Chapter 3, Apologetics as Proof: Some Methodological Considerations:
- Faith, Scripture, and Evidence: Faith is trust that rests on evidence. Biblical faith honors God’s Word as sufficient evidence.
- The Concept of Proof: It is fatal to settle for probability. How important is persuasiveness in apologetics? A pragmatic response.
- The Need for Proof: There should be objective evidence to support faith, but there is no need for this evidence to be articulated in a syllogism. Objective evidence vs. subjective evidence. The folly of unbelief. Openness to creation.
- Point of Contact: The point of contact is the suppressed knowledge of God.
Chapter 4, Apologetics as Proof: Transcendental Argument:
- Background: History of transcendental thinking. What are the necessary conditions of human knowledge?
- TAG in Outline: God is the necessary condition of human knowledge. God must exist if there is to be any meaning to the world. Frame explains this in terms of logic, ethics, and science.
- Questions: Can TAG function without subsidiary arguments? Do traditional arguments conclude with something less than the biblical God?
- TAG and the Trinity
- Negative and Positive Arguments: Van Til stresses negative arguments (reduction ad absurdum). Frame says that we will eventually need positive arguments.
- Absolute Certainty and Probability: God’s evidence is certain. There is no excuse for disbelief. However, an argument is not an infallible carrier of that certainty. Therefore, arguments can be described as probably, even though God’s evidence is so obvious it can be the grounds of certainty.
Chapter 5, Apologetics as Proof: Theistic Arguments:
- Atheism and Agnosticism: Agnostics don’t often live out their agnosticism consistently.
- The Moral Argument: We think and act as if moral values are objective. Truth has an ethical obligation aspect to it. Ethical values are hierarchically structured. Ethical obligations are either from personal or impersonal sources. If impersonal, there is no sense of obligation. But we experience obligation, so it must be from a personal source. If one tries to deny this positive argument, they must face the negative consequences of lacking objective moral values.
- The Epistemological Argument: The biblical God explains human rationality.
- Metaphysical Arguments: Teleology - If God made the world, we would expect analogy and dis analogy between the world and products o human design; teleology is reduced to epistemological argument, which is reduced to moral argument. Cosmological: Causes and reasons are roughly the same thing; to deny causes is to embrace irrationalism. Ontological: God has all perfections; existence is a perfections; therefore, God exists.
Chapter 6, Apologetics as Proof: Proving the Gospel:
- We do not accept the Bible on blind faith. The Bible presents its own rationale to evidence its claims.
- Scripture’s Doctrine of Scripture: God rules his people by a written constitution. If one wants to be committed to the Christian tradition, they must accept the Bible as the Word of God. “Faithfulness to that tradition renounces autonomy.”
- But What about Biblical Criticism: “On the conventional wisdom, the biblical doctrine of Scripture is implausible; but if you presuppose a Christian worldview, no other doctrine of revelation is conceivable.”
- Argument from Prophecy: Spirit-created faith is not blind. This is not to say that Jesus fulfills many specific predictions, but that Jesus is the center of the entire biblical narrative.
- The New Testament Witness to Christ: The impression Christ left on his followers is evident in the New Testament. This impression has to be accounted for.
- Miracle and Resurrection: “One cannot deny [the resurrection], save by a radical skepticism that calls all knowledge into question.”
- We are persuaded of the certainty of the Bible by the witness of the Holy Spirit as he reinforces the credibility inherent in the text itself.
Chapter 7, Apologetics as Defense: The Problem of Evil, Part 1 - Questions, General Principles, and Blind Alleys:
- Is There a Problem of Evil? Is There an Answer?: Difference between defense and theodicy. Difference between moral and natural evil. Natural evil is due to the curse of Gen. 3. Review of Jay Adams and The Grand Demonstration.
- Focus on the Bible: Revisions of biblical teaching lose more than they gain.
- What the Bible Does Not Say: Unreality of Evil Defense. Best Possible World Defense. Free Will Defense. Character Building Defense. Stable Environment Defense. Divine Weakness Defense. Indirect Cause Defense. Ex Lex Defense. Ad Hominem Defense.
Chapter 8, Apologetics as Defense: The Problem of Evil, Part 2 - A Biblical Response:
- Three perspectives on the biblical defense. 1. Normative Defense (God sets the standards). 2. Situational Defense (Greater good). Existential Defense (A new heart).
- God is the Standard for His Actions. God is not subject to our judgements, but sets the norms for all judgements in his Word.
- Scripture Gives Us a New Historical Perspective. The cross transforms our view of the past. It shows God’s faithfulness to resolve suffering.
Chapter 9, Apologetics as Offense: Critique of Unbelief:
- The Unbeliever’s Twin Strategies. Rationalism and irrationalism, or atheism and idolatry.
- Rationalism and Irrationalism. Attempt to trust human reasoning over divine reasoning (rationalism) while also failing to account for ultimate presuppositions (irrationalism).
- Atheism. Theoretical and practical atheism. Loss of objective values.
- Idolatry. “Giving one’s ultimate allegiance to some being other than the God of Scripture.”
October 18, 2022
An excellent expansion on presuppositional apologetics. Frame pushes back on Van Til in a helpful way in a few places, and the result is that he is able to show how many of the classical apologetic arguments can fit into -- and indeed be enhanced by -- a presuppositional framework. He wouldn't be considered a "pure" presuppositionalist, which I actually appreciate, because that results from his willingness to hold everything up to the principles of Scripture and revise his views based on that, rather than slavishly adhering to a historically Reformed position.
September 3, 2015
Four and a half stars! While I know John Frame is smart sometimes he is too smart for me! This book most of the time was accessible to my feeble brain, but also at times I was left wondering how a person as dumb as me could ever be a teacher. This book lays out an understanding of the presuppositional apologetic method and does it very well. I really enjoyed the final chapter where Dr. Frame created a dialogue between two people on a plane. That was incredibly useful. Highly recommended!
Want to read
July 25, 2015Frame interviewed about this book here.
January 28, 2018
John M. Frame is a household name in the Reformed Tradition and has been at the forefront of Reformed theology for several decades. Frame is J. D. Trimble Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida, and the author of the magisterial four-volume Theology of Lordship series and A History of Western Philosophy and Theology. Still, one of Frame's most influential and widely used books remains Apologetics to the Glory of God. Now, extensively redeveloped and expanded, including a new name, Frame's apologetic masterpiece is better than ever.
Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief is largely the result of the editorial work of Joseph E. Torres and his desire to ensure the continued legacy of Frame's apologetic footprint two decades after the publication of Apologetics to the Glory of God. Frame's presuppositional approach is both lucid and clear, and his keen awareness and ability to bring practical illustrations into the heart of the material is unparalleled. This was seen and recognized in the previous edition, but it is even more evident here. Torres has integrated both previously published and unpublished Frame material to furnish the interior of his apologetic framework found in the previous edition. Some of the previously published work comes from Frame's monumental work titled The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship (P&R, 2002), such as the material on miracles, evolution, and the problem of evil. Additional material has been designated to footnotes and Torres has done a fantastic job not only organizing the volume but offering contextual annotations to help the reader position Frame's work within his larger corpus of literature.
There is much to be applauded about this volume. Torres has done a phenomenal service to all Framean enthusiasts everywhere, both in cohesively bringing together Frame's apologetic thinking and the overall organization of the volume. Those acquainted with Apologetics to the Glory of God will welcome such updates and find this second edition extremely useful. Concerning presuppositional apologetics, in my opinion, there are few communicators more helpful and influential than Frame. Still many fatally misunderstand this apologetic approach, misrepresenting it as an irrational circular argument among other things. Frame and Torres have taken such caricatures into consideration throughout, making an already clear and helpful presentation clearer and more helpful.
Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief by John M. Frame and edited by Joseph E. Torres is by far one of the best introductions to presuppositional apologetics. Frame is readable and clear, and Torres has done an outstanding job bringing together Frame's literary output on apologetic related matters accessible within a single volume. It comes highly recommended, and, in my opinion, possesses the ability to outlast the twenty-year run of the first edition. Regardless if you already own Apologetics to the Glory of God, there is so much new material in this second edition that it deserves a new name. Oh, wait! Maybe that's why it got one?!
Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief is largely the result of the editorial work of Joseph E. Torres and his desire to ensure the continued legacy of Frame's apologetic footprint two decades after the publication of Apologetics to the Glory of God. Frame's presuppositional approach is both lucid and clear, and his keen awareness and ability to bring practical illustrations into the heart of the material is unparalleled. This was seen and recognized in the previous edition, but it is even more evident here. Torres has integrated both previously published and unpublished Frame material to furnish the interior of his apologetic framework found in the previous edition. Some of the previously published work comes from Frame's monumental work titled The Doctrine of God: A Theology of Lordship (P&R, 2002), such as the material on miracles, evolution, and the problem of evil. Additional material has been designated to footnotes and Torres has done a fantastic job not only organizing the volume but offering contextual annotations to help the reader position Frame's work within his larger corpus of literature.
There is much to be applauded about this volume. Torres has done a phenomenal service to all Framean enthusiasts everywhere, both in cohesively bringing together Frame's apologetic thinking and the overall organization of the volume. Those acquainted with Apologetics to the Glory of God will welcome such updates and find this second edition extremely useful. Concerning presuppositional apologetics, in my opinion, there are few communicators more helpful and influential than Frame. Still many fatally misunderstand this apologetic approach, misrepresenting it as an irrational circular argument among other things. Frame and Torres have taken such caricatures into consideration throughout, making an already clear and helpful presentation clearer and more helpful.
Apologetics: A Justification of Christian Belief by John M. Frame and edited by Joseph E. Torres is by far one of the best introductions to presuppositional apologetics. Frame is readable and clear, and Torres has done an outstanding job bringing together Frame's literary output on apologetic related matters accessible within a single volume. It comes highly recommended, and, in my opinion, possesses the ability to outlast the twenty-year run of the first edition. Regardless if you already own Apologetics to the Glory of God, there is so much new material in this second edition that it deserves a new name. Oh, wait! Maybe that's why it got one?!
October 23, 2023
While I am more of a follower of Greg Bahnsen’s interpretation and take of Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics I do appreciate the insight of John Frame, another student of Cornelius Van Til. This is the second edition of Frame’s introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics, what was formerly titled Apologetics to the Glory of God. This update gets a lot more teeth and has a further one hundred additional pages and has gotten help with Joseph Torres, a Presuppositionalist I do appreciate.
I won’t be going over everything in this book that was found in the first edition; I recommend readers to read my review of the first edition. Since much of Frame’s content was from the first volume it did brought back some nostalgic memory of my younger days reading this book nearly twenty years ago. I still remember John Frame’s discussion about how all worldview is “circular” and the difference between virtuous and vicious circularity.
There's a new Preface to the second edition, and an introduction by Joseph Torres. The original preface to the first edition and the foreword is also in this book. There's ten chapters and the original two appendix is included; but what is new are some new appendices. Joseph Torres wrote the third and fourth appendix where appendix C is on faith versus faith and Covenant Epistemology and Autonomous Fideism while the fourth appendix is on circular reasoningand the charge of Fideism against Presuppositionalism which is revisited with further thoughts. I appreciate here Torres point that it might be better to call Presuppositionalism’s argumentation isn’t a simplistic and fallacious question begging but rather there is something more of a “spiral” (akin to the hermeneutical spiral in hermeneutical discussions) in that it is more about the coherence of various elements internal to a worldview. The appendix really does a good job that Van Til isn’t a Fideists at all and he’s adamant in rejecting that label. Appendix E is on Divine Aseity and apologetics and how God's independence shapes a distinctively Christian worldview, how it has an impact on biblical epistemology and shapes apologetics' strategy.The next appendix is on epistemological perspectives and Evangelical Apologetics while the last appendix is an apologetics glossary.
Even if one does not agree with everything Frame has to say I think it still challenge readers and make one think more biblically and also more rigorously. Reading this makes me think about how much I owe to apologists and theologians like John Frame in shaping me with my apologetics method and my intellectual Christian life; Frame has me more doxological in my theology and apologetics, where I am worshipping God and at awe with God.
I recommend this book!
I won’t be going over everything in this book that was found in the first edition; I recommend readers to read my review of the first edition. Since much of Frame’s content was from the first volume it did brought back some nostalgic memory of my younger days reading this book nearly twenty years ago. I still remember John Frame’s discussion about how all worldview is “circular” and the difference between virtuous and vicious circularity.
There's a new Preface to the second edition, and an introduction by Joseph Torres. The original preface to the first edition and the foreword is also in this book. There's ten chapters and the original two appendix is included; but what is new are some new appendices. Joseph Torres wrote the third and fourth appendix where appendix C is on faith versus faith and Covenant Epistemology and Autonomous Fideism while the fourth appendix is on circular reasoningand the charge of Fideism against Presuppositionalism which is revisited with further thoughts. I appreciate here Torres point that it might be better to call Presuppositionalism’s argumentation isn’t a simplistic and fallacious question begging but rather there is something more of a “spiral” (akin to the hermeneutical spiral in hermeneutical discussions) in that it is more about the coherence of various elements internal to a worldview. The appendix really does a good job that Van Til isn’t a Fideists at all and he’s adamant in rejecting that label. Appendix E is on Divine Aseity and apologetics and how God's independence shapes a distinctively Christian worldview, how it has an impact on biblical epistemology and shapes apologetics' strategy.The next appendix is on epistemological perspectives and Evangelical Apologetics while the last appendix is an apologetics glossary.
Even if one does not agree with everything Frame has to say I think it still challenge readers and make one think more biblically and also more rigorously. Reading this makes me think about how much I owe to apologists and theologians like John Frame in shaping me with my apologetics method and my intellectual Christian life; Frame has me more doxological in my theology and apologetics, where I am worshipping God and at awe with God.
I recommend this book!
August 4, 2023
This book was fully discussed on Cave To The Cross Apologetics (https://cavetothecross.com/category/a...)
John Frame has been a well-known theologian and apologist for some time. While he's known to have written whole systematic theologies and apologetic tomes, this updated book is a good introductory book on presuppositional, Reformed apologetics for a college-level discussion.
What Frame does is lays out the role of apologetics in the life of a Christian and also the impact it should have. He covers the three aspects of reality a good apologetic should cover like a metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Within each of these are breakout discussions on things like the necessity of the Trinity, the need to ground knowledge in a consistent means, and the always constant need to be true to what your claims actually are.
Probably one of the most controversial topics Frame takes on is a critique of Cornelius Van Til's transcendental argument. There are areas of disagreement with Frame here but it does not come from the point of view more Van Til critics have which is to not really try to understand what Van Til is saying. Frame is a fan of Van Til and subscribes to a lot of what he puts forth. As a TAG discussion point, this is a good one to go over.
Other points throughout the book is the necessity of the Gospel in one's apologetics and in the discussion of the "problem of evil" Frame wants to do what he does throughout the book which is encourage Christians to be Christian in their apologetic and discussions. This is a highlight of Frame's writing in that he speaks as a Christian, assumes as a Christian, and lays out arguments consistent with what he actually believes.
I would say that one of the negative aspects of the book is the flow of the topics don't always stick with what came before and there are parts of the book that seem copy and pasted into the work from previous writings (this is admitted to in parts so it's not as if Frame is hiding this fact). Also, these topics do require a lot of discussion to really hit it solidly and even for a 350+ page book there are sections that are too short for the discussion to be fully fleshed out.
If you're looking to get into Frame but may be intimidated by some of his larger writings or you're looking to step up your reading in presuppositionalism from an introductory level this would be a good book to do that. Final Grade - B+
John Frame has been a well-known theologian and apologist for some time. While he's known to have written whole systematic theologies and apologetic tomes, this updated book is a good introductory book on presuppositional, Reformed apologetics for a college-level discussion.
What Frame does is lays out the role of apologetics in the life of a Christian and also the impact it should have. He covers the three aspects of reality a good apologetic should cover like a metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Within each of these are breakout discussions on things like the necessity of the Trinity, the need to ground knowledge in a consistent means, and the always constant need to be true to what your claims actually are.
Probably one of the most controversial topics Frame takes on is a critique of Cornelius Van Til's transcendental argument. There are areas of disagreement with Frame here but it does not come from the point of view more Van Til critics have which is to not really try to understand what Van Til is saying. Frame is a fan of Van Til and subscribes to a lot of what he puts forth. As a TAG discussion point, this is a good one to go over.
Other points throughout the book is the necessity of the Gospel in one's apologetics and in the discussion of the "problem of evil" Frame wants to do what he does throughout the book which is encourage Christians to be Christian in their apologetic and discussions. This is a highlight of Frame's writing in that he speaks as a Christian, assumes as a Christian, and lays out arguments consistent with what he actually believes.
I would say that one of the negative aspects of the book is the flow of the topics don't always stick with what came before and there are parts of the book that seem copy and pasted into the work from previous writings (this is admitted to in parts so it's not as if Frame is hiding this fact). Also, these topics do require a lot of discussion to really hit it solidly and even for a 350+ page book there are sections that are too short for the discussion to be fully fleshed out.
If you're looking to get into Frame but may be intimidated by some of his larger writings or you're looking to step up your reading in presuppositionalism from an introductory level this would be a good book to do that. Final Grade - B+
March 15, 2020
What Frame has accomplished in this updated volume is a helpful bridge between presuppositional and classical/evidentialist apologetics. Much of this bridge is the implementation of evidences in presuppositional apologetics. While it is commonly argued that presuppositionalist can't or won't use evidences, Frame shows that even within a presuppositionalist framework, evidences can have a proper place. This is why I would hesitate to place Frame neatly within the presuppositionalist camp. Those who are strictly Van Tillian may find some disagreement with Frame and feel that he isn't being true to the method. The good news is, Frame doesn't hesitate to bring out his differences with those in the Van Tillian camp. What you'll find here is Frame going at great length to stress the similarities as well as the differences. This is why I would more appropriate call Frame's approach as integrative as opposed to strictly presuppositional or classical.
The reason I gave this only 4 out of 5 stars is because it was largely theoretical rather than apologetical. In other words, there was so much time explaining and defending presuppositionalism and less time engaging arguments with non-Christians and how Christians are to respond to them. I would have like to have seen Frame engaging more direct arguments from atheists.
Overall, this is an excellent book that every apologist should read. And it would be a great book to give to a classical apologist so as to warm them up to the method rather than going straight into Bahnsen or Van Till.
The reason I gave this only 4 out of 5 stars is because it was largely theoretical rather than apologetical. In other words, there was so much time explaining and defending presuppositionalism and less time engaging arguments with non-Christians and how Christians are to respond to them. I would have like to have seen Frame engaging more direct arguments from atheists.
Overall, this is an excellent book that every apologist should read. And it would be a great book to give to a classical apologist so as to warm them up to the method rather than going straight into Bahnsen or Van Till.
September 25, 2019
There is much I appreciate about this volume. Frame make a great case for a qualified presuppositional approach to apologetics. His deep knowledge of Van Till helps him carefully point out where he is lock-step with VT, where he thinks VT was inconsistent or unclear, and where he openly differs from him. This book is not so technical with philosophical thinkers and references that it can't be read by a lay-person, but it comes pretty close.
My only criticisms are 1) some of Frame's critiques of culture come across like a crotchety old man when he mocks "rap music" and the like. 2) Frame is constantly referencing his other books in the footnotes and body of the work, which makes me wonder if there is anything unique in this book or just a rehashed version of Lordship series.
My only criticisms are 1) some of Frame's critiques of culture come across like a crotchety old man when he mocks "rap music" and the like. 2) Frame is constantly referencing his other books in the footnotes and body of the work, which makes me wonder if there is anything unique in this book or just a rehashed version of Lordship series.
April 5, 2020
A classic work by Frame. Excellent in parts, lagged in others. Dense in parts, crystal clear in others. Enjoyed it overall, think he could have made it 60 pages shorter (Including the appendix). I am grateful for Frame’s work here and appreciate him being a cross-disciplinarian (Philosopher, Apologist, Theologian). Strongest part of his book was the front half.
May 25, 2020
It is substantially a comprehensive understanding of presuppositional apologetics refining and refuting its original proponent – Van Til. The author advances his own framework which, for me, taints the methodology. Sir Frame is indeed an intellectual. However, I am still not convinced of the said methodology.
March 7, 2021
John Frames Presuppositionalism
This book is a comprehensive presentation of the apologetics of John Frame. John Frame has influenced James Anderson’s apologetics and many others as well. This will help the read distinguish the similarities and differences between Frame on the one hand and Van Til and Bahnsen on the other hand.
This book is a comprehensive presentation of the apologetics of John Frame. John Frame has influenced James Anderson’s apologetics and many others as well. This will help the read distinguish the similarities and differences between Frame on the one hand and Van Til and Bahnsen on the other hand.
February 11, 2024
While I enjoyed much of Frame's writings, it doesn't seem like his take on Van Til carries the same apologetic force that Van Til's originally does. I think Bahnsen's working out of Van Til is far more faithful to Van Til and also far more practical, effective, and cogent, even if Frame's is still good.
April 5, 2024
Good book for my RTS class with Anderson. Almost devotional in nature regarding a variety of topics in apologetics. Filled with Scriptural citations and exposition regarding method, Theistic arguments, and dealing with the “problem” of evil. This book is a handy readable introduction to apologetics that will continue to bless the Church at large for years to come.
January 29, 2018
This revised version of Frame's "Apologetics to the Glory of God" is truly a gem to be cherished in any Christian's library. In it, Frame succinctly shows how to make a case for the Christian worldview using Van Til's apologetic methodology (albeit in a revised way).
June 1, 2018
Very helpful, like all of Frame’s major works. He interacts clearly and charitably with other schools of apologetics, and also gives an excellent primer on the theology and methodology of presuppositional apologetics.
April 17, 2020
Best book on Christian apologetics I've read. Addresses apologetics as proof, defense, and offense. Really like the emphasis on presupositions of worldviews as the basis of interpreting facts. The transcendental argument for the existence of God is pretty powerful logically and rhetorically.
January 31, 2023
I liked the content of the book, but this is definitely not one to pass around for light reading… the philosophical arguments were hard to follow at times. The arguments seem to be logical and held humbly, a textbook, but not for the average lay person.
June 9, 2025
This book has had a huge impact on my thinking, and has shaped how I approach topics of apologetics, worldview and knowledge with both Christians and non-Christians. To my mind, the two most important points that Frame makes are:
1. Everyone has presuppositions: We all have core beliefs or prior commitments that we cannot detach ourselves from and that we use to judge the truth or goodness of everything else. For the Christian, these are the truth of Scripture and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
2. Truth is an ethical concept: In other words, there are things that everyone ought to believe. We all know it instinctively, but only Christianity gives an adequate basis for the fact.
The other main points that Frame makes throughout the book (and helpfully summarised in the foreword by Vern Poythress) are:
The Mirage of "Religious Neutrality": The temptation is to picture a discussion in apologetics as a religiously neutral search for truth. The Bible indicates that this picture is completely unrealistic.
Vicious and Virtuous Circularity: Everyone has fundamental prior commitments or presuppositions, and we who are believers in Christ are already presupposing our loyalty to Christ and the truth about Christ presented in the Bible. A disciple is committed, the whole person is involved, and no one is religiously neutral. If our loyalty to Christ leads us to submitting to his teaching in the Bible, we move in a kind of circle in which the teaching of the Bible functions as our standard for sifting claims. The teaching in the Bible profoundly influences our beliefs. Among those beliefs is the belief in Christ, which the Bible confirms. Analogously, people with other basic commitments - to reason or to pleasure - have their beliefs influenced by their commitments. We ought to acknowledge the existence of these circles, rather than try to ignore them. Given that the circles exist, we can still present evidence and arguments.
The Centrality of the Bible in Human Living: When he created man, God never intended that we should find our way in the world just by using our minds and observing the creation around us. God spoke. God instructed. And because it was God who spoke, he spoke with absolute authority, the authority of the Creator. He guides us by speaking to us, and today he speaks through the completed canon of Scripture. He intends that his words should have a central role in guiding the whole of life. Discipleship involves listening to God's instruction. And we are not only to listen, but to obey- to keep God's commandments.
The Disastrous Fruit of Independence: Followers of Christ submit to his teaching. Most other people do not, preferring an autonomy that is generally assumed rather than being discussed or questioned. Non-believers think that their approach is obvious, and that Bible-believing Christians are naive or dogmatic or both. There is a polarisation between Christians, who submit to the teaching of God in the Bible, and non-Christians, who do not. This autonomy represents a form of deep rebellion against God, and questions of apologetics arise when Christian proclamation meets resistance and objections. Christians and non-Christians do not think alike and do not make the same assumptions about the role of the Bible, the role of "making up one’s own mind", and how to run one's own life.
Points for Apologetic Discussion: When we consider typical intellectual objections to Christianity in the West, we find at least three vulnerabilities among the underlying assumptions.
1. Irony. Non-Christians think of Christian faith as ignorant and dogmatic, but they have ignorance and dogmatism of their own.
2. A truly consistent autonomy has no basis for moral judgments or knowledge. If God does not exist, moral standards evaporate into personal or social preferences, and the attempt to pronounce judgments about anything evaporates into the will to exercise power, according to which a person projects his subjective preferences onto others. Similarly, knowledge evaporates into scepticism as we cannot be sure our mental apparatus is properly in tune with the world.
3. No one lives a truly consistent autonomy, so the non-Christian secretly depends on God and his good gifts in issues of morality and knowledge.
The Pervasiveness of General Revelation: A robust doctrine of general revelation helps apologetics because it enhances appreciation of human dependence on God and the human knowledge of God that unbelievers are engaged in suppressing. This is vital, as suppression of general revelation, if conceded, leads to suppression of special revelation as both the special claims of Scripture and the resurrection of Christ will soon lose plausibility.
I cannot recommend this highly enough, it is a must-have for any Christian's library.
My detailed summary of the book and Frames' arguments, based on clipped passages from my Kindle, is available here.
1. Everyone has presuppositions: We all have core beliefs or prior commitments that we cannot detach ourselves from and that we use to judge the truth or goodness of everything else. For the Christian, these are the truth of Scripture and the Lordship of Jesus Christ.
2. Truth is an ethical concept: In other words, there are things that everyone ought to believe. We all know it instinctively, but only Christianity gives an adequate basis for the fact.
The other main points that Frame makes throughout the book (and helpfully summarised in the foreword by Vern Poythress) are:
The Mirage of "Religious Neutrality": The temptation is to picture a discussion in apologetics as a religiously neutral search for truth. The Bible indicates that this picture is completely unrealistic.
Vicious and Virtuous Circularity: Everyone has fundamental prior commitments or presuppositions, and we who are believers in Christ are already presupposing our loyalty to Christ and the truth about Christ presented in the Bible. A disciple is committed, the whole person is involved, and no one is religiously neutral. If our loyalty to Christ leads us to submitting to his teaching in the Bible, we move in a kind of circle in which the teaching of the Bible functions as our standard for sifting claims. The teaching in the Bible profoundly influences our beliefs. Among those beliefs is the belief in Christ, which the Bible confirms. Analogously, people with other basic commitments - to reason or to pleasure - have their beliefs influenced by their commitments. We ought to acknowledge the existence of these circles, rather than try to ignore them. Given that the circles exist, we can still present evidence and arguments.
The Centrality of the Bible in Human Living: When he created man, God never intended that we should find our way in the world just by using our minds and observing the creation around us. God spoke. God instructed. And because it was God who spoke, he spoke with absolute authority, the authority of the Creator. He guides us by speaking to us, and today he speaks through the completed canon of Scripture. He intends that his words should have a central role in guiding the whole of life. Discipleship involves listening to God's instruction. And we are not only to listen, but to obey- to keep God's commandments.
The Disastrous Fruit of Independence: Followers of Christ submit to his teaching. Most other people do not, preferring an autonomy that is generally assumed rather than being discussed or questioned. Non-believers think that their approach is obvious, and that Bible-believing Christians are naive or dogmatic or both. There is a polarisation between Christians, who submit to the teaching of God in the Bible, and non-Christians, who do not. This autonomy represents a form of deep rebellion against God, and questions of apologetics arise when Christian proclamation meets resistance and objections. Christians and non-Christians do not think alike and do not make the same assumptions about the role of the Bible, the role of "making up one’s own mind", and how to run one's own life.
Points for Apologetic Discussion: When we consider typical intellectual objections to Christianity in the West, we find at least three vulnerabilities among the underlying assumptions.
1. Irony. Non-Christians think of Christian faith as ignorant and dogmatic, but they have ignorance and dogmatism of their own.
2. A truly consistent autonomy has no basis for moral judgments or knowledge. If God does not exist, moral standards evaporate into personal or social preferences, and the attempt to pronounce judgments about anything evaporates into the will to exercise power, according to which a person projects his subjective preferences onto others. Similarly, knowledge evaporates into scepticism as we cannot be sure our mental apparatus is properly in tune with the world.
3. No one lives a truly consistent autonomy, so the non-Christian secretly depends on God and his good gifts in issues of morality and knowledge.
The Pervasiveness of General Revelation: A robust doctrine of general revelation helps apologetics because it enhances appreciation of human dependence on God and the human knowledge of God that unbelievers are engaged in suppressing. This is vital, as suppression of general revelation, if conceded, leads to suppression of special revelation as both the special claims of Scripture and the resurrection of Christ will soon lose plausibility.
I cannot recommend this highly enough, it is a must-have for any Christian's library.
My detailed summary of the book and Frames' arguments, based on clipped passages from my Kindle, is available here.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 46 reviews