What do you think?
Rate this book
Christianity Considered: A Guide for Skeptics and Seekers
Christianity is more than a religion: it is also a complex intellectual tradition. Christians and non-Christians who want to understand the world as it is today have to understand Christianity, too.
Christianity makes objective claims, but also presents a new way of thinking about the world. In A Guide to Christianity for Skeptics and Seekers, renowned theologian Dr. John Frame introduces the reader to the Christian religion and its unique intellectual framework, describing the key pillars of Christian thought and how these shape the Christian worldview.
Covering a range of topics, from the resurrection to the Christian posture toward politics, A Guide to Christianity for Skeptics and Seekers is a valuable guide to understanding the Christian faith as an intellectual tradition.
Useful for both the Christian reader looking for a better understanding of the faith and the skeptical reader who seeks to understand the intellectual tradition that has done much to shape the modern world.
Christianity makes objective claims, but also presents a new way of thinking about the world. In A Guide to Christianity for Skeptics and Seekers, renowned theologian Dr. John Frame introduces the reader to the Christian religion and its unique intellectual framework, describing the key pillars of Christian thought and how these shape the Christian worldview.
Covering a range of topics, from the resurrection to the Christian posture toward politics, A Guide to Christianity for Skeptics and Seekers is a valuable guide to understanding the Christian faith as an intellectual tradition.
Useful for both the Christian reader looking for a better understanding of the faith and the skeptical reader who seeks to understand the intellectual tradition that has done much to shape the modern world.
128 pages, Paperback
Published May 16, 2018
81 people are currently reading
173 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 - 23 of 23 reviews
June 8, 2018
I used to be a presuppositionalist. It was the method I used when defending Christianity on college campuses. I came from the same school of thinking as Frame. I have read all the major presuppositional texts, everything from Van Til to Gordon Clark (Bahnsen, Poythress, Oliphint and more). The literature claims to advance a strong polemic but never delivers on its promise. It presents impressive rhetoric, but after critical analysis, this amounts to nothing more than special pleading (presuppositionalism relies on idiosyncratic terminology; it uses assertion as a means of justification). Once you challenge presuppositionalism, on the basis of its own standards, you find that it quickly falls apart.
Frame’s argument for the existence of God is literally a quote from the Bible:
“…according to Romans 1:19-20 God is clearly revealed in the created world. So everybody knows that God exists…” (p.35)
That is, because the Bible says that everybody knows that God exists, therefore God exists.
“If the Bible is God’s word, then what it teaches is true.
The Bible is God’s word.
The Bible teaches that God exists.
Therefore God exists.” Ibid.
“This is a perfectly valid and sound argument for the existence of God. The two premises are both true, and together they validly imply the conclusion, that God exists.” (p.36)
Frame’s claim is that the above argument is “sound” but remains ineffective without “persuasion,” (Frame believes the Holy Spirit must do the persuading):
"Indeed, the dirty secret of Christian apologetics is this: there is no human argument that is guaranteed to overcome unbelief. But people do sometimes turn from unbelief to belief in God. Essentially this is a supernatural event, an intervention by the Holy Spirit. (pg.35-36)
The problem with the argument, according to Frame, is not truth or validity [even though it is viciously circular] but non-belief. In Frame’s world belief in the irrational is a hallmark of intellectual virtue. A simple question both shatters and exposes Frame’s fallacious reasoning: how does he know the Bible is a word from God? Here Frame has no other recourse but to quote the Bible. If he tries to use the arguments of natural theology he will end up arguing for a different God (see chp.7). Frame knows this; hence, his solution is to assert that his argument is sound, but unpersuasive, because God must cause the non-believer to be persuaded by it. And although this might make Frame and his followers feel better about their position, it does nothing to correct the sorry state of Frame’s polemic. (Frame all but concedes that his position is irrational, this is why he says ascent to its premises requires supernatural intervention). In other words, God is in the business of persuading people to believe in irrational things! But how can Frame’s argument be faulted when the real problem is the non-believer’s inability to affirm the truth of the Bible’s assertions a priori?
Fame’s position amounts to asserting the nature of reality tautologically, irrespective of evidence or sound reasoning.
Before Frame can prove that mankind has a word from God he must prove that God exists. Frame tries to skip this step and simply assert that the Bible is a word from God because it claims to be a word from God. But Frame is exceedingly inconsistent, in another place he says: “…it is good to seek evidence when we are asked to change our beliefs in important ways.” (p.11) This criterion should not exclude Frame’s extraordinary claim that the Bible is the word of God. Frame would never accept this standard in the case of the Koran:
If the Koran is God’s word, then what it teaches is true.
The Koran is God’s word.
The Koran teaches that God exists.
Therefore God exists.
The Bible is not something that fell from the sky fully intact. It was pieced together using rational and empirical criticism from many different sources. Even so, the fact that it exists, the fact that some of its books claim to be from God, is not proof that it came from God. What’s more likely, asked the philosopher David Hume, that someone is “claiming” a book came from God, or that a book actually came from God? The idea that the Bible is from God, because certain books within its pages claim to be from God, does not prove that the Bible is a word from God. Frame would never accept this standard in the case of the Koran and we should not accept it in the case of the Bible. Like Frame said, we should “seek evidence” to test whether or not the claim is true. A historical investigation of the Bible teaches us that the books of the Bible were the result of cultural ideas. They did not come from God but from the culture mythologies in which they were steeped. Frame has much work to do if he wishes to establish the authority of his premises for the existence of God.
Over the course of reading Frame’s text it became clear to me why presuppositionalism cannot produce an apologetic that will ever be convincing to a critical mind: because the entire legitimacy of the enterprise hinges on the fantastic assumption that whatever the Bible says is incontestably true. In this sense presuppositionalism is exceedingly simplistic. When you ask the presuppositionalist 'how he knows what he claims to know' he simply offers a quote from the Bible. (This cannot be what it means to prove something). No Christian would ever accept a quote from the Koran as a priori evidence for the nature of reality. This means presuppositionalism amounts to a form of special pleading: this is one of its unspoken presuppositions (one of its necessary but fallacious epistemological commitments).
It is clear, after reading Frame, that not even the top presuppositional apologists are aware of their assumptions. This is quite a serious charge because presuppositionalism claims to be a form of thinking that begins at the most primitive level of thought. It claims that an analysis of our epistemological commitments will reveal that we have assumptions that "only make sense if we presuppose the truth of the Bible." This is false.
There is one question that manifests this more than any other: does the existence of the Bible presuppose something more primitive than itself? In other words, before one can have a Bible (specifically a Protestant Canon) many extra-biblical things must first take place, and these things do not have the luxury of using the Bible as a premise. This means such actions had to be carried out on the basis of "autonomy" (which in presuppositional terms, is considered the ultimate epistemological sin). The only way to bypass this fatal error is to fallaciously assert that God guided the process, but this solution is post hoc; it arrives too late in the chain of authority.
It was not biblical-presuppositions that guided the textual critics (such assumptions would be impossible as there was not yet a Bible, only errant manuscripts that had to be evaluated)...
So what methodology did these textual critics use? What methodology do they use today? Autonomous methods that defer, not to the authority of scripture, but to the authority of evidence! This might not seem damning, but that's only because one fails to comprehend how it stacks up against the claims of presuppositionalism. Van Til (the founder of presuppositionalism) claimed that if autonomy sits at the bottom level of our thinking then there is no way for the Christian to remove it later when he needs to assert the authority of the Bible. We either start with scripture (and accept its absolute authority in our lives) or we start with autonomy (which would presuppositionally and irreparably negate of the authority of the Bible). The following quotes, from presuppositionalism’s founder and top scholars, confirm what I have said:
“If the natural man is given permission to draw the floor-plan for a house and is allowed to build the first story of the house in accordance with his own blueprint, the Christian cannot escape being controlled in a large measure by the same blueprint when he wants to take over the building of the second story of the house.” Van Til, Van Til's Apologetic, Greg L. Bahnsen, P&R Publishing 1998, Pg.563
“The traditional method had explicitly built into it the right and ability of the natural man, apart from the work of the Spirit of God, to be the judge of the claim of the authoritative Word of God. It is man who, by means of his self-established intellectual tools, puts his ‘stamp of approval’ on the Word of God... God’s Word must first pass man’s test of good and evil, truth and falsity. But once you tell a non-Christian this, why should he be worried by anything else that you say? You have already told him he is quite all right just the way he is!” Ibid. Van Til, pg.552
Bahnsen (who was Van Til’s student) affirms the same thing: "If the apologist treats the starting point of knowledge as something other than reverence for God, then unconditional submission to the unsurpassed greatness of God's wisdom at the end of his argumentation does not really make sense. There would always be something greater than God's wisdom - namely, the supposed wisdom of one's own chosen, intellectual starting point. The word of God would necessarily (logically, if not personally) remain subordinate to that autonomous, final standard. " Greg Bahnsen, Autonomy is No Ladder to Christ's Supreme Authority, 1990
“A person cannot have it both ways regarding his final standard or ultimate reference point. He presupposes and reasons either according to the authority of God or according to some other authority.” Greg Bahnsen, Van til’s Apologetic Readings & Analysis pg.92
Even Frame concedes the point: “…there is a radical opposition, an antithesis, between divine authority and intellectual autonomy. To believe in one you must forsake the other.” Christianity Considered (p.17)
Christians do not actually start with the presupposition of scripture (and neither can they) because the very existence of their Bible presupposes the authority of autonomous principles. The ontological reality of the Bible (that it did not just fall from the sky fully intact) means that the presuppositionalist will always be refuted by his own formula, precisely because the existence of the Bible assumes the authority of non-biblical principles which stand above it.
No presuppositionalist has ever answered this argument; they have merely tried to evade it.
Are you a presuppositionalist? Do you fancy yourself an honest thinker? Then ask the question, did the Bible simply fall from the sky perfectly intact? What had to take place in order to determine what belonged in the Bible? How do textual critics know what to include/exclude? What presuppositions govern this procedure? How could they be biblical when they had to stand in judgment of the Bible itself? If the Bible had to be judged, according to evidence and human reason in order to bring it into existence out of a divergence of manuscripts, what does this say about the so-called presuppositional authority of the Bible? How can it stand as the Ultimate Authority when its very existence presupposes an even greater authority through which it had to pass in order to come into existence? If it had to be judged then it cannot exist as the Ultimate Judge!
Even Frame admits the authority of science in the process of establishing the content of scripture:
“Though we don’t have the actual autographs, we have access to the original text through the science of textual criticism, which compares various manuscript readings to determine the original.” Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord, P&R publishing 2006 pg.66
“People sometimes say it doesn’t make sense for God to inspire a book and then require us to determine its original content by textual criticism, by human means. When you think of transmission as a process carrying the word from God’s lips to our hearts, eventually there will have to be a role for human thought, reason, even science.” Ibid. pg.67
It’s not just that “eventually” there will have to be a “role for reason and science,” but that reason and science occupy the place of highest authority when it comes to matters of textual criticism. Frame knows there is no way around it. But surely this puts Frame in a difficult situation, as a consistent presuppositionalist he understands that, "...to adopt science as a supreme criterion of belief... is to reject the God of the Bible [from] the outset." pg.16
Years ago I had an exchange with Frame (this exchange can still be found online). His approach to my argument was simply to assert that I was "ignorant" of the presuppositional position. In response I provided 79 citations spanning the literature. In Frame's mind rejection of presuppostionalism is synonymous with a failure to comprehend it. But I quoted from every major presuppositionalist! I wasn't the one who made the rules; I was simply manifesting the ramifications of presuppositionalism's own premises. The truth is that presuppositionalism cannot answer my argument because my argument uses presuppositionalism's own criteria... because the actual presuppositions, which stand behind the existence of the Bible, end up proving the existence of an authority which stands above the Bible. I know this is a hard pill for the presuppositionalist to swallow, but not liking it will never amount to a refutation.
Frame says, "... far more important than any argument in leading people to faith is the Spirit of God... the real force of the argument will be hidden unless God's Spirit plants faith in the heart of the hearer or reader." Christianity Considered, Preface
Like Frame’s argument for God, it is assumed that such a Spirit exists simply because Frame reads about it in the Bible. But this is an exceedingly problematic criterion because this is no different from those who believe that Allah exists because they read about him in the Koran. How can this stand as a broad, intellectual criterion? (If this is a valid means of justification for the Christian, then why not for the Muslim)? How can the Christian logically deny the Muslim the right to this same maneuver of justification?
Frame says, "...the process by which one argument becomes more weighty in someone's mind is very mysterious. It has happened to me often. I believe that behind all the processes and causes is God's providence. But I can rarely identify those processes; they are hidden to me. But I know what it is like. It is like a feeling: a feeling of satisfaction or contentment. It is a feeling that says I can end my quest for now. I have a sufficient level of certainty. I have a conviction, and I feel that I can argue it with my readers... believing in God is a way of thinking that suddenly looks and feels right." Ibid. pg.28
What's mysterious about disproving something or refuting something; what’s mysterious about validating or invalidating a claim with evidence? Frame says "God does it" because this is what he reads in the Bible. The Muslim says "Allah does it" because this is what he reads in the Koran. Psychology tells us that the solidification of belief has nothing to do with Holy Spirits. We can actually explain it empirically. If Frame was born into a Muslim family, into a Muslim country, chances are he would be Muslim. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it.
Frame, in the aforementioned citation, defines Christian persuasion as “a feeling." [For Frame certainty is feeling; conviction is proof of truth.] Frame says he "feels" that he can argue his “convictions” with his readers, but this is likely to get him in trouble, because feeling that one has the ability, and actually having the ability, are two separate things.
One can’t help but recall the warning of Nietzsche: “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”
Frame's view of argument appears to be totally subjective. Imagine presenting this kind of reasoning in the court of law: "I'm sorry your honor but the real force of my argument is hidden because The Great Spirit has decided not to reveal it today."
The point Frame is making is essentially that Christian belief is irrational and totally subjective, indefensible by evidential and rational standards. (This is why one must commit to it a priori). In this sense (though presuppositionalists have long tried to deny the charge) their position amounts to nothing more than fideism. {Fideism holds that religious truths are inaccessible to human reason… cannot be established by reason or evidence, thus reducing religion to irrational faith, feeling, emotion.]
Frame says, “…it is common for people today to believe that science is the most reliable test of truth. Science relies on the evidence of the senses… But it also uses sophisticated instruments, mathematical formulae, complicated hypothesis, and so on… [but] on that norm… the God of the Bible is excluded from consideration.” (p.16)
This is false, no claim is “excluded from consideration” on rational or evidential grounds, but every claim is held to a higher standard than Frame’s subjectivity. The problem is not the criteria, but that Frame cannot substantiate his assertions if he has to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Frame says, “Sense experience is one widely accepted criterion for belief… And we can see that such a norm, consistently applied, will affect every belief that we have… Such a norm will exclude the God of the Bible from the outset of the discussion, for he cannot be seen and heard…” (pg.15-16)
Notice that Frame’s reason for rejecting rational and evidential criteria is the incredible fact that they would invalidate his claim regarding the authority of the Bible. This is astounding! Evidential and rational methods should be rejected because they would end up excluding the existence of God? But these methods have already proven their authority (among other things) by bringing the Bible itself into existence!
Frame wants the luxury of being able to say that his argument is powerful, yet it failed because it was not magically inculcated by the Holy Spirit. What's the point of arguments then? Wouldn't it be more consistent simply to quote from the Bible (hoping the Holy Spirit will persuade the listener to believe)? Isn't the ultimate conclusion of Frame's logic (regardless of what he asserts to the contrary) that arguments don't matter? Indeed, this is why he says that God often uses “very bad” arguments (p.36).
To note: I reject the claim that presuppositionalism offers any argumentative power; it merely offers empty assertions, which it falsely frames as arguments.
In the following quote Frame is exceedingly transparent about the futility of arguments for the existence of God:
"…the dirty secret of Christian apologetics is this: there is no human argument that is guaranteed to overcome unbelief. But people do sometimes turn from unbelief to belief in God. Essentially this is a supernatural event, an intervention by the Holy Spirit. (pg.35-36)
This is irrational but consistent Christianity in a nut-shell: you are either blessed by The Great Spirit with saving faith, or else you remain ignorant and damned because The Great Spirit has chosen to leave you in darkness. The “dirty secret of Christian apologetics” is that they don’t actually matter. The Holy Spirit is the one who chooses to bestow the gift of belief...
{{{To read the rest of this view go to jerseyflight (dot) com}}}
Frame’s argument for the existence of God is literally a quote from the Bible:
“…according to Romans 1:19-20 God is clearly revealed in the created world. So everybody knows that God exists…” (p.35)
That is, because the Bible says that everybody knows that God exists, therefore God exists.
“If the Bible is God’s word, then what it teaches is true.
The Bible is God’s word.
The Bible teaches that God exists.
Therefore God exists.” Ibid.
“This is a perfectly valid and sound argument for the existence of God. The two premises are both true, and together they validly imply the conclusion, that God exists.” (p.36)
Frame’s claim is that the above argument is “sound” but remains ineffective without “persuasion,” (Frame believes the Holy Spirit must do the persuading):
"Indeed, the dirty secret of Christian apologetics is this: there is no human argument that is guaranteed to overcome unbelief. But people do sometimes turn from unbelief to belief in God. Essentially this is a supernatural event, an intervention by the Holy Spirit. (pg.35-36)
The problem with the argument, according to Frame, is not truth or validity [even though it is viciously circular] but non-belief. In Frame’s world belief in the irrational is a hallmark of intellectual virtue. A simple question both shatters and exposes Frame’s fallacious reasoning: how does he know the Bible is a word from God? Here Frame has no other recourse but to quote the Bible. If he tries to use the arguments of natural theology he will end up arguing for a different God (see chp.7). Frame knows this; hence, his solution is to assert that his argument is sound, but unpersuasive, because God must cause the non-believer to be persuaded by it. And although this might make Frame and his followers feel better about their position, it does nothing to correct the sorry state of Frame’s polemic. (Frame all but concedes that his position is irrational, this is why he says ascent to its premises requires supernatural intervention). In other words, God is in the business of persuading people to believe in irrational things! But how can Frame’s argument be faulted when the real problem is the non-believer’s inability to affirm the truth of the Bible’s assertions a priori?
Fame’s position amounts to asserting the nature of reality tautologically, irrespective of evidence or sound reasoning.
Before Frame can prove that mankind has a word from God he must prove that God exists. Frame tries to skip this step and simply assert that the Bible is a word from God because it claims to be a word from God. But Frame is exceedingly inconsistent, in another place he says: “…it is good to seek evidence when we are asked to change our beliefs in important ways.” (p.11) This criterion should not exclude Frame’s extraordinary claim that the Bible is the word of God. Frame would never accept this standard in the case of the Koran:
If the Koran is God’s word, then what it teaches is true.
The Koran is God’s word.
The Koran teaches that God exists.
Therefore God exists.
The Bible is not something that fell from the sky fully intact. It was pieced together using rational and empirical criticism from many different sources. Even so, the fact that it exists, the fact that some of its books claim to be from God, is not proof that it came from God. What’s more likely, asked the philosopher David Hume, that someone is “claiming” a book came from God, or that a book actually came from God? The idea that the Bible is from God, because certain books within its pages claim to be from God, does not prove that the Bible is a word from God. Frame would never accept this standard in the case of the Koran and we should not accept it in the case of the Bible. Like Frame said, we should “seek evidence” to test whether or not the claim is true. A historical investigation of the Bible teaches us that the books of the Bible were the result of cultural ideas. They did not come from God but from the culture mythologies in which they were steeped. Frame has much work to do if he wishes to establish the authority of his premises for the existence of God.
Over the course of reading Frame’s text it became clear to me why presuppositionalism cannot produce an apologetic that will ever be convincing to a critical mind: because the entire legitimacy of the enterprise hinges on the fantastic assumption that whatever the Bible says is incontestably true. In this sense presuppositionalism is exceedingly simplistic. When you ask the presuppositionalist 'how he knows what he claims to know' he simply offers a quote from the Bible. (This cannot be what it means to prove something). No Christian would ever accept a quote from the Koran as a priori evidence for the nature of reality. This means presuppositionalism amounts to a form of special pleading: this is one of its unspoken presuppositions (one of its necessary but fallacious epistemological commitments).
It is clear, after reading Frame, that not even the top presuppositional apologists are aware of their assumptions. This is quite a serious charge because presuppositionalism claims to be a form of thinking that begins at the most primitive level of thought. It claims that an analysis of our epistemological commitments will reveal that we have assumptions that "only make sense if we presuppose the truth of the Bible." This is false.
There is one question that manifests this more than any other: does the existence of the Bible presuppose something more primitive than itself? In other words, before one can have a Bible (specifically a Protestant Canon) many extra-biblical things must first take place, and these things do not have the luxury of using the Bible as a premise. This means such actions had to be carried out on the basis of "autonomy" (which in presuppositional terms, is considered the ultimate epistemological sin). The only way to bypass this fatal error is to fallaciously assert that God guided the process, but this solution is post hoc; it arrives too late in the chain of authority.
It was not biblical-presuppositions that guided the textual critics (such assumptions would be impossible as there was not yet a Bible, only errant manuscripts that had to be evaluated)...
So what methodology did these textual critics use? What methodology do they use today? Autonomous methods that defer, not to the authority of scripture, but to the authority of evidence! This might not seem damning, but that's only because one fails to comprehend how it stacks up against the claims of presuppositionalism. Van Til (the founder of presuppositionalism) claimed that if autonomy sits at the bottom level of our thinking then there is no way for the Christian to remove it later when he needs to assert the authority of the Bible. We either start with scripture (and accept its absolute authority in our lives) or we start with autonomy (which would presuppositionally and irreparably negate of the authority of the Bible). The following quotes, from presuppositionalism’s founder and top scholars, confirm what I have said:
“If the natural man is given permission to draw the floor-plan for a house and is allowed to build the first story of the house in accordance with his own blueprint, the Christian cannot escape being controlled in a large measure by the same blueprint when he wants to take over the building of the second story of the house.” Van Til, Van Til's Apologetic, Greg L. Bahnsen, P&R Publishing 1998, Pg.563
“The traditional method had explicitly built into it the right and ability of the natural man, apart from the work of the Spirit of God, to be the judge of the claim of the authoritative Word of God. It is man who, by means of his self-established intellectual tools, puts his ‘stamp of approval’ on the Word of God... God’s Word must first pass man’s test of good and evil, truth and falsity. But once you tell a non-Christian this, why should he be worried by anything else that you say? You have already told him he is quite all right just the way he is!” Ibid. Van Til, pg.552
Bahnsen (who was Van Til’s student) affirms the same thing: "If the apologist treats the starting point of knowledge as something other than reverence for God, then unconditional submission to the unsurpassed greatness of God's wisdom at the end of his argumentation does not really make sense. There would always be something greater than God's wisdom - namely, the supposed wisdom of one's own chosen, intellectual starting point. The word of God would necessarily (logically, if not personally) remain subordinate to that autonomous, final standard. " Greg Bahnsen, Autonomy is No Ladder to Christ's Supreme Authority, 1990
“A person cannot have it both ways regarding his final standard or ultimate reference point. He presupposes and reasons either according to the authority of God or according to some other authority.” Greg Bahnsen, Van til’s Apologetic Readings & Analysis pg.92
Even Frame concedes the point: “…there is a radical opposition, an antithesis, between divine authority and intellectual autonomy. To believe in one you must forsake the other.” Christianity Considered (p.17)
Christians do not actually start with the presupposition of scripture (and neither can they) because the very existence of their Bible presupposes the authority of autonomous principles. The ontological reality of the Bible (that it did not just fall from the sky fully intact) means that the presuppositionalist will always be refuted by his own formula, precisely because the existence of the Bible assumes the authority of non-biblical principles which stand above it.
No presuppositionalist has ever answered this argument; they have merely tried to evade it.
Are you a presuppositionalist? Do you fancy yourself an honest thinker? Then ask the question, did the Bible simply fall from the sky perfectly intact? What had to take place in order to determine what belonged in the Bible? How do textual critics know what to include/exclude? What presuppositions govern this procedure? How could they be biblical when they had to stand in judgment of the Bible itself? If the Bible had to be judged, according to evidence and human reason in order to bring it into existence out of a divergence of manuscripts, what does this say about the so-called presuppositional authority of the Bible? How can it stand as the Ultimate Authority when its very existence presupposes an even greater authority through which it had to pass in order to come into existence? If it had to be judged then it cannot exist as the Ultimate Judge!
Even Frame admits the authority of science in the process of establishing the content of scripture:
“Though we don’t have the actual autographs, we have access to the original text through the science of textual criticism, which compares various manuscript readings to determine the original.” Frame, Salvation Belongs to the Lord, P&R publishing 2006 pg.66
“People sometimes say it doesn’t make sense for God to inspire a book and then require us to determine its original content by textual criticism, by human means. When you think of transmission as a process carrying the word from God’s lips to our hearts, eventually there will have to be a role for human thought, reason, even science.” Ibid. pg.67
It’s not just that “eventually” there will have to be a “role for reason and science,” but that reason and science occupy the place of highest authority when it comes to matters of textual criticism. Frame knows there is no way around it. But surely this puts Frame in a difficult situation, as a consistent presuppositionalist he understands that, "...to adopt science as a supreme criterion of belief... is to reject the God of the Bible [from] the outset." pg.16
Years ago I had an exchange with Frame (this exchange can still be found online). His approach to my argument was simply to assert that I was "ignorant" of the presuppositional position. In response I provided 79 citations spanning the literature. In Frame's mind rejection of presuppostionalism is synonymous with a failure to comprehend it. But I quoted from every major presuppositionalist! I wasn't the one who made the rules; I was simply manifesting the ramifications of presuppositionalism's own premises. The truth is that presuppositionalism cannot answer my argument because my argument uses presuppositionalism's own criteria... because the actual presuppositions, which stand behind the existence of the Bible, end up proving the existence of an authority which stands above the Bible. I know this is a hard pill for the presuppositionalist to swallow, but not liking it will never amount to a refutation.
Frame says, "... far more important than any argument in leading people to faith is the Spirit of God... the real force of the argument will be hidden unless God's Spirit plants faith in the heart of the hearer or reader." Christianity Considered, Preface
Like Frame’s argument for God, it is assumed that such a Spirit exists simply because Frame reads about it in the Bible. But this is an exceedingly problematic criterion because this is no different from those who believe that Allah exists because they read about him in the Koran. How can this stand as a broad, intellectual criterion? (If this is a valid means of justification for the Christian, then why not for the Muslim)? How can the Christian logically deny the Muslim the right to this same maneuver of justification?
Frame says, "...the process by which one argument becomes more weighty in someone's mind is very mysterious. It has happened to me often. I believe that behind all the processes and causes is God's providence. But I can rarely identify those processes; they are hidden to me. But I know what it is like. It is like a feeling: a feeling of satisfaction or contentment. It is a feeling that says I can end my quest for now. I have a sufficient level of certainty. I have a conviction, and I feel that I can argue it with my readers... believing in God is a way of thinking that suddenly looks and feels right." Ibid. pg.28
What's mysterious about disproving something or refuting something; what’s mysterious about validating or invalidating a claim with evidence? Frame says "God does it" because this is what he reads in the Bible. The Muslim says "Allah does it" because this is what he reads in the Koran. Psychology tells us that the solidification of belief has nothing to do with Holy Spirits. We can actually explain it empirically. If Frame was born into a Muslim family, into a Muslim country, chances are he would be Muslim. The Holy Spirit has nothing to do with it.
Frame, in the aforementioned citation, defines Christian persuasion as “a feeling." [For Frame certainty is feeling; conviction is proof of truth.] Frame says he "feels" that he can argue his “convictions” with his readers, but this is likely to get him in trouble, because feeling that one has the ability, and actually having the ability, are two separate things.
One can’t help but recall the warning of Nietzsche: “Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies.”
Frame's view of argument appears to be totally subjective. Imagine presenting this kind of reasoning in the court of law: "I'm sorry your honor but the real force of my argument is hidden because The Great Spirit has decided not to reveal it today."
The point Frame is making is essentially that Christian belief is irrational and totally subjective, indefensible by evidential and rational standards. (This is why one must commit to it a priori). In this sense (though presuppositionalists have long tried to deny the charge) their position amounts to nothing more than fideism. {Fideism holds that religious truths are inaccessible to human reason… cannot be established by reason or evidence, thus reducing religion to irrational faith, feeling, emotion.]
Frame says, “…it is common for people today to believe that science is the most reliable test of truth. Science relies on the evidence of the senses… But it also uses sophisticated instruments, mathematical formulae, complicated hypothesis, and so on… [but] on that norm… the God of the Bible is excluded from consideration.” (p.16)
This is false, no claim is “excluded from consideration” on rational or evidential grounds, but every claim is held to a higher standard than Frame’s subjectivity. The problem is not the criteria, but that Frame cannot substantiate his assertions if he has to play by the same rules as everyone else.
Frame says, “Sense experience is one widely accepted criterion for belief… And we can see that such a norm, consistently applied, will affect every belief that we have… Such a norm will exclude the God of the Bible from the outset of the discussion, for he cannot be seen and heard…” (pg.15-16)
Notice that Frame’s reason for rejecting rational and evidential criteria is the incredible fact that they would invalidate his claim regarding the authority of the Bible. This is astounding! Evidential and rational methods should be rejected because they would end up excluding the existence of God? But these methods have already proven their authority (among other things) by bringing the Bible itself into existence!
Frame wants the luxury of being able to say that his argument is powerful, yet it failed because it was not magically inculcated by the Holy Spirit. What's the point of arguments then? Wouldn't it be more consistent simply to quote from the Bible (hoping the Holy Spirit will persuade the listener to believe)? Isn't the ultimate conclusion of Frame's logic (regardless of what he asserts to the contrary) that arguments don't matter? Indeed, this is why he says that God often uses “very bad” arguments (p.36).
To note: I reject the claim that presuppositionalism offers any argumentative power; it merely offers empty assertions, which it falsely frames as arguments.
In the following quote Frame is exceedingly transparent about the futility of arguments for the existence of God:
"…the dirty secret of Christian apologetics is this: there is no human argument that is guaranteed to overcome unbelief. But people do sometimes turn from unbelief to belief in God. Essentially this is a supernatural event, an intervention by the Holy Spirit. (pg.35-36)
This is irrational but consistent Christianity in a nut-shell: you are either blessed by The Great Spirit with saving faith, or else you remain ignorant and damned because The Great Spirit has chosen to leave you in darkness. The “dirty secret of Christian apologetics” is that they don’t actually matter. The Holy Spirit is the one who chooses to bestow the gift of belief...
{{{To read the rest of this view go to jerseyflight (dot) com}}}
June 23, 2018
This is a great, concise read for non-Christians to peer into the reasons and thoughts that Christians have regarding the different aspects of life from art to politics to their beliefs in the Creation, sin, Christ, the Resurrection, redemption and grace. I would recommend that any non-Christian who is interested in how Christian thought works to pick up this book for a quick explanation. I would also recommend Christians to read this book to perhaps help guide their vocabulary when explaining concisely to others what Christian belief is. This book is replete with references to Scripture, which is the core of Christian belief. Hopefully, non-Christians who pick up this book and who may have previously been averse to or daunted daunted by reading the Bible for any reason will feel drawn to approach the Bible and read it!
January 3, 2021
Kind of a modern Mere Christianity for the high brow audience of non-believers. And a very good read. Any time where I didn't think the argument was that persuasive, the last sentence or two in the chapter re-oriented everything he had said previously and brought it all together.
September 16, 2025
Solid short book that covers a lot of the practical aspects of the Christian worldview biblically. Also a good example of presuppositional apologetics.
March 30, 2021
I left with some great nuggets from each chapter. This book made me want to read more of Frame in general. I’m glad I read it but I’m not sure if I was a skeptic of the faith... if I’d be moved after reading it.
November 26, 2018
Those familiar with John Frame know he has written massive tomes on deep theological issues, so this book is quite an achievement in that it summarizes much of Frame’s thought in just 114 pages. So, the book serves as a great introduction to John Frame, but more importantly, it’s a very helpful introduction to Christianity.
Although this book was written for the unbeliever, the early chapters are just as beneficial for the believer, as Frame begins defending the faith using a presuppositional method. This is the idea that unbelief springs more from the attitude of the heart than from some allegedly objective, unbiased intellectual analysis. “It boils down to a policy of believing what you want to believe and being skeptical about what you don’t want to believe.” (10). In fact, Frame says he became a Christian in part by being skeptical about skepticism, and developing a “reluctance to be persuaded by the more fashionable forms of unbelief.” (9).
The reason we come to any settled worldview conviction has much to do with the “web of trust” in which we are immersed. In other words, when we don’t know what to believe, we most often resort to trusting authorities we admire and trust. Most people don’t think much about how many of their deepest convictions are simply beliefs they assume to be true because others believe them to be true. The gay marriage issue (ch. 25) is a good example of this. How wise was it, Frame asks, to overturn a universal and established moral standard (traditional marriage) within the span of just 50 years? (102). Nonetheless, that’s what happened — people changed their beliefs on the issue not because of careful analysis, but mainly because certain cultural and political authorities have told them what to think. So many of our deepest beliefs are like this, and this goes for Christians and atheists alike.
The point is that belief is largely epistemological — that is, it has to do with how we come to know things. The unbeliever should at least acknowledge that his or her thinking is not as unbiased, neutral and objective as he/she thinks it is.
Eventually Frame gets away from the philosophical and discusses the basics of the Christian life, including doctrine, spiritual disciplines, and issues related to politics and science. My one critique is that unbelievers might find the earlier material on presuppositions to be too esoteric, and Christians might find the middle portion about Christian doctrine and practices to be overly basic. But in any case, this book does successfully meets its goal of providing an overview of Christianity to interested inquirers.
Although this book was written for the unbeliever, the early chapters are just as beneficial for the believer, as Frame begins defending the faith using a presuppositional method. This is the idea that unbelief springs more from the attitude of the heart than from some allegedly objective, unbiased intellectual analysis. “It boils down to a policy of believing what you want to believe and being skeptical about what you don’t want to believe.” (10). In fact, Frame says he became a Christian in part by being skeptical about skepticism, and developing a “reluctance to be persuaded by the more fashionable forms of unbelief.” (9).
The reason we come to any settled worldview conviction has much to do with the “web of trust” in which we are immersed. In other words, when we don’t know what to believe, we most often resort to trusting authorities we admire and trust. Most people don’t think much about how many of their deepest convictions are simply beliefs they assume to be true because others believe them to be true. The gay marriage issue (ch. 25) is a good example of this. How wise was it, Frame asks, to overturn a universal and established moral standard (traditional marriage) within the span of just 50 years? (102). Nonetheless, that’s what happened — people changed their beliefs on the issue not because of careful analysis, but mainly because certain cultural and political authorities have told them what to think. So many of our deepest beliefs are like this, and this goes for Christians and atheists alike.
The point is that belief is largely epistemological — that is, it has to do with how we come to know things. The unbeliever should at least acknowledge that his or her thinking is not as unbiased, neutral and objective as he/she thinks it is.
Eventually Frame gets away from the philosophical and discusses the basics of the Christian life, including doctrine, spiritual disciplines, and issues related to politics and science. My one critique is that unbelievers might find the earlier material on presuppositions to be too esoteric, and Christians might find the middle portion about Christian doctrine and practices to be overly basic. But in any case, this book does successfully meets its goal of providing an overview of Christianity to interested inquirers.
June 11, 2018
Christianity Considered by John Frame is billed as “a guide for skeptics and seekers.” The review that convinced me to buy the book likened it to Mere Christianity in that it was supposed to be an explanatory book of apologetics for people who want to better understand the basic tenets of orthodox Christian faith. That got me interested because, to my knowledge, there hasn’t been a comparable work and the aging nature of Lewis’ book (now approaching almost 70 years old!) continues to lessen its effectiveness. Unfortunately, Christianity Considered doesn’t live up to that high calling. Mere Christianity began life as a series of radio address, broadcast on the BBC. Aimed at the workingman in the streets, Lewis endeavored to explain the Christian faith without Christian jargon. As such he made his case for Christianity using the arguments of children, toy soldiers, oranges, and the like. And although John Frame does occasionally reach for a more earthly metaphor, his book is filled more often with citations of Rudolph Bultmann, discussions of epistemology, and reference to tautologies. That doesn’t make it a bad book, but it does narrow the range of its effectiveness. Whereas Mere Christianity could effectively reach the blue collar workingman on the street who listened to World News on the BBC, Christianity Considered is more likely to find an audience with the white collar academic type who listens to All Things Considered on NPR.
December 28, 2025
So many presuppositional apologetics books are written to the Christians; but what about addressing the non-Christians? Here in this book John Frame writes this work with the non-Christian in mind. As the title suggests he wants non-Christians to consider Christianity. The subtitle explains: “A Guide for Skeptics and Seekers.” John Frame has written works on Christian theology, philosophy and apologetics and is someone that can write on this topic.
There are twenty-nine chapters in this book spread out over 128 pages which means the chapters are short but I appreciate that because it is to the point and Frame writes clearly and biblically. The first chapter is titled “Christianity as Intellectual Radicalism” and the second chapter is also a good early chapter since Frame argues why you are not fully educatged until you have considered Christian truth claims. The next chapter is why it seems so difficult today to believe in Christianity and chapter four through six is on believing and various aspects such as autonomy, reason, will and emotions. Chapter seven then consider the uniqueness of the Biblical God with the next chapters on why believe in God which I thought could have been longer but it is developed more in the following chapters on right, wrong and God and belief and a discussion about how everything is evidence for God. Frame in chapter twelve goes over God speaking to us which pivots to chapters about the Scripture and then several chapters on Jesus follows after that. There’s also practical considerations in this book too, where chapter 18 talks about the Holy Spirit as a segway to talk about reading the Scripture, prayin and going to church as well as the church in the world. Chapters twenty three onwards talks about various academic disciplines from religion, philosophy, morality, politics and science. Chapter 28 then discusses about the return of Jesus with chapter twenty being the Epilogue.
I enjoyed this book and I felt Frame doesn’t shy away from theology after all sharing with the non-Christians the truth of Christianity means also sharing the contents of the Bible in terms of doctrines. Frame’s book is worth reading if you are a non-Christians. Christians can learn from it as well. No doubt some might think Frame could have wrote a book with more arguments; but for a short work for non-Christians to begin thinking about considering Christianity, I think the brevity is a plus. I recommend it.
There are twenty-nine chapters in this book spread out over 128 pages which means the chapters are short but I appreciate that because it is to the point and Frame writes clearly and biblically. The first chapter is titled “Christianity as Intellectual Radicalism” and the second chapter is also a good early chapter since Frame argues why you are not fully educatged until you have considered Christian truth claims. The next chapter is why it seems so difficult today to believe in Christianity and chapter four through six is on believing and various aspects such as autonomy, reason, will and emotions. Chapter seven then consider the uniqueness of the Biblical God with the next chapters on why believe in God which I thought could have been longer but it is developed more in the following chapters on right, wrong and God and belief and a discussion about how everything is evidence for God. Frame in chapter twelve goes over God speaking to us which pivots to chapters about the Scripture and then several chapters on Jesus follows after that. There’s also practical considerations in this book too, where chapter 18 talks about the Holy Spirit as a segway to talk about reading the Scripture, prayin and going to church as well as the church in the world. Chapters twenty three onwards talks about various academic disciplines from religion, philosophy, morality, politics and science. Chapter 28 then discusses about the return of Jesus with chapter twenty being the Epilogue.
I enjoyed this book and I felt Frame doesn’t shy away from theology after all sharing with the non-Christians the truth of Christianity means also sharing the contents of the Bible in terms of doctrines. Frame’s book is worth reading if you are a non-Christians. Christians can learn from it as well. No doubt some might think Frame could have wrote a book with more arguments; but for a short work for non-Christians to begin thinking about considering Christianity, I think the brevity is a plus. I recommend it.
October 16, 2018
I’ve listened to John Frame’s lectures on iTunes U for a while now. I appreciate his ability to communicate truth in an enjoyable way. It seems to me that he is always attempting to “dumb down” what he says so he doesn’t talk over his students’ heads. He does so with a sense of humor that I appreciate. This book is in the “dumb down” vein. It’s quite short, and most “chapters” are less than a few pages. I can appreciate that in a way, because it’s easy to pick up for a few minutes, then put down and reflect. The only problem I had was that I felt like it was too shallow. Like instead of making chapters that can be read in 60 seconds, maybe a bit more explanation...
I do realize he has written and lectured extensively and probably exhaustedly on some of the topics he discusses, and he does reference his other works when appropriate.
Frame is a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetically method, and it shows through here - which I also appreciate. He starts at fundamentals, like logic, morality, reason, etc. and goes through the Biblical redemptive narrative, contrasting the “old mind” with a “new” - one that is regenerated by the Sprit of God and enabled to believe and see things through a Christian worldview. Overall, a good and quick read. It would be a good primer before getting into Frame’s more in-depth writings or lectures.
I do realize he has written and lectured extensively and probably exhaustedly on some of the topics he discusses, and he does reference his other works when appropriate.
Frame is a presuppositionalist when it comes to apologetically method, and it shows through here - which I also appreciate. He starts at fundamentals, like logic, morality, reason, etc. and goes through the Biblical redemptive narrative, contrasting the “old mind” with a “new” - one that is regenerated by the Sprit of God and enabled to believe and see things through a Christian worldview. Overall, a good and quick read. It would be a good primer before getting into Frame’s more in-depth writings or lectures.
July 12, 2018
Frame has contributed a helpful little book on basic concepts and ideas related to the Christian faith. Each chapter is best seen as a one-to-three page reflection on a particular doctrine or cultural idea that has shaped the way Christians and non-Christians see the Christian faith. Frame's new-mind / old-mind paradigm allows him to acknowledge that, without a "new mind of Christ", the unbeliever will not see the Christian faith for what it really is. In so much as Frame offers brief, practical clarity on morality, philosophy, prayer, and the like, he succeeds. Frame does fall into the trap of oversimplifying some points, going so far as to say that the bible is like a "love letter" from God (81). This oversimplification emphasizes the centrality of humanity over the centrality of God. Most importantly, Frame adequately describes the return of Jesus and future judgment but fails to say anything regarding Heaven or Hell. It's clear from this that one glaring hole in Frame's book is any practical summary on what eternal life means to believers and unbelievers. Without some mention of eternal life (especially the role or purpose of Hell), it's hard to advocate for Frame's book as an adequate "consideration" of Christianity.
February 15, 2024
Good Overview of Presuppositional Apologetics
Frame presents the biblical and philosophical foundations for the Christian Worldview. It is also a useful intro to apologetics. Frame ties moral obligation to rational obligation, and shows that obligation makes little sense in a worldview based on a worldview that assumes an impersonal view of absolute reality.
At one point Frame gives a useful heuristic for three types of religion (coinciding with his triperspectivalism): he notes that there are religions of law, self-realization, and religions of fate. This is important and I wish he would have tied it to a Pascalian Wager since one of the main arguments against the Wager assumes that all religions think there is a hell to avoid. This isn’t true in the “orthodox” understandings of various religions. For instance, most eastern religions don’t have a hell. If they do they have had contact with Christian missionaries. Anyway, interesting avenues.
Frame presents the biblical and philosophical foundations for the Christian Worldview. It is also a useful intro to apologetics. Frame ties moral obligation to rational obligation, and shows that obligation makes little sense in a worldview based on a worldview that assumes an impersonal view of absolute reality.
At one point Frame gives a useful heuristic for three types of religion (coinciding with his triperspectivalism): he notes that there are religions of law, self-realization, and religions of fate. This is important and I wish he would have tied it to a Pascalian Wager since one of the main arguments against the Wager assumes that all religions think there is a hell to avoid. This isn’t true in the “orthodox” understandings of various religions. For instance, most eastern religions don’t have a hell. If they do they have had contact with Christian missionaries. Anyway, interesting avenues.
July 6, 2019
I enjoyed this short, simple book. Frame deliberately writes 3 page chapters that cover huge topics in a clear and direct manner. For the uninitiated, it is written in a simple format that allows you to follow the argument. For those with more background, it sparks thoughts of other writings.
This book is designed, as the subtitle says, as a guide for skeptics and seekers. That is it’s best audience.
The only criticism I would make is that it argues for a conservative American political stance in several later chapters to illustrate other points. This has the potential to put some readers offside unnecessarily.
This book is designed, as the subtitle says, as a guide for skeptics and seekers. That is it’s best audience.
The only criticism I would make is that it argues for a conservative American political stance in several later chapters to illustrate other points. This has the potential to put some readers offside unnecessarily.
May 30, 2024
I’m a Christian, an apologetics and philosophy lover, and I travel in more Reformed circles…which means this should have been right up my alley! But this is just a confusing book. It comes off as lazily put together, dismissive of big questions, and hastily compiled. He tries to touch on everything, but he does so in a shallow way that provides little explanation or insight. He makes big claims, then doesn’t support them. He claims this is written for skeptics, but the only person I would recommend this to is a young teenager who already had a Christian foundation. Maybe that’s just Frame’s Presuppositionalism showing…
August 11, 2018
Frame does an admirable job of explaining how Christianity makes sense as worldview, but I’m not sure that an unbeliever would find it satisfying. He does point out that it makes more sense from the inside, which is definitely true, but it probably seems more like an excuse for a weak argument from the perspective of someone on the outside. I think that a skeptic would find Tim Keller’s “Making Sense of God” more enlightening and persuasive.
October 26, 2018
Frame is a deep thinking, heavy hitting Christian theologian and apologist. Here he puts his hand to writing a clear and simple definition and defense of the Christian faith. The subtitle is “a guide for skeptics and seekers”; and I think it would be a great read for Christians who want to share their faith with skeptics and seekers.
December 24, 2018
Christianity Considered is written for the skeptic of Christianity. Dr. Frame articulated the reasonableness of the Christian religion in way that was helpful and without shaming the skeptic. He also wove a gospel presentation into the book so that it was not merely arguing for the rational nature of the Faith, but also calling skeptics to believe in Christ.
April 29, 2023
I don't know why others gave it anything less than 5 stars. Skeptics and Seekers with the old mind or the semi-old mind as the author calls it?
As concise as the book is and each chapter is...Very informative, insightful, thoroughly biblical, and gracious yet incisive...what other adjectives are there for the writing and the writer?
As concise as the book is and each chapter is...Very informative, insightful, thoroughly biblical, and gracious yet incisive...what other adjectives are there for the writing and the writer?
June 26, 2018
Solid and helpful, and I was pleasantly surprised by the insight in his small chapter on politics.
April 25, 2019
Couldn't finish it. Tried to give pre-sup another shot but the extreme circularity is dishonorable.
October 23, 2021
A poor go all around at tackling Christian apologetics. Didn't care for the theological or the philosophical arguments. 1 star. Leave this one on the shelf.
March 1, 2024
Libro simple pero claro respecto a dudas que un no creyente puede tener acerca de las doctrinas cristianas.
Muy bueno.
Muy bueno.
June 23, 2024
The real re-imagination of apologetics.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews