What do you think?
Rate this book
Classical Apologetics
Must a person accept Christianity on faith alone, or is there a reasoned defense for being a Christian? The authors of this book hold that Christianity is eminently reasonable. The primacy of the mind in the Christian faith can be affirmed without denying the importance of the heart. This book embraces reason without rationalism, personal love without personalism, faith without fideism is our capacity to love Him. The book is divided into three parts. Section I is a prolegomenon dealing with the problems and methods of apologetics. Section II develops the theistic proofs and authority of Scripture. Section III is given over to a critique of presuppositionalism in apologetics, particularly with reference to the thought of Cornelius Van Til. Classical Apologetics will help the thoughtful Christian understand his or her faith better, and it will provide more solid grounds for sharing this faith with others.
384 pages, Paperback
First published July 6, 1984
29 people are currently reading
447 people want to read
About the author
John H. Gerstner
68 books20 followersJohn Henry Gerstner was a Professor of Church History at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and Knox Theological Seminary and an authority on the life and theology of Jonathan Edwards.
He earned both a Master of Divinity of degree and a Master of Theology degree from Westminster Theological Seminary. He earned his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Harvard University in 1945. He was originally ordained in the United Presbyterian Church of North America, then (due to church unions) with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Presbyterian Church (USA). In 1990, he left the PCUSA for the Presbyterian Church in America.
Gerstner counted among his students, noted author and preacher, R. C. Sproul, founder of Ligonier Ministries, Dr. Arthur Lindsley, Senior Fellow at the C.S. Lewis Institute, and Dr. Walter (Wynn) Kenyon, Professor of Biblical Studies and Philosophy; Chair of the Philosophy Department and Division of Ministry and Human Services at Belhaven University.
In addition to the books Gerstner had written, he also recorded several lengthy audio courses giving a survey of theology, church history, and Christian apologetics, which are distributed through Ligonier Ministries. Gerstner was non-dispensationalist.
In 1976, a Festschrift was published in Gerstner's honor. Soli Deo Gloria: Essays in Reformed Theology included contributions by Cornelius Van Til, J. I. Packer, Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, John Murray, R. C. Sproul, John Warwick Montgomery, and Roger Nicole.
He earned both a Master of Divinity of degree and a Master of Theology degree from Westminster Theological Seminary. He earned his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Harvard University in 1945. He was originally ordained in the United Presbyterian Church of North America, then (due to church unions) with the United Presbyterian Church in the United States of America and the Presbyterian Church (USA). In 1990, he left the PCUSA for the Presbyterian Church in America.
Gerstner counted among his students, noted author and preacher, R. C. Sproul, founder of Ligonier Ministries, Dr. Arthur Lindsley, Senior Fellow at the C.S. Lewis Institute, and Dr. Walter (Wynn) Kenyon, Professor of Biblical Studies and Philosophy; Chair of the Philosophy Department and Division of Ministry and Human Services at Belhaven University.
In addition to the books Gerstner had written, he also recorded several lengthy audio courses giving a survey of theology, church history, and Christian apologetics, which are distributed through Ligonier Ministries. Gerstner was non-dispensationalist.
In 1976, a Festschrift was published in Gerstner's honor. Soli Deo Gloria: Essays in Reformed Theology included contributions by Cornelius Van Til, J. I. Packer, Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, John Murray, R. C. Sproul, John Warwick Montgomery, and Roger Nicole.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
August 14, 2021
Sproul, R.C., Gerstner, John., Lindsley, Arthur. Classical Apologetics: A Rational Defense of the Christian Faith and a Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984.
There are several main challenges in responding to presuppositionalism. There is no easy way to begin. Another difficulty is that the book is somewhat out of date. For one, Van Til never formalized the Transcendental Argument (hereafter TAG). Bahnsen and Frame fully developed it a decade or so after this book’s publication. Another difficulty is that key Reformed sources weren’t translated at this time. Even though the classical position is correct and matches what one finds in Turretin, Turretin wasn’t yet translated. The same goes for Junius, Olevianus, etc. Yea, even Muller had not yet published his opus.
On a positive note, if presups would make one or two adjustments, their system isn’t very different from classical systems. This leads to probably the most important point in the book. Historic Reformed Christianity distinguished between the order of knowing and the order of being. From such a view, logic is first in man’s order of knowing. God is first in man’s order of being. Some classical authors have used this correct point to say they have refuted presuppositionalism. I don’t see why presups cannot practically use this. They’ll have to change (or better yet, drop) some of their rhetoric on “autonomous” starting points, but much of the system can be salvaged.
Part 1 is the authors’ case for natural theology. It’s not different from any historic Reformed prolegomena. Key idea: “Natural theology refers to knowledge of God acquired through nature...natural theology is dependent upon divine revelation for its content” (Sproul et al, 25).
Key idea 2: “The pagan’s problem is not that he does not know that God is, but that he does not like the God who is” (39). You might be thinking, “This is exactly what presuppositionalism teaches.” That is true, and if that were all presuppositionalism taught, we would be on board. As Sproul will develop the argument later, presuppositionalism wants to say that the pagan knows God but doesn’t have any knowledge of God. He has false knowledge of God. The problem there is that if he has false knowledge of God, then why would he try to suppress it (49)?
Part 2 is the authors’ case for the theistic arguments. This section is good, but almost all of it has been better stated in recent years. Their view of the ontological argument is important for the doctrine of God, so we will spend some time looking at it.
Most forms of the ontological argument begin with the innocent premise, “A necessary being may exist” (Sproul 100). Moreover, there is no logical contradiction in our being able to think about a necessary being. “If we can think of God at all, we are compelled to think that He is. God is being. It is undeniable that we do think of being...We cannot not think of being” (100).
It feels that Gerstner went too fast on this point, for as it stands he has merely proven pantheism. What he does later is distinguish God’s being from our being, but if we can’t help but think about being, then are we thinking about God’s being or ours? This is why Anselm is safer than Jonathan Edwards, and it is to Anselm that we now turn.
Key idea: God is that which none greater can be conceived. If a perfect being has “necessary existence” as one of its properties, then this perfect being has to exist. On a formal level, it works. Anselm’s disciples, of whom I am one, will have to rebut Kant’s criticism, but the argument itself is fairly stable.
Regarding the section on miracles, I just want to deal with Hume’s critique. When Hume attacks miracles as violating natural law and the instances of conformity, he not only gets rid of miracles, he gets rid of anything unusual (151). As the authors note, “Uniformity itself rests upon repetition, a series or sequence of some or similar events. But the series can never be established because before there can be two such similar events there must be a first one. The first, however, would be unique and therefore incredible.”
The Critique of Presuppositionalism
The heart of the matter is this: is the traditionalist sinning by starting with the self instead of God? Van Til will occasionally admit that we can start with temporal facts (CVT: SCE, 120). If he would have consistently worked this into his system, we wouldn’t have much of a problem.
The next problem is that “Van Til confuses the sinner’s rejecting sound knowledge with not having knowledge” (Sproul et al, 216). If the sinner didn’t have any knowledge, then how could we use the TAG with him? He at least has some reason. Unfortunately, Van Til says there is “no logic or reality” between the two (CVT: Reformed Pastor, 199). Here CVT collapses the various kinds of knowledge into knowledge as loving and obeying God. Sproul and Gerstner deliver their first coup de grace: “We cannot even presuppose God except logically. In other words, even to think of the God who can validate logic, we must first think logically or rationally” (Sproul 220). Even more, “the presuppositionalist cannot even use the word God without assuming the law of noncontradiction” (224).
Here is the pastoral danger in rejecting the distinction between order of knowing and order of being: if we don’t have knowledge unless we presuppose God, then how can the sinner even get to the point where he can accept (or reject) the offer? “Van Til has cut off the bridge to knowledge” (228). This is the heart of the critique. The rest of the book is a variation on it.
I am pastorally willing to grant the presuppositionalist almost everything except this one point. I’ve seen in my life and the lives of others were presuppsitionalist young Turks have become either nihilists or sacerdotalists because they had no consistent knowledge.
In any case, and this isn’t that fatal a point to the system, Van Til doesn’t actually begin with God. He begins with the supposition that we should be able to predicate” (233). By his own standards (by what standard?) he is as autonomous as the traditionalist.
Before we end this review, I want to make a somewhat ironic and amusing point on today’s presuppositionalists regarding miracles and charismatic claims. Rushdoony says “to accept miracles on any other ground is in effect to deny their essential meaning” (Rushdoony, By What Standard, 17). The church, by contrast, has always thought of a miracle as corroborating the Gospel. Think about the standard cessationist criticism of miracles: they were used in the early church to certify the apostles’ message. I personally think that is a bad argument, but it gets the idea of miracle correct. Rushdoony, and by implication, presups in general, reverse the process. We presuppose miracles. A miracle is now an empty concept. In any case, you can’t be a cessationist on miracles and accept the presuppositionalist view on miracles.
Final point: the traditional Reformed view says that the Holy Spirit illuminates the unregenerate’s heart (Jonathan Edwards, A Divine and Supernatural Light). On Van Til’s view there is no knowledge to illuminate (CVT: Jerusalem and Athens, 243).
This book has some value in responding to Van Til. It is of limited use concerning later presuppositionalists (Bahnsen, Frame) and the academic ones of today (James Anderson).
Addendum:
This is an introductory response to Bahnsen’s review of Sproul’s Classical Apologetics. I plan a more detailed one later. I left my copy in another town. There are many weaknesses in CVT’s approach, but I have to have my copy in front of me in order to do a full analysis. Lord willing, I should do that in a few weeks.
Response to Bahnsen’s Review
(The original review is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SS4q...)
Bahnsen: He criticizes their attack on secularism because, given their def. Of secularism as limiting reality to the temporal order, the secularist won’t agree with any proof they offer (p. 2).
That’s an odd criticism to make. Presumably, the authors, like every other apologist, Bahnsen included, will attempt to show that the secularist is wrong on that point.
Bahnsen: they cannot legitimately appeal to “natural theology” since on their terms natural revelation assumes special revelation, which assumes the existence of God (2).
The second part of that claim is true, though I don’t see why it is necessarily a problem. Sproul et al admit bias. I think Bahnsen’s target here is probably JW Montgomery.
Bahnsen: their use of Scripture (Ps. 19) doesn’t prove their case, for if natural theology is man’s reflection on natural revelation, then Scripture isn’t doing that.
This isn’t entirely true. Part of the problem is the tendency among presupps to reduce natural theology to nature itself. If that is what natural theology is, then we don’t see the psalmists doing that. On the other hand, natural theology as used by Sproul and the historic Christian tradition includes legitimate inferences from logical foundations, even at times drawing upon non-Christian wisdom. The most notorious point is Paul’s quoting a pantheist philosopher. Evidently, that philosopher had at least one legitimate reflection.
Bahnsen on noetic effects: He takes issue with apologetics as pre-evangelism, as the sinner won’t even agree to an assensus of faith to the propositions without the Holy Spirit (3).
This is simply false. Anyone who has done evangelism has been in situations where an unbeliever will say, “Yeah, that makes sense or I can agree with that but I don’t want to change my life.” Moreover, it is not true in Scripture that one needs the Holy Spirit for intellectual assent. Demons, for example, give intellectual assent to the most important proposition one can make about God.
Bahnsen: he attacks their use of causality (i.e., every effect has a cause) and points to Hume.
Aside from implying Hume’s criticism of causality, Bahnsen gives no reason to believe Sproul is wrong.
Bahnsen on cosmological argument: I’ll grant Bahnsen a point here. I don’t like how Sproul phrased it: if something exists now, then something exists necessarily. There are much better presentations of the cosmological argument and I never liked how Sproul phrased this one. Bahnsen attacks the claim that this cause has the power of being in itself as incoherent. That’s just standard Christian theism. Beings have energia. That’s almost true by definition.
Bahnsen: the authors give us no reason to believe that the world can’t be an infinite regress.
Response: yes they do. The explanation for a cause must be outside that cause itself. If this is true, and Bahnsen has given us no argument on why it isn’t, then the cause will be outside the temporal order.
That’s more or less Bahnsen’s review. He devotes the last page to rescuing Van Til from the charge of fideism. Even if that attempt is successful, it ignores all the real criticisms of Van Til. Consider: does the sinner have false knowledge of God? If he does, then why is he suppressing it? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that he has knowledge of God and that is why he is suppressing it?
There are several main challenges in responding to presuppositionalism. There is no easy way to begin. Another difficulty is that the book is somewhat out of date. For one, Van Til never formalized the Transcendental Argument (hereafter TAG). Bahnsen and Frame fully developed it a decade or so after this book’s publication. Another difficulty is that key Reformed sources weren’t translated at this time. Even though the classical position is correct and matches what one finds in Turretin, Turretin wasn’t yet translated. The same goes for Junius, Olevianus, etc. Yea, even Muller had not yet published his opus.
On a positive note, if presups would make one or two adjustments, their system isn’t very different from classical systems. This leads to probably the most important point in the book. Historic Reformed Christianity distinguished between the order of knowing and the order of being. From such a view, logic is first in man’s order of knowing. God is first in man’s order of being. Some classical authors have used this correct point to say they have refuted presuppositionalism. I don’t see why presups cannot practically use this. They’ll have to change (or better yet, drop) some of their rhetoric on “autonomous” starting points, but much of the system can be salvaged.
Part 1 is the authors’ case for natural theology. It’s not different from any historic Reformed prolegomena. Key idea: “Natural theology refers to knowledge of God acquired through nature...natural theology is dependent upon divine revelation for its content” (Sproul et al, 25).
Key idea 2: “The pagan’s problem is not that he does not know that God is, but that he does not like the God who is” (39). You might be thinking, “This is exactly what presuppositionalism teaches.” That is true, and if that were all presuppositionalism taught, we would be on board. As Sproul will develop the argument later, presuppositionalism wants to say that the pagan knows God but doesn’t have any knowledge of God. He has false knowledge of God. The problem there is that if he has false knowledge of God, then why would he try to suppress it (49)?
Part 2 is the authors’ case for the theistic arguments. This section is good, but almost all of it has been better stated in recent years. Their view of the ontological argument is important for the doctrine of God, so we will spend some time looking at it.
Most forms of the ontological argument begin with the innocent premise, “A necessary being may exist” (Sproul 100). Moreover, there is no logical contradiction in our being able to think about a necessary being. “If we can think of God at all, we are compelled to think that He is. God is being. It is undeniable that we do think of being...We cannot not think of being” (100).
It feels that Gerstner went too fast on this point, for as it stands he has merely proven pantheism. What he does later is distinguish God’s being from our being, but if we can’t help but think about being, then are we thinking about God’s being or ours? This is why Anselm is safer than Jonathan Edwards, and it is to Anselm that we now turn.
Key idea: God is that which none greater can be conceived. If a perfect being has “necessary existence” as one of its properties, then this perfect being has to exist. On a formal level, it works. Anselm’s disciples, of whom I am one, will have to rebut Kant’s criticism, but the argument itself is fairly stable.
Regarding the section on miracles, I just want to deal with Hume’s critique. When Hume attacks miracles as violating natural law and the instances of conformity, he not only gets rid of miracles, he gets rid of anything unusual (151). As the authors note, “Uniformity itself rests upon repetition, a series or sequence of some or similar events. But the series can never be established because before there can be two such similar events there must be a first one. The first, however, would be unique and therefore incredible.”
The Critique of Presuppositionalism
The heart of the matter is this: is the traditionalist sinning by starting with the self instead of God? Van Til will occasionally admit that we can start with temporal facts (CVT: SCE, 120). If he would have consistently worked this into his system, we wouldn’t have much of a problem.
The next problem is that “Van Til confuses the sinner’s rejecting sound knowledge with not having knowledge” (Sproul et al, 216). If the sinner didn’t have any knowledge, then how could we use the TAG with him? He at least has some reason. Unfortunately, Van Til says there is “no logic or reality” between the two (CVT: Reformed Pastor, 199). Here CVT collapses the various kinds of knowledge into knowledge as loving and obeying God. Sproul and Gerstner deliver their first coup de grace: “We cannot even presuppose God except logically. In other words, even to think of the God who can validate logic, we must first think logically or rationally” (Sproul 220). Even more, “the presuppositionalist cannot even use the word God without assuming the law of noncontradiction” (224).
Here is the pastoral danger in rejecting the distinction between order of knowing and order of being: if we don’t have knowledge unless we presuppose God, then how can the sinner even get to the point where he can accept (or reject) the offer? “Van Til has cut off the bridge to knowledge” (228). This is the heart of the critique. The rest of the book is a variation on it.
I am pastorally willing to grant the presuppositionalist almost everything except this one point. I’ve seen in my life and the lives of others were presuppsitionalist young Turks have become either nihilists or sacerdotalists because they had no consistent knowledge.
In any case, and this isn’t that fatal a point to the system, Van Til doesn’t actually begin with God. He begins with the supposition that we should be able to predicate” (233). By his own standards (by what standard?) he is as autonomous as the traditionalist.
Before we end this review, I want to make a somewhat ironic and amusing point on today’s presuppositionalists regarding miracles and charismatic claims. Rushdoony says “to accept miracles on any other ground is in effect to deny their essential meaning” (Rushdoony, By What Standard, 17). The church, by contrast, has always thought of a miracle as corroborating the Gospel. Think about the standard cessationist criticism of miracles: they were used in the early church to certify the apostles’ message. I personally think that is a bad argument, but it gets the idea of miracle correct. Rushdoony, and by implication, presups in general, reverse the process. We presuppose miracles. A miracle is now an empty concept. In any case, you can’t be a cessationist on miracles and accept the presuppositionalist view on miracles.
Final point: the traditional Reformed view says that the Holy Spirit illuminates the unregenerate’s heart (Jonathan Edwards, A Divine and Supernatural Light). On Van Til’s view there is no knowledge to illuminate (CVT: Jerusalem and Athens, 243).
This book has some value in responding to Van Til. It is of limited use concerning later presuppositionalists (Bahnsen, Frame) and the academic ones of today (James Anderson).
Addendum:
This is an introductory response to Bahnsen’s review of Sproul’s Classical Apologetics. I plan a more detailed one later. I left my copy in another town. There are many weaknesses in CVT’s approach, but I have to have my copy in front of me in order to do a full analysis. Lord willing, I should do that in a few weeks.
Response to Bahnsen’s Review
(The original review is here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SS4q...)
Bahnsen: He criticizes their attack on secularism because, given their def. Of secularism as limiting reality to the temporal order, the secularist won’t agree with any proof they offer (p. 2).
That’s an odd criticism to make. Presumably, the authors, like every other apologist, Bahnsen included, will attempt to show that the secularist is wrong on that point.
Bahnsen: they cannot legitimately appeal to “natural theology” since on their terms natural revelation assumes special revelation, which assumes the existence of God (2).
The second part of that claim is true, though I don’t see why it is necessarily a problem. Sproul et al admit bias. I think Bahnsen’s target here is probably JW Montgomery.
Bahnsen: their use of Scripture (Ps. 19) doesn’t prove their case, for if natural theology is man’s reflection on natural revelation, then Scripture isn’t doing that.
This isn’t entirely true. Part of the problem is the tendency among presupps to reduce natural theology to nature itself. If that is what natural theology is, then we don’t see the psalmists doing that. On the other hand, natural theology as used by Sproul and the historic Christian tradition includes legitimate inferences from logical foundations, even at times drawing upon non-Christian wisdom. The most notorious point is Paul’s quoting a pantheist philosopher. Evidently, that philosopher had at least one legitimate reflection.
Bahnsen on noetic effects: He takes issue with apologetics as pre-evangelism, as the sinner won’t even agree to an assensus of faith to the propositions without the Holy Spirit (3).
This is simply false. Anyone who has done evangelism has been in situations where an unbeliever will say, “Yeah, that makes sense or I can agree with that but I don’t want to change my life.” Moreover, it is not true in Scripture that one needs the Holy Spirit for intellectual assent. Demons, for example, give intellectual assent to the most important proposition one can make about God.
Bahnsen: he attacks their use of causality (i.e., every effect has a cause) and points to Hume.
Aside from implying Hume’s criticism of causality, Bahnsen gives no reason to believe Sproul is wrong.
Bahnsen on cosmological argument: I’ll grant Bahnsen a point here. I don’t like how Sproul phrased it: if something exists now, then something exists necessarily. There are much better presentations of the cosmological argument and I never liked how Sproul phrased this one. Bahnsen attacks the claim that this cause has the power of being in itself as incoherent. That’s just standard Christian theism. Beings have energia. That’s almost true by definition.
Bahnsen: the authors give us no reason to believe that the world can’t be an infinite regress.
Response: yes they do. The explanation for a cause must be outside that cause itself. If this is true, and Bahnsen has given us no argument on why it isn’t, then the cause will be outside the temporal order.
That’s more or less Bahnsen’s review. He devotes the last page to rescuing Van Til from the charge of fideism. Even if that attempt is successful, it ignores all the real criticisms of Van Til. Consider: does the sinner have false knowledge of God? If he does, then why is he suppressing it? Wouldn’t it make more sense to say that he has knowledge of God and that is why he is suppressing it?
Want to read
August 14, 2021The authors non-ironically dedicate this book to Van Til, "who has taught a generation that Christ is the Alpha and Omega of thought and life."
Greg Bahnsen was very disappointed with how Van Til's presuppositional apologetics was portrayed in this book. Frame thought that this critique were more serious than previous critiques, while still seriously misunderstanding Van Til's thought.
Here's another review.
Greg Bahnsen was very disappointed with how Van Til's presuppositional apologetics was portrayed in this book. Frame thought that this critique were more serious than previous critiques, while still seriously misunderstanding Van Til's thought.
Here's another review.
March 27, 2009
Very good, and poor, depending.
March 14, 2024
Not a very easy read (both in the sometimes overly full sentences, and also the mere complexity of the ideas being discussed), but fantastic nonetheless.
After outlining classic epistemology and apologetic method (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Reformed Orthodoxy, and Old Princeton), the authors wonderfully outline why the theistic proofs are both valid and prove.
They then turn their attention to the radical new approach of Van Til. In process they show how Van Til and his followers accept the post-Kantian lack of confidence in reason, and indeed reject the entire classic pre-enlightenment realist approach to knowledge. Unlike Dooyeweerd, Van Til, inconsistently, thankfully, tries to recover a place for a rational religion, but there is little foundation for it. Indeed, Van Til, sadly, undermines the entire foundation of Reformed and catholic theology, and introduces a form of paradox theology, absurdity, circular reasoning, and epistemological chaos. He has, in fact, far more in common with Kant and Barth than he ever imagined.
The consequences of his rejection of natural law, his wild inconsistencies, and his distaste for scholastic method (as exemplified in the high orthodoxy of men like Turretin and John Owen) has led many of his followers into all kinds of theistic heresies, and other serious errors (even towards or to Open Theism).
Van Til was a goldy man, as the authors happily acknowledge, and was confessional in his theology (exempt for some highly unhelpful terminology of the Trinity). His teaching and passion brought about a lot of good, from bolder apologetics to theonomy (though with downsides, too). But it is time to assess not only the content of his radical departure from Classic Reformed Theology, but also the many terrible consequences of his flawed epistemology. I also think we can do apologetics much more affectively if we drop the transcendental leaps of faith Van Til advocates. Much better to take Paul as our model.
Loved it. Makes me want to get more fully into the older, Pre-enlightenment theology and philosophy that built the western church and culture.
After outlining classic epistemology and apologetic method (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Reformed Orthodoxy, and Old Princeton), the authors wonderfully outline why the theistic proofs are both valid and prove.
They then turn their attention to the radical new approach of Van Til. In process they show how Van Til and his followers accept the post-Kantian lack of confidence in reason, and indeed reject the entire classic pre-enlightenment realist approach to knowledge. Unlike Dooyeweerd, Van Til, inconsistently, thankfully, tries to recover a place for a rational religion, but there is little foundation for it. Indeed, Van Til, sadly, undermines the entire foundation of Reformed and catholic theology, and introduces a form of paradox theology, absurdity, circular reasoning, and epistemological chaos. He has, in fact, far more in common with Kant and Barth than he ever imagined.
The consequences of his rejection of natural law, his wild inconsistencies, and his distaste for scholastic method (as exemplified in the high orthodoxy of men like Turretin and John Owen) has led many of his followers into all kinds of theistic heresies, and other serious errors (even towards or to Open Theism).
Van Til was a goldy man, as the authors happily acknowledge, and was confessional in his theology (exempt for some highly unhelpful terminology of the Trinity). His teaching and passion brought about a lot of good, from bolder apologetics to theonomy (though with downsides, too). But it is time to assess not only the content of his radical departure from Classic Reformed Theology, but also the many terrible consequences of his flawed epistemology. I also think we can do apologetics much more affectively if we drop the transcendental leaps of faith Van Til advocates. Much better to take Paul as our model.
Loved it. Makes me want to get more fully into the older, Pre-enlightenment theology and philosophy that built the western church and culture.
August 26, 2024
I enjoyed the book! Apologetics is much needed these days and this book covers a number of important areas including why Presuppositionalism isn't a viable option. That's the review nothing more or less at this time.
August 10, 2019
A response to Van Til ‘s presuppositionalism, which raises a number of issues of consistency and contradiction . More notes to follow...
August 1, 2019
I like RC, and I think he is a talented communicator. He conveys classical apologetics very well. It is not the most sophisticated classical apologetics book ever put between two covers, but I enjoyed it as the authors covered a number of important subjects. I recommend Dr. William Craig's "Reasonable Faith" for a more sophisticated Classical Apologetics book.
Having Dr. Gerstner involved with this book makes for an excellent primer to get involved with the classical vs presuppositional apologetic debate. I recommend reading Dr. John Frame's response to this book in an article online after reading this book to help you decide for yourself for which "camp" you agree with.
I, for one, am currently convinced of classical epistemology.
***
Update: After a couple of years since my review, I have actually swapped sides to the presuppositional camp. Once one understands worldview analysis based on presuppositions, the dialectic between rationalism and irrationalism, transcendence and immanence, and seeing the three theories of truths of "perspectives" on Truth, (John Frame explains this so well in his The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God), it is hard to see the world the same way ever again.
I recommend Frame's book highly for those who are interested in christian epistemology.
Having Dr. Gerstner involved with this book makes for an excellent primer to get involved with the classical vs presuppositional apologetic debate. I recommend reading Dr. John Frame's response to this book in an article online after reading this book to help you decide for yourself for which "camp" you agree with.
I, for one, am currently convinced of classical epistemology.
***
Update: After a couple of years since my review, I have actually swapped sides to the presuppositional camp. Once one understands worldview analysis based on presuppositions, the dialectic between rationalism and irrationalism, transcendence and immanence, and seeing the three theories of truths of "perspectives" on Truth, (John Frame explains this so well in his The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God), it is hard to see the world the same way ever again.
I recommend Frame's book highly for those who are interested in christian epistemology.
February 13, 2024
2024: Re-read this again recently and was encouraged by what I read. This book was the push for me out of presuppositional apologetics and renewed my appreciation for classical thought, doctrine, and practice. This will sound pejorative, but I don’t mean it to be - it is just an easier way to explain what I mean. Presuppositionanlism is a seven-headed dragon, which means that it has multiple heads well beyond the simple apologetic method. It teaches very different things about the nature of man and the nature of God that need to be dealt with before one comes to conclusions about the method. If we reduce presuppositionalism to the “by what standard” moniker, we are missing 90% of what presuppositionalism teaches. For me, the analogical knowledge debate was huge and Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley treat it well. For a presuppositional teacher who agrees with the analogical knowledge of classical apologetics, look to Gordon Clark.
2018: One of the best overviews and defenses of classical apologetics. Between Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, there is an absolute wealth of knowledge to glean from and apply. Not only is their defense well structured, but their critique of presuppositional apologetics is voracious and thorough. All the major presuppositional apologists of their time are analyzed, such as Van Til, Rushdoony, and Clark. The authors do not skirt the issues and when their counterparts are correct or make valid points, the authors are charitable and acknowledge it. One of the underlying issues that the authors see among presuppositionalism is a formal misunderstanding of philosophical thought, as well the method and means of the apostles in their defence of the faith, such as Paul in Acts 17. And yet there is much to commend the presuppositionalists for! They are quick to give no ground to those who oppose Christ, they are able in their defence of the faith, and their now popular mantra "By what Standard?" Is a confident and purposeful question that helps get to the root of the issue for many people. They are more biblical than the evidentialists in their approach, but as others have pointed out, outside of the book, their method is valid outside the scope of other religions. For the agnostic or atheist who claims there is no God, their defense is like a wrecking-ball that just obliterates the natural man's offense. But for the Muslim or Mormon, their defense is borrowed and used by many of those religion followers! They give similar and sometimes even the same answers to questions like "How do you know the faith you hold to is true?" With "because of the impossibility of the contrary!" I have had so many Muslim friends say the exact same thing to me in converse, and the replies are very similar to the Mormons ("burning in my bosom") as well.
In any event this book was really helpful, and helped delineate the carryover of man's philosophy into the system of presuppositionalism vs the Biblical philosophy used in classical apologetics, that which Calvin, Turretin, Beza, and others really exemplified in their time. I found it beyond fair and charitable, especially having already read greater than 75% of the corpus of Rushdoony and Van Til. It is a bit heady at times and it is not exactly a page turner, but there is no wasted space in this book.
2018: One of the best overviews and defenses of classical apologetics. Between Sproul, Gerstner, and Lindsley, there is an absolute wealth of knowledge to glean from and apply. Not only is their defense well structured, but their critique of presuppositional apologetics is voracious and thorough. All the major presuppositional apologists of their time are analyzed, such as Van Til, Rushdoony, and Clark. The authors do not skirt the issues and when their counterparts are correct or make valid points, the authors are charitable and acknowledge it. One of the underlying issues that the authors see among presuppositionalism is a formal misunderstanding of philosophical thought, as well the method and means of the apostles in their defence of the faith, such as Paul in Acts 17. And yet there is much to commend the presuppositionalists for! They are quick to give no ground to those who oppose Christ, they are able in their defence of the faith, and their now popular mantra "By what Standard?" Is a confident and purposeful question that helps get to the root of the issue for many people. They are more biblical than the evidentialists in their approach, but as others have pointed out, outside of the book, their method is valid outside the scope of other religions. For the agnostic or atheist who claims there is no God, their defense is like a wrecking-ball that just obliterates the natural man's offense. But for the Muslim or Mormon, their defense is borrowed and used by many of those religion followers! They give similar and sometimes even the same answers to questions like "How do you know the faith you hold to is true?" With "because of the impossibility of the contrary!" I have had so many Muslim friends say the exact same thing to me in converse, and the replies are very similar to the Mormons ("burning in my bosom") as well.
In any event this book was really helpful, and helped delineate the carryover of man's philosophy into the system of presuppositionalism vs the Biblical philosophy used in classical apologetics, that which Calvin, Turretin, Beza, and others really exemplified in their time. I found it beyond fair and charitable, especially having already read greater than 75% of the corpus of Rushdoony and Van Til. It is a bit heady at times and it is not exactly a page turner, but there is no wasted space in this book.
October 29, 2019
The authors do a good job of making a case for classical apologetics, but their critique of presuppositionalism is lacking. Full disclosure: I am a fan of presuppositional methodology. I am not a fan of Van Til’s underlying theology. Like so many critics, the authors here fail to distinguish between the two.
At times they come close to recognizing this, but then claim that a presuppositional apologetic sans fideistic is just classical apologetics. But I disagree.
That’s all I am going to say here for now. Overall this is a worthwhile read.
At times they come close to recognizing this, but then claim that a presuppositional apologetic sans fideistic is just classical apologetics. But I disagree.
That’s all I am going to say here for now. Overall this is a worthwhile read.
May 17, 2020
Naturally, if one sides with a classicist side or a presuppositionalist side it will color how one views the book and its thesis. The main goal of the book is stated in the title; to provide the reader with a defense of the classical method of apologetics and a critique of presuppositionalism. Sproul outlines traditional understandings of epistemology, metaphysics, and thought processes, a critique of modern methodology, from Kant forward, and a critique of presuppositionalism as executed by Van Til, Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and Frame among others. The book is not written in an easily accessible fashion as one must have an understanding of terminology or a basic grasp of the debate or philosophy proper before delving into the book. Personally, I agree with his criticism of presupp methodology, the starting point of reason, the nature of reason and its place in the Christian faith, as well as defending the traditional theistic proofs. But, I realize one may disagree because one holds to the other viewpoint. A tough read, unlike most of Sproul's writings that are easier to grasp, due to the nature of the topic at hand, but a helpful look into classical apologetics from a traditional Reformed perspective.
August 27, 2021
This book is not for the faint of heart- very academic.
I initially read this as more of a formality before seeping deeper into presuppositionalism. However, this book does a good job of pointing out some real inconsistencies, specifically in the realm of circular reasoning in Van Til and his reliance upon paradox to explain God. The book fails in providing a better, more traditional solution to apologetics. The system pushed by Sproul and Gerstner seems to overestimate the unbeliever’s ability to have a worldview that is anything but chaotic, thus being inconsistent with reformed orthodoxy. On the flip side, Van Til advocates and almost hyper-Calvinist view of the non-believer that could encourage one to give up and intellectual defense of God at the start.
Good book, but one that will ultimately send me into not picking an apologetic method until the camps are more clearly defined.
I initially read this as more of a formality before seeping deeper into presuppositionalism. However, this book does a good job of pointing out some real inconsistencies, specifically in the realm of circular reasoning in Van Til and his reliance upon paradox to explain God. The book fails in providing a better, more traditional solution to apologetics. The system pushed by Sproul and Gerstner seems to overestimate the unbeliever’s ability to have a worldview that is anything but chaotic, thus being inconsistent with reformed orthodoxy. On the flip side, Van Til advocates and almost hyper-Calvinist view of the non-believer that could encourage one to give up and intellectual defense of God at the start.
Good book, but one that will ultimately send me into not picking an apologetic method until the camps are more clearly defined.
March 22, 2023
A very clear case for the validity of traditional proofs, the use of reason, and the order of epistemology. The critiques of presuppositionalism, though scathing, are fair. The inconsistency of the process within presuppositional apologetics indicates that this system (basing its claim upon its self-consistency) is unsustainable.
The failure of the system, however, does not denegrate the usefulness of certain points of emphases of presuppositional thought. It merely indicates that a system should not be built upon them.
The failure of the system, however, does not denegrate the usefulness of certain points of emphases of presuppositional thought. It merely indicates that a system should not be built upon them.
March 31, 2022
Excellent and thorough look at apologetics and the Classical view. Most Reformed Christians these days are Presuppositional, but I find the Classical to be a better argument. This book helped me organize my own understanding of the logic that is Following Christ and the Biblical worldview. Many do not realize that Sproul was a personal friend of Van Til and knew his teachings-at least I believe Sproul has mentioned that.
July 23, 2025
The content of the book is really good. However, the print is way too small for a book of this magnitude. The font made for an extremely difficult reading experience. Additionally, the authors often unjustly links Arminianism with overly rationalistic concepts. Their arguments for natural theology and against presuppositionalism were sheer gold. It is ironic that they authors dedicated the book to Cornelius Van Til, a man they debated so rigorously.
April 10, 2021
Completely misunderstand Van Til, but the snarky attitude in dismissing his thought is rather funny if not a bit refreshing in today's politically correct theological world.
Constantly confuse and misunderstand CVT's nuances. Could CVT be clearer? Yes. Is this a full explanation for their amount of strawmen? No.
Constantly confuse and misunderstand CVT's nuances. Could CVT be clearer? Yes. Is this a full explanation for their amount of strawmen? No.
October 31, 2022
Probably too academic for my own good. I trudged through the first half of the book little by little over several weeks, and then finished the second half of the book in about 2-3 days. This was the compare and contrast with presuppositionalism that I was interested in. I hope to read further, but this second half of the book was indeed informative and helpful. Not a page-turner.
May 9, 2025
A good overview of the split between the radically new innovation of presuppositional apologetics and the classical tradition. However, I've heard some (non-presuppositionalists) argue that Sproul misreads Van Til, who might not be nearly as off-the-wall as Sproul makes him out to be. So there's that.
July 2, 2021
I really like how Sproul, Gerstner and Lindsley laid out the Cosmological Argument in this book. Not bad for reformed theologians (I'm kidding, my reformed friends). Seriously, this is a book worth checking out. And it's only 300 pgs. Not a text book.
May 29, 2020
3.5. Some parts are very clear and helpful; some are not. The first three chapters are very helpful at clarifying how we arrived at the modern crisis in apologetics.
Read
July 16, 2019Didn't read all the chapters of the 3rd section. Gives a classical defense of the Christian faith and engages objections from big thinkers like Immanuel Kant. Also provides a critique on presuppositional apologetics.
July 15, 2020
Helpful on the rise of secularism, summaries of philosophical positions, and the basic assumptions behind classical apologetics. The descriptions of the classical theistic proofs were clear but the book gave a poor representation of Van Tillian apologetics.
March 4, 2008
I just don't like Sproul's tone of writing. It always feels like he's condescending. Also, I like Van Til and Frame much better for apologetics.
August 9, 2011
blah blah blah
May 11, 2012
I find the arguments are overly complicated and uninterestingly detailed, and somewhat unconvincing. I wish to respect the classical apologetic, but this book is not too helpful for that end.
August 21, 2012
If evidential great. Presups may disagree
April 29, 2017
Read this in college and re-read it. Important to note my tack on this has completely changed. I loved Sproul for his passion to bring apologetics and theology to the layman. I do believe that in both life and church, the classical Protestant distinctive of the 'priesthood of all believers' is incredibly important. For educating layman, i do applaud Sproul as there are really no ministries that openly try to do this.
As a youngster, i wanted everything defined in a neat little box. Reformed theology does provide someone a distinct, neatly tied belief system. But as i get older, i realize that there is a lot of mystery to God and to life and to how people think and act.
This is important as this book approaches Van Til... i don't think one can wholly have an independent system of belief that is completely rational and observational. I don't think even science can achieve this pristine goal. To reach the divine, we must have some revelation... that is why evangelism must start and end with prayer and being attentive to the Holy Spirit's leading. I have rarely found anyone to come to Christ on reason's merits alone. While i still believe Christianity to be rational... the heart is often the director behind the scenes either embracing or deflecting the truth our soul's need.
As a youngster, i wanted everything defined in a neat little box. Reformed theology does provide someone a distinct, neatly tied belief system. But as i get older, i realize that there is a lot of mystery to God and to life and to how people think and act.
This is important as this book approaches Van Til... i don't think one can wholly have an independent system of belief that is completely rational and observational. I don't think even science can achieve this pristine goal. To reach the divine, we must have some revelation... that is why evangelism must start and end with prayer and being attentive to the Holy Spirit's leading. I have rarely found anyone to come to Christ on reason's merits alone. While i still believe Christianity to be rational... the heart is often the director behind the scenes either embracing or deflecting the truth our soul's need.
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews