Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended

by Greg L. Bahnsen

What once was lost, now is found! Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen, the definitive champion of Cornelius Van Til's revolutionary Reformed apologetical method, wrote this systematic treatise and defense of Biblical apologetics many years before his untimely death. Dr. Bahnsen received the typeset proofs for editing, but due to the unfortunate accidents of history, the only copy was lost. The work, consequently, was never published. In our Lord's Providence, after some twenty years, our friends at Covenant Media Foundation discovered the lost proofs. They recently sent them to us at American Vision where our enthusiastic editors busily began preparing the work for publication. Finally, our work has paid off! This magnum opus of apologetics lays out the Biblical presuppositional method, provides rigorous Biblical proof, and defends the uniqueness of the method. This is the work we all longed for Bahnsen to write, yet never knew that he already had written! Now rescued from the dustbin of history, this monument of apologetics will provide must-reading for Christian defenders of the faith for generations to come.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Christian, Christianity, Cultural, Counselling

290 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2009

About the author

Greg L. Bahnsen was an influential Calvinist Christian philosopher, apologist, and debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies.

Reviews

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bahnsen introduced me to presuppositional apologetics with his famous work “Van Til’s Apologetic.” Now, this is not the path I recommend. That work is long, complex, and challenging. It is the kind of book to move onto, after starting with an introductory work. My next read was John Frame’s “Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought.” Again—this is not an introductory work—at least not for the layman. This left me in search of a good way to introduce readers to presuppositional apologetics without feeling overwhelmed by a new vocabulary and by answering the standard layman’s objections about circularity in a forthright manner.

I read Scott Oliphant’s book “Covenant Apologetics” and it was good, but not quite what I was looking for. Next, I read Greg Bahnsen’ book “Pushing the Antithesis” and found what I was looking for. It was written for the layman and could easily be read by a studious high school student. It had it all. Waiting in the wings was “Presuppositional Apologetics”—the long-lost work brought to life after Bahnsen’s untimely death.

“Presuppositional Apologetics” is outstanding—and is the book to read after “Pushing the Antithesis.” Bahnsen gets more philosophical and more technical, but not overly so. He also makes the case more biblically than I’ve seen in any other work on presuppositional apologetics. This is alone makes the work so significant. Bahnsen’s scriptural case for presuppositional apologetics is thorough, rigorous, and overwhelming in its breadth. He takes Scripture at its word and demonstrates that if one takes the Bible seriously, one must assent to the presuppositional method for none other can possibly be biblical. Many will object to this and it may be a stumbling block—but Bahnsen leaves no room for doubt.

I can only imagine the feeling one would get trying to debate Bahnsen. He is absolutely brilliant and his arguments tower over his opponents. There are two parts to the book. The first is Bahnsen’s case for presuppositional apologetics, and the second is his critique of the methods espoused by Gordon Clark, Edward Carnell, and Francis Schaeffer.

Some may find him repetitive, but I would liken his method to a tsunami—each successive wave builds in strength until the sand foundation of autonomy is swept away in his rhetorical storm. Here are a few samples of Bahnsen’s arguments:

“The unbeliever knows God but will not acknowledge or self-consciously submit to and use that knowledge properly. Hence he does not have a “genuine knowledge” (i.e., an unsuppressed and saving knowledge) of God—he knows God in unrighteousness and judgment, but not in obedience and blessing. At base all men know God and cannot escape knowing Him. Nevertheless, they will not admit to that knowledge or use it properly, choosing rather to suppress it with respect to their public lives and espoused philosophies, yet never eradicating it in their private “heart of hearts.” The hardening process of sin hinders a “genuine knowledge” of God and may even make the sinner refuse to admit any knowledge of God to himself, but Scripture assures us that no man can escape the clear revelation of God.”

and

“The believer has different standards, assumptions, and authority than the unbeliever; whereas he once walked in the vanity of mind, he now has the mind of Christ. The believer and unbeliever have no agreement in outlook with each other, for those of the light have nothing in common with those walking in darkness. So the believer must separate himself from, and have no part with, the unbeliever’s way of thinking (2 Cor. 6:14–18). Because there is a striking contrast between the presuppositions and reasoning of the unbeliever and those of the believer it requires a dramatic intellectual transition for one to leave the kingdom of darkness and enter the kingdom of God’s beloved Son—indeed, it can be described as nothing less than a conversion. The change from unbelief to belief is not merely a matter of degree or the addition of a few further steps in reasoning, but rather a radical change in mindset. Because the believer has the mind of Christ he is not of the world just as Christ is not of the world (John 17:16). The Christian has been born of the Spirit from above (John 3:3, 6), but the unbeliever is of the world and of the flesh. Those who follow Christ are distinct from the world and the ways of the flesh. As Christ says in John 17:17, they are consecrated or set apart from the world, and the distinctive thing about Christians is that they have the truth. Being not of this world, believers are “set apart by the truth.” And Jesus asserts in the same verse that God’s Word is truth. Consequently, Christians are set apart from the world by the Word of God, and having this status they are sent into the world (John 17:18).”

Those unfamiliar with presuppositional apologetics will learn that all knowledge is God-given—for nothing can be known apart from God as he is the creator of all and the giver of wisdom and truth. Reason is a gift, but it is not ultimate—for only God is ultimate. We cannot reason to God—even with the aid of arguments—because the Fall left reason fallen. We are dead in our transgressions and suppress the truth of God in unrighteousness—not wanting to know the truth because it condemns us. We suppress the guilt and live autonomously—apart from God, doing what is right in our own eyes.

Bahnsen succinctly writes, “God’s self-attesting revelation must be taken as the firm foundation of all knowledge, the final test for truth, and the standard for living. We are under obligation to submit every facet of our lives to Scripture—whether it be morals, vocation, emotions, deliberations, reasoning, or even the use of logic.”

There is no neutrality—one is either a covenant keeper, or a covenant breaker. One either submits to Christ, or one rebels. There is an antithesis between the two that cannot be bridged apart from examining the worldview presuppositions of the two sides. “The argument must pit the unbeliever’s system of thought as a unit over against the believer’s system of thought as a unit. Their overall perspectives will have to contend with each other, rather than debating isolated points in a piecemeal fashion.”

One of the greatest difficulties in coming to terms with presuppositional apologetics is its circularity. This is perhaps the most common objection, and it can only be overcome after one has fully understood the nature of the argument. Bahnsen demolishes this objection in this book. If one cannot overcome this objection, the argument will always appear to fail because it appears irrational.
To begin, Bahnsen shows “the circular dependence of metaphysics and epistemology.”

Bahnsen lays a foundation that I’m not quoting, but hopefully this quote conveys his idea:

“Whether most philosophers like it or not, Scripture assuredly tells us that the way a man uses his intellect is an ethical matter (e.g., rebellion against God leads to a darkened mind). Irrespective of the way in which men respond to it, God’s clear revelation is the only escape we have from the skepticism that would otherwise result from the necessity of coordinating metaphysics and epistemology, and it is this revelation that provides both the epistemic ground and metaphysical content for the foundation of all of man’s intellectual endeavors. Hence a Christian’s apologetical argument (working on a transcendental level) will finally be circular; what he knows and how he knows are both tied up with God’s revelation. At the base of every man’s knowledge is the coordination of metaphysics and epistemology that is expressed in God’s clear revelation to all men, a revelation that saves men from ultimate skepticism. In being thus saved from skepticism, however, philosophers are faced with the authority of God and the fact that reasoning is a matter of morality.”

This does sound circular, and it is—but all argumentation at its root is circular. As Bahnsen writes:

“Every system must have some unproven assumptions, a starting point not antecedently established, with which reasoning begins and according to which it proceeds to conclusions. Therefore, all argumentation over ultimate issues of truth and reality will come down to an appeal to authorities which, in the nature of the case, are ultimate authorities. Circularity at this level of argumentation is unavoidable. If the alleged authority is not taken to be authoritative in itself, but justification is offered for that authority, then this is not really the ultimate authority after all—rather, those justifying considerations are the final authority. When that ultimate authority is challenged, the argument must necessarily become circular, for nothing is “more authoritative” or carries greater warranting power than the “ultimate” authority.”

It is important to acknowledge that “all argumentation between non-Christian and believer must inevitably become circular, beginning and ending with some personal authority (and not a question of epistemology or metaphysics abstracted from the other).” Bahnsen tells us to “not be ashamed” of this. Our opponents are also arguing from circularity—but they are doing so without relying upon God in their argument. For, as Bahnsen writes, “there can be no higher or more reliable source of truth and validation than God.” This gives us the “self-attesting” Scripture—“The Bible is accepted on God’s own authority.”

But the unbeliever will of course reject this. They will likely state that we must use our reason. But “reasoning is a matter of morality.” He later writes:

“The Christian must then point out that the non-Christian could not reason at all in terms of his propounded beliefs. The Christian knows that only one metaphysic is suitable for rational-scientific epistemology and that the non-Christian has no foundation for any argumentation unless he admits to his suppressed belief in God. Hence the Christian apologist confronts two kinds of belief in the non-Christian; he argues against the professed beliefs by showing them impossible, and he appeals to the suppressed beliefs. The Christian cannot appeal to commonly interpreted facts on the conscious level and use a neutral methodology to move the non-Christian over to the Christian position, for the Christian and non-Christian do not have conscious interpretations in common since the unbeliever views everything as independent of God.”

There’s so much in this work that a review can barely do it justice. I’ve not even said anything of the second part where Bahnsen evaluates three thinkers that many consider “presuppositional.” Bahnsen shows very clearly that Clark, Carnell, and Schaeffer are not presuppositionalists and their epistemologies are in fact unbiblical. This section is helpful in fully understanding how many (maybe even most) Christians fail to have a biblical epistemology and apologetic. We must be careful to hold the God’s revelation as the ultimate source of knowledge—for it is easy to fail in this regard.

This is an outstanding work and I highly recommend it.

[Jonathan · Rating 2 out of 5]

Following in the footsteps of Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen passionately and logically argues for presuppositional apologetics—not as one among many approaches, but as the only right approach in presenting the Christian faith. For Bahnsen, all other approaches are not merely insufficient, but they sinfully dishonor the word of God and the lordship of Jesus Christ.

Greg Bahnsen cannot be faulted for lack of clarity. His point is unmistakable: presuppositional apologetics is the only approach to apologetics that honors God’s word and upholds the lordship of Jesus Christ. All other approaches dishonor God. Neither can Bahnsen be criticized for his desire to honor Christ, the Word of God, and God’s sovereignty in salvation. Indeed, this noble desire seems to be a driving motivation throughout this entire book, for he repudiates any other approach to apologetics that appeals to the truth of God’s word based on scientific verification or logical coherence. Such appeals, in Bahnsen’s estimation, subjugate God’s word to man’s reason, and so are mere “edifices upon the ruinous sands of human autonomy” (268). Further, Bahnsen’s method is commendably consistent. His tone, if monotonous, at least does not waver.

Yet the faults in Bahnsen’s book seem to overwhelm these points of merit. Overall, he has overstated his case for presuppositional apologetics by making it the standard of whether other excellent, orthodox apologists are helping or undermining the cause of Christ. He has whittled the task of apologetics down to a very slender thread—that task of demonstrating to an unbeliever the inconsistency of the unbeliever’s worldview. This drastic reduction leaves most, if not all other, dialogue pointless, so that the apologist has more reason to castigate other apologists for their wrong methodology (anything besides presuppositional apologetics) than he has reason to actually engage in conversation with unbelievers.

Bahnsen’s preoccupation with presuppositionalism as the only right apologetic method seems not only to have excessively narrowed the apologetic task, but it also seems to have skewed his own outlook on Scripture, other apologists, the unbeliever, and the interaction with them. First, he exercises significant creativity to see warrant for presuppositional apologetics in various Scripture passages (27, 33). Second, he (stunningly) criticizes excellent Christians scholars as having a “sinful attitude” (155), as undermining the Christian faith (202), and as “foolishly” constructing their apologetics (268). He consigns them to positions they would never own, such as subjugating God’s word to human reason. It is difficult to not hear arrogance in Bahnsen’s tone when he reports that their “replies have begged questions, unduly pontificated, merely argued ad hominem, fallaciously imputed guilt and merit by association, skirted the main issue, misunderstood the criticism, and just generally failed to meet the point at hand” (136). Finally, Bahnsen seems to stereotype every unbeliever as a person who consciously rejects the existence of God and authority of Scripture. While many unbelievers do this, perhaps even more unbelievers simply have not thought deeply about what they believe. Many unbelievers do believe in the existence of God and the authority of Scripture. These unbelievers, it seems, need something different than Bahnsen’s presuppositionalism hammer. Yet instead of viewing them as sinners in need of Christ, Bahnsen seemed to view them as intellectual sparring partners, immune to everything but the one jab presuppositional apologetics can deliver.

In the preface, Bahnsen’s editor Joel McDurmon notes that “Bahnsen completed the bulk of this text at the young age of twenty-five years old” (xvi-xvii). McDurmon goes on to “compare the magnitude of this effort so early in life to Calvin’s publication of the first edition of his Institutes (1536) at the age of twenty-six” (xvii). While Bahnsen’s skills in argument were brilliant, the vast difference between him and John Calvin in breadth of wisdom, depth of thought, and unique contribution to the corpus of theological literature, renders this comparison quite unfortunate. Perhaps Bahnsen himself would have taken umbrage with the comparison, for John Calvin might not have measured up to Bahnsen’s standard of presuppositional apologetics.

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

While Bahnsen's "Always Ready" has been read widely than perhaps any of his other works, I think this current volume by Bahnsen is much more superior to "Always Ready" and recommended as the first work to read as an introduction to Bahnsen's work. The book was "lost" for several decades, originally written by the author as a chapter to another book. The project became big enough to be a separate volume! It is incredible to think that he wrote this as a young man in his mid-twenties. I have met people who have thought "Always Ready" was too repetitive and disjointed, and while I myself have not found that to be true, it is certainly understandable since it was put together after his death from a collection of Bahnsen's writing. The work heavily emphasizes the theme of God's self-attesting Word more than "Always Ready" did, and I think rightly so. I think this theme of God's self-attestation needs to be foundational to Presuppositional Apologetics, lest the rest of the endeavor not make sense. In light of some debate on the internet concerning the Transcendental Argument, I think any revisit of Bahnsen's formulation should consider the role of the self-attestation of God's truth in Bahnsen's understanding of Presuppositionalim. One the unique aspect of this book is not only it's positive statement of Presuppositionalism, but also it's critique of other "Presuppositionalism." In particular, he critiques Gordon Clark, and this is the most lengthy critique I've seen in print from a Van Tillian vantage point. I think it is the best work done by a Van Tillian in this regard. Also interesting read is his critique of Francis Schaeffer. With each individuals, he considers their strengths and citation which shows where they agree with Van Til. Then he proceeds to go over significant disagreement. Excellent work, highly recommended.

[Adam T. Calvert · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is truly an exceptional work on presuppositional apologetics. Complementary to his book, 'Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis,' which is a comprehensive address of what presuppositional apologetics is, in this work Bahnsen offers an outright defense of presuppositional apologetics and a critique of those who have mistakenly been labeled as presuppositionalists.

Part one addresses the method and defense of presuppositional apologetics as the only Biblically and theologically consistent approach to defending the faith. In chapter one, Bahnsen sets forth the presuppositional method and forcefully shows how presuppositionalism is (and must be) part of Christian theology. He demonstrates in chapter two the foundation for Christian presuppositionalism, namely revelational epistemology, and gives ample Scripture references to this effect. It must be said that if one is familiar with Bahnsen's writings or lectures, up to this point most of the material is nothing more than a heavy review, which seems very repetitive at times.

However, in chapter three Bahnsen really pushes revelational epistemology to another level, effectively demonstrating the impossibility of divorcing one's metaphysic from one's epistemology. He shows that one must already know something about the state of affairs (metaphysics) before he establishes a criterion of how he can proclaim his beliefs justifiable (epistemology). One must know in order to know. This argument transitions perfectly into the presuppositional view that the unbeliever does know God (even while suppressing that knowledge); and his worldview is tainted by that metaphysic even though it is professed otherwise in his epistemology.

Bahnsen then goes on to show (as Frame has done in his triperspectivalism) that not only is one's epistemology undivorcible from one's metaphysic, but both are undivorcible from one's ethic. This only further shows the presuppositional implications in defending the faith - that the apologist must get straight to the heart of the matter and show that the unbeliever cannot give a rational account for his unbelief - epistemologically, metaphysically, or ethically. He then shows the foolishness of autonomous epistemology (contrasted to revelational epistemology) from both a Biblical and philosophical standpoint.

Part two of the work focuses on showing the inconsistencies of certain apologists who historically have been labeled presuppositionalists but in practice have shown themselves to be otherwise. While being gracious to these men and quoting extensively in areas where he agrees with their works, Bahnsen maintains a critical approach toward them and is unrelenting in his push for revelational epistemology as a presupposition.

Chapter four focuses on Gordon Clark and illuminates his true apologetic as being (roughly stated):

(A) The best worldview will be the most logically consistent.
(B) Christianity is the most logically consistent.

Therefore, Christianity is the best worldview and should be adopted.

Similarly, chapter five focuses on Edward J. Carnell and shows his true apologetic to be (roughly stated):

(A) The best worldview will be the most internally coherent.
(B) Christianity is the most internally coherent.

Therefore, Christianity is the best worldview and should be adopted.

Finally, chapter six discusses the beloved Francis Schaeffer and shows his true apologetic as thus (roughly stated):

(A) The best worldview will give the most satisfactory answers to life.
(B) Christianity gives the most satisfactory answers to life.

Therefore, Christianity is the best worldview and should be adopted.

In each of these chapters and culminating in chapter seven Bahnsen shows that these men establish a criterion for the best worldview - apart from Scripture - and then try to argue from the Scriptures that Christianity passes the test and should be considered the best worldview among all competitors.

Suffice it to say, Bahnsen argues that true presuppositionalism establishes that it is not only the best worldview but the only worldview that will allow anyone to make sense out of anything. He further critiques these men on their internal inconsistencies with their respective views and shows the inadequacy of their ability to actually defend those views.

He argues that, at best, all they have done is argued for the probability of Christianity rather than the certainty of it - and even in that they have not done a thorough job. Because no one knows when a worldview that will better fit their criterions will come along and how many of those worldviews exist, who can say that Christianity really is the 'best' worldview?

Bahnsen concludes his book with a review that true Biblical, presuppositional apologetics always argues for the certainty of Christianity and the fact that it is the only viable worldview, not merely the most probable.

The three appendices following the book are somewhat helpful, but did not really add a whole lot to what Bahnsen already addressed.

For someone seeking simply to understand the basics of presuppositional apologetics and practical examples of how it works, I would much more refer them to Bahnsen's 'Always Ready' than this book. But I highly recommend this book to be read by all who would teach presuppositional apologetics or to those who have a great desire to learn it more on the intellectual side. A good working knowledge of logic and philosophy is helpful to the reader but is not necessary.

This book is an invaluable resource in presuppositional apologetics and a critical help in maintaining a solidly Biblical approach to the practice of defending the faith.

[Fábio Silva · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book!

[Joshua · Rating 3 out of 5]

I can see why Bahnsen did not publish this when he was alive. Very uncharitable readings of the individuals he critiques.

[Dane · Rating 4 out of 5]

Not quite as thorough as "Van Til's Apologetic" and not quite as easily readable as "Pushing the Antithesis," but this work is still quite good.

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bahnsen thoroughly articulates and defends presuppositional apologetics herein, as the title suggests, and it is very much worth reading. Though I might differ with him on some aspects of his tactical approach to apologetics, Bahnsen’s philosophical approach is helpful, and his biblical analysis is superb. Chapter 2 of Part One alone is worth the price of admission with its comprehensive biblical argument from the text. And don’t skip the appendices; they are some of the better, more concisely argued sections in my opinion.

On the critical side, Bahnsen can be repetitive and wordy, and I didn’t find quite as much value in the Part Two critiques of other apologists. If I come back to this work, I’d probably skip it.

As far as Bahnsen’s philosophical defense of his presuppositional approach (mainly Part One, Chapter 3), I think he is largely correct; however, he overstated his case at times. I think we can use logic that the unbeliever accepts (which truly does depend on God and his revelation, and the unbeliever accepts it out of inconsistency found in common grace and being made in God’s image) to clear intellectual objections being used by the unbeliever to self-deceive and avoid the volitional heart question underneath. Since reason and logic come from God, we can use them unapologetically, without conceding Christ’s lordship, to point out inconsistencies in the unbeliever. I think this can be the starting point without always immediately taking the conversation all the way upstream to the foundation of reason. Yes, that is going to be the ultimate underlying disagreement, and we probably have to get there at some point. But tactics need to be used with wisdom. Just speaking truth repeatedly without engaging the other person where they are at by answering questions and objections they bring up at the more surface level has the potential of turning someone off of the truth. We have to be careful about tactics while also being consistent with proper presuppositions.

On the whole, Bahnsen’s appeal is very much worth pondering and learning from. It may somewhat misunderstand and straw man classical apologetics by drawing too much distinction between God’s revelation and human reason, but I am still thinking and learning.

[Thaddeus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bahnsen’s major work in review here is Presuppositional Apologetics: Stated and Defended, published post-humorously in 2008 by The American Vision and Covenant Media Press. It was his magnum opus and completely sold out after a few months of release. Bahnsen’s basic premise was that “apologetics must be exercised upon the infallible and presupposed authority of the Word of Christ in Scripture. Apologetics does not first do obeisance to human philosophy and science and then proceed to encompass God in its sphere of reverence.” Bahnsen continues the tradition of VanTillian (after Westminster Theologian Cornelius Van Til) styled presuppositional apologetics at WTS. He argued that because we defend a genuine system of authority which is known via divine revelation, God’s Word stands in judgement over all and it is we, not God, who are ‘in the docks.’ Christianity is not to be presented as a set of piecemeal truths, but as a unit and complete worldview. Thus, the argument must be transcendental (relating to a spiritual or nonphysical realm) in character and aim to show the impossibility of the contrary—applying the truths of God’s revelation to the unbeliever by setting forth the pervasive, positive evidence of God and performing an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview to show that it destroys the possibility of human knowledge itself.

Read the full review here: https://liberatinglions.wordpress.com...

[Tim Wilder]

This book is based on an unfinished, but commented manuscript, carefully edited by Joel McDurmon. The big problems are: 1) Bahnsen is trying to defend another man's (Van Til) theory, without compromising himself too much. and 2) The book was written in the decade before the whole Reformed Epistemology movement went mainstream with its analysis and criticism of foundationalist epistemology. And make no mistake, Bahnsen is very much a foundationalist, and is naive about the points that the Reformed Epistemology would raise. Ten years later a very different sort of book would have had to be written.
Besides this, Bahnsen's formulation of his ideas and arguments is extremely sloppy. He draws on his own training in analytic philosophy, but in the end this exposes the flaws in his arguments more clearly.

[Moses Each · Rating 4 out of 5]

A 3.5. I wouldn’t recommend this book to those trying to understand what exactly presuppositional apologetics is, especially in a practical sense (I’d rather point you to several YouTube videos/debates), but the first half of this book was drenched in scripture which gave a great foundation to this apologetic. I’d recommend this book to anyone who knows philosophical lingo (like epistemology and metaphysics) and has a base level understanding of presuppositional apologetics.

[Laurent Dv · Rating 4 out of 5]

CLear, very clear. Contains the biblical justification of presuppositionalism (Van Til's apologetics). Contains a complete christian view of logic and how laws of logic proves God, and why naturalism (materialism) cannot account for it (and then leads to skepticism).

[Vincent Stewart · Rating 5 out of 5]

The art and science of defending the faith. Wow! This was an amazingly challenging and enlightening read.

[Kevin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an intermediate book for the Bahnsen devotee!

[Christopher David · Rating 5 out of 5]

The ideal gateway book to the world of Christian apologetics practiced Biblically.

[Josiah Russell · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book

Great book but I will definitely need to reread it to soak it all in. I didn’t find it the easiest read but well worth it. Bahnsen was a master of his craft.

[Will Balint]

Alright

[Austin Cox · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent.

[Micah Douglas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Interesting critiques in the second half of the book.

[Patrick S. · Rating 5 out of 5]

The lost book of Bahnsen! Bahnsen sets out to write a more straightforward layout for the presuppositional apologetic (aka reformed epistemology). If you've read Jason Lisle "The Ultimate Proof For Creation", this is the grad level or higher level version of that. In fact, you can see where Lisle has borrowed from the fine work of Bahnsen. This is my second year of studying presuppositionalism and it has transformed not only my apologetic method but also strengthened my faith and walk with the Lord. The subjects covered may be a little hard to take in, but a slow reading pace combined with the willingness to look up terms and concepts you might not be familiar with helps. It was also interesting to see Bahnsen critique so called "presuppositionalists" and show that the need to be consistent and declaring God's Truth as the ultimate source and necessity for all truth is imperative.

I would highly recommend this book for those who want a deeper grasp on presuppositionalism. Bahnsen deals with some items more deeply here than in other books on the subject I've read. He does a great job in handling the circularity charge. He also answers "Why if the Holy Spirit can use the worst apologetic method or argument, SHOULD you use presuppositionalism?" He also really hits home "Can the unbeliever really know anything?"

If anything, this shows you what a deep thinking Bahnsen was, how closely he held onto the high truths of God, and his passion for the saved and the lost to know God fully and rely on His Word for the source and ability of to know.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

There is no doubt that Presuppositonal Apologetics (PA) offers a very stout defense of the faith, but I still find myself unconvinced that it is *the way* to do so.

There are several issues that I have with PA and bahnsen muddies the waters instead of clearing them in this book. His "Always Ready" book that was also published posthumously offered a much better defense of Presuppositonalism than this book, and though the name touts it's defensiveness of PA, it isn't defending it against other apologetic methods per se, but mostly focuses on how different people have claimed PA as their way of doing things, but have fallen short of bahnsens own presupposed standard of what PA should look like.

I find classical apologetics a much more thorough way to defend the truth of the Gospel, but would never walk into a discussion of faith without PA in my back pocket.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

What if God doesn't exist? What if He had never revealed Himself? What if the Bible is the fabrication of man? What if the naturalists were right all along?

This would lead to problems. Some of which: how could you exist to read these questions? Why would the words in the sentences make any sense? How could you reason through them? How could you make value judgments? Or know truth?

The fact is, God does exist. He did reveal Himself, and the Bible should be the starting point working these things out.

Bahnsen shows the folly of starting anywhere else, where God's existence and the Bible's reliability become probabilities. If you start there, then you've already conceded defeat. You either presuppose God, or you've cut the branch on which you sit.

[Megan Meisberger · Rating 5 out of 5]

This contains the clearest and most comprehensive explanation of the presuppositional apologetic I have yet encountered. There are also an incredibly helpful justifications given for the necessity of revelational epistemology and the foolishness of autonomous thought. I just wish there was a short, condensed, less academic version to distribute among the Christian masses, so that everyone could use this biblical apologetic, as it is the only appropriate one. Pastors and need to disseminate this doctrine among congregations as well.

[Tim Woody · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my most favorite books on apologetics. Bahnsen really helped me to develope a stronger method to Christian Apologetics. The way he lifts God up as the center and one who we dont measure of weigh against other gods and systems of thought, instead presupposing God and watching as every other system falls around it. Very readable, although it can be a bit technical at times for those who may not be familiar with the lingo.

[Mike · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book. Very clear and complete explanation of presuppositional apologetics.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

A pretty good read as an overview of presuppositional apologetics. But if you're able to read Cornelius Van Til's "Defense of the Faith," I suggest you do that instead.

[Daniel Woodworth · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear and reasonably concise look at presuppositional apologetics. Bahnsen takes an unnecessarily confrontational approach to other apologetics, but is, as usual, excellent in presenting his own.

[London Tiner · Rating 5 out of 5]

Stellar

[Anthony Ray · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bahnsen does an excellent job defending presuppositional apologetics; as far as I could tell.

This book is not for the beginner apologist or philosopher; laymen beware. Bahnsen uses about two dozen technical and philosophical terms so that the untrained reader will soon find himself lost in the weeds.

While I was able to glean quite a bit from this work, it was simply too much too fast for a novice. I'm planning on revisiting after reading some more material, specifically some Van Til. Until then - 3/5