counter create hit Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction - Download Free eBook
Hot Best Seller

Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction

Availability: Ready to download

John Frame distinguishes three main kinds of apologetic: 1. Proof- presenting a rational basis for faith. 2. Defense- answering objections to unbelief. 3. Offense- exposing the foolishness of unbelieving thought. Frame offers a fresh look at probability arguments and gives special attention to the problem of evil. Particularly helpful are his extensive use of Scripture and John Frame distinguishes three main kinds of apologetic: 1. Proof- presenting a rational basis for faith. 2. Defense- answering objections to unbelief. 3. Offense- exposing the foolishness of unbelieving thought. Frame offers a fresh look at probability arguments and gives special attention to the problem of evil. Particularly helpful are his extensive use of Scripture and his presentation of specific lines of argument. A model dialogue in the concluding chapter shows how the various lines of argument work in a conversation with a non-believer. Level: Semi-technical.


Compare

John Frame distinguishes three main kinds of apologetic: 1. Proof- presenting a rational basis for faith. 2. Defense- answering objections to unbelief. 3. Offense- exposing the foolishness of unbelieving thought. Frame offers a fresh look at probability arguments and gives special attention to the problem of evil. Particularly helpful are his extensive use of Scripture and John Frame distinguishes three main kinds of apologetic: 1. Proof- presenting a rational basis for faith. 2. Defense- answering objections to unbelief. 3. Offense- exposing the foolishness of unbelieving thought. Frame offers a fresh look at probability arguments and gives special attention to the problem of evil. Particularly helpful are his extensive use of Scripture and his presentation of specific lines of argument. A model dialogue in the concluding chapter shows how the various lines of argument work in a conversation with a non-believer. Level: Semi-technical.

30 review for Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction

  1. 5 out of 5

    Paul

    I read this book while I was looking into the claims of Christianity. A friend of mine was attending Westminster Seminary at the time and he gave me this book so I could read the mock apologetic dialogue at the end of the book. I read that, as well as the rest. I was an unbeliever, but something clicked in my mind while I was reading it. I could see how Christianity could be rationally defended. How my critiques had been presupposing the falsity of Christian theism. My friend told the news to Jo I read this book while I was looking into the claims of Christianity. A friend of mine was attending Westminster Seminary at the time and he gave me this book so I could read the mock apologetic dialogue at the end of the book. I read that, as well as the rest. I was an unbeliever, but something clicked in my mind while I was reading it. I could see how Christianity could be rationally defended. How my critiques had been presupposing the falsity of Christian theism. My friend told the news to John Frame. Frame scratched his head, and said, "That's interesting, it's not supposed to be an evangelistic book." This book was originally what Frame used to teach his apologetics courses at Westminster west. This explains its introductory nature. The book argues for its title. That is, apologetics, like everything in our life, should be done to the glory of God. And so Frame sets forth a methodology that, he thinks, is God-honoring. This method can be called, though Frame isn't enamored with the name, presuppositionalism. Frame stands in the line of his old professor, Cornelius Van Til. But what is unique about Frame is that he isn't afraid to depart from Van Til at certain points. He tries to be more original in his thinking than many other Van Tillians. I agree with much of what Frame has to say in this book. His emphasis on the personhood, transcendence, immanence, and triunity of a God who covenants with man as of high importance in doing apologetics, is a welcome emphasis that the apologete needs to take into account. And defending the faith, while recognizing the ultimate status God and His word have for our lives, and over our apologetic procedures, is something that isn't repeated enough. I would disagree with Frame in a couple of areas. One example would be his claim, in this book, that the transcendental argument for God's existence as espoused by Bahnsen and Van Til is not a unique kind of argument. It indeed is. But, I would agree with Frame that the transcendental argument isn't a silver bullet. The reason I gave this book 5 stars is because, and this may be cliché, this book is a must have book for your presuppositional apologetics library.

  2. 5 out of 5

    Peter Bringe

    A helpful and biblical outline for Christian apologetics. Frame defines apologetics as proof (the basis for the Christian faith), defense (answering objections to the faith), and offense (exposing the foolishness of unbiblical thought). He organizes his book by these three aspects. Frame does not deal primarily with the practical implementation of apologetics (though he does spend a chapter on it), but he does an effective job at explaining the framework and basis for apologetics. It was especia A helpful and biblical outline for Christian apologetics. Frame defines apologetics as proof (the basis for the Christian faith), defense (answering objections to the faith), and offense (exposing the foolishness of unbiblical thought). He organizes his book by these three aspects. Frame does not deal primarily with the practical implementation of apologetics (though he does spend a chapter on it), but he does an effective job at explaining the framework and basis for apologetics. It was especially interesting for me to see how he interacts with Van Til and recent developments in apologetics. As a student of Van Til's, Frame expounds, explains, gently critiques, and furthers Van Til's perspective. Frame (and Van Til) is a proponent of a "presuppositional" view. The foundational presupposition to his system is the fear of the Lord (i.e. the lordship of Christ) which necessitates the acceptance of the Bible as the Word of God. All apologetical arguments (and all thinking in general) ought to operate (and can only properly operate) according to this presupposition (and thus, the Christian worldview taught in the Bible). Neutrality is not possible. Either one suppresses the knowledge of God or acts in submission to Him. Frame does promote the use of traditional arguments (e.g. the cosmological argument, the moral argument, evidential proofs), but only on a presuppositional basis. "[T]raditional arguments often work. They work because...they presuppose a Christian worldview" (p. 71).

  3. 5 out of 5

    David Bruyn

    Frame is gracious with his opponents, unlike old Corny, who castigates everyone who has ever lived for not thinking as he does. Frame shows a kind of presuppositionalism that does not become ideological and rabid, and is able to integrate evidences and reasons into presuppositionalism.

  4. 4 out of 5

    Jon Harris

    I've been debating with myself for the past couple days as to whether I should review the book Apologetics to the Glory of God by John M. Frame. The book does make some good points, however, there are some issues I have with its communication or lack thereof. In view of its redeeming qualities, I've decided to recommend it but first I want to express these difficulties. Professor Frame seems to expect that his readers are already somewhat familiar apologetics and Reformed apologists since he doe I've been debating with myself for the past couple days as to whether I should review the book Apologetics to the Glory of God by John M. Frame. The book does make some good points, however, there are some issues I have with its communication or lack thereof. In view of its redeeming qualities, I've decided to recommend it but first I want to express these difficulties. Professor Frame seems to expect that his readers are already somewhat familiar apologetics and Reformed apologists since he doesn't really go into detail about any of their arguments. I.E. there's not a real lengthy discussion on the transcendental argument, and the other "classical arguments" (i.e. teleological, cosmological, etc.) are given some time, but I feel like not nearly enough. The book seems get very close to offering a viable defense, and then comes up one penny too short when you realize the chapter ends (when you think it should just be beginning). In reality, Frame's book isn't really a book on "how to" do apologetics. It's more of a book on "what kind" of apologetic approaches Christians should use. Frame attempts in chapter 9 to teach his readers how to talk to strangers using apologetics, but again leaves a lot to be desired. He admits at the beginning of the chapter, "this is not my own natural milieu. I am far better suited to technical discussions than to exchanges with 'people on the street.'" That causes me to wonder, "Then why are you even trying to teach me how to talk to folks on the street?" That's like a professor at medical school who's never worked at a hospital trying to advise an actual doctor on how he should approach patients. Perhaps it's a pet-peeve of mine, but I have a hard time with intellectuals who won't leave their ivory towers to put their actual theories to the test. It's almost (though not quite) like a salesmen who won't use the very thing he's marketing. Frame however does argue that he uses what he markets through the written word, and in some chapters he does communicate quite well. Frame's warnings against having confidence in our own knowledge are well worth the hearing. Commenting on 1 Pet. 3:15-16 Frame states, "It is interesting that Peter does not urge apologists to be intelligent and knowledgeable (although such qualities are certainly helpful), but to lead consistently godly lives." This really serves to give confidence to those who don't think they're "smart," while at the same time shaming the "smart" who aren't godly. The two sins apologists are especially susceptible to are not "speaking the truth in love," and forming heresies in order to be "rational." Frame comments, "don't be an apologist unless your first loyalty is to God - not to intellectual respectability, not to truth in the abstract, not to the unbeliever as such, not to some philosophic tradition." What a slap in the face to many (including myself at times) Christian "debaters" (not "apologists"). Frames arguments for the Trinity (though phrased in such a way which makes it a bit hard to apply to witnessing encounters with unbelievers at least for me) are very stimulating. Since God is both three and one, he can be described in personalistic terms without being made relative to the world. For example, God is love (1 John 4:8). Love of what? If we immediately answer "love of the world," then we have a problem. For on that account the divine attribute of love depends on the existence of the world. And to say that God's attributes depend on the world is to say that God himself depends on the world. As you can see this creates a problem for all non-trinitarian theistic worldviews. Frame's explanation and justification of the "broad" circular nature of every worldview is also rather enlightening. The professor claims: Those who believe that human reason is the ultimate authority (rationalists) must presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for rationalism. Those who believe in the ultimacy of sense experience must presuppose it in arguing for their philosophy (empiricism). And skeptics must be skeptical of their own skepticism (a fact that is, of course, the Achilles' heel of skepticism). The point is that when one is arguing for an ultimate criterion, whether Scripture, the Koran, human reason, sensation, or whatever, one must use criteria compatible with that conclusion. If that is circularity, then everybody is guilty of circularity. How true is that? A circular argument is actually quite unavoidable when referring back to our ultimate authority. However a narrow circle is still logically untenable, at least according to Frame who thinks the unbeliever will not accept it. (Which actually has me wondering whether we should even be arguing on the basis of what an unbeliever will be convinced by? But that's another story...) For instance, saying "The Bible is true because the Bible is true is a "narrow" circle. Evaluating evidence to verify the Bible using Biblical presuppositions, or stating "The Bible is true because without it we couldn't prove anything" however are examples of a broader circle at work. Professor Frame dedicates two chapters to the problem of evil (theonomy) going through ten common Christian "answers." However, by the time your done with Frame's second chapter you'll realize he only implicitly endorses three of them, and explicitly endorses one. I won't go into all the various defenses that can be made, but the most common in recent times has to be the "Free-Will defense." Of course, Frame is a reformed Calvinist so he casts down anything that smacks of autonomy. Really I felt like all the defenses I had given in the past were no longer valid. The "Best-Possible-World Defense," The "Character-Building Defense," and the "Free-Will Defense" (all defenses I've used) seemed to go right out the door for me. As I look back I honestly wonder whether these are "bad" defenses (with the exclusion of the Free-Will Defense which is theologically untenable). Even if Scripture doesn't explicitly endorse a particular answer can one not still use the argument framing the defense as merely a logical possibility (i.e. an escape mechanism)? I'm not sure at this point. What I do know is in both Romans and Job God gives a partial answer to this problem by trumpeting his mighty power and higher purpose which we are incapable of comprehending, and have no right to ask (in the sense a challenge at least). Also, the problem of evil is emotionally satisfied in the person of Christ (In reality it's really more of an emotional problem, not a rational one. I'll explain more in a later post). All other worldview's try to cope with evil and suffering, however only the Christian one can meet it in the person of Christ offering true hope in the midst of difficult circumstances. I feel this issue should be expanded on much more than even Frame did in his two chapters on the subject. I will simply end this portion of the review by saying, in a later post I hope to deal with this problem head on. Since I love saving the best for last, we will now turn our attention to Frame's justification of Classical Apologetic methods in a presuppositional framework. This really has helped me already. I was heading fast towards a position in my own apologetic approach which would have precluded me from "evidential" arguments. And it should be noted: Evidential arguments are wrong when they start with man's autonomy and assume neutrality. However, the classical arguments for God's existence can also be used without assuming those things. Frame writes: I do not think an argument should be criticized because it fails to prove every element of Christian theism. . . Van Til's transcendental argument (like every other argument) is not sufficient, by itself, to prove the existence of the biblical God to everyone's satisfaction. Nor do transcendental considerations exclude arguments that are intended to prove only part of the biblical doctrine of God. I may differ slightly with Frame (though I'm not 100% sure) on whether we should be taking into account people's satisfaction. Something can be true and not satisfying. However, in a sense we are trying to provide answers that unbelievers will take seriously (I haven't reconciled this dichotomy in my mind yet). I can use the "design" argument with most people without having to explain the "preconditions of intelligibility." This is a great advantage because there are some people whom I will never be able to explain the preconditions of intelligibility to. They won't be able to take an intellectual "step back" with me and wrap their minds around the concept. So yes, I can use the easier to understand arguments for God, while at the same time presupposing the Christian worldview to myself all along. We would not even be able to observe God's handiwork without first presupposing that our senses are intelligible, etc. I believe this is Frame's greatest idea- that we can include classical approaches along with presuppositionalism. All in all, I recommend this book for any of the positive reasons I have stated above. I would not endorse this book out of hand without directing the reader towards its useful elements however because I believe there are better books written on many of the other subjects discussed therein. If you are considering purchasing this book send me an email or message me if you would like further clarification of its usefulness.

  5. 4 out of 5

    L. R. Bouligny Bouligny

    John Frame has written an excellent work as an introduction to the subject of apologetics. What makes it so helpful is that it is not only informative, covering a broad range of issues dealing with the subject, but it is also easy to read. Frame’s writing style makes the reader feel that he can grasp these often extremely technical subjects, and get a feel for how the particular topic operates within different apologetic contexts. Accurately subtitled An Introduction, Frame’s work defines what John Frame has written an excellent work as an introduction to the subject of apologetics. What makes it so helpful is that it is not only informative, covering a broad range of issues dealing with the subject, but it is also easy to read. Frame’s writing style makes the reader feel that he can grasp these often extremely technical subjects, and get a feel for how the particular topic operates within different apologetic contexts. Accurately subtitled An Introduction, Frame’s work defines what apologetics is, what it is not, and which method is the most biblical and effective. While written from a presuppositional viewpoint, he briefly examines other views, and instead of totally disregarding them, he shows their strengths and weaknesses, which was extremely helpful. He points out that other forms of apologetics can only get you so far. If a person is attempting to argue from a Classical apologetic position, he is fighting a battle to convince the unbeliever of something that Scripture says he already believes—that there is a God who has created all things and that gives to every man a conscience which discerns between right from wrong. It is the presuppositional viewpoint alone that exposes the unbelievers faulty worldview and renders his arguments inconsistent and contradictory. What was also extremely helpful was how Frame cataloged many of the different arguments that are used to prove the existence of God, and sharing the usefulness for that particular argument. Many of us in Seminary are somewhat foggy on terms that are thrown around in different books we read, such as the Cosmological argument. We have heard that before, but need a refresher as to what exactly that means. Frame goes through many of these popular arguments and evaluates them based on Scripture. Are they helpful? They can be, but do they conclusively prove the Triune God of Scripture? No, they all fall short. Another helpful element about Frame’s book is his discussion of the two-sided usage of apologetics. He stresses that not only is Christian apologetics a defense of the faith, but it is also used offensively, and is effective to expose the faulty reasoning of the atheist. Under the section on defense, the author highlights the most common arguments against the God of the Bible, explains them, and shows how they fall short. The reasons people give for rejecting the God of Scripture are not new, and there is no need to exhaust oneself in using bad arguments as evidence. For the section on apologetics as an offensive weapon, the author shows how to go for the jugular vein when dealing with a professing atheist. I say professing because he is not really an atheist in the truest sense, but rather an idolater, and Frame points this out with great clarity. He notes, “Like atheism, idolatry is an escape from responsibility to the true God. It seeks freedom and autonomy” (196). So, the atheist is running from God to his own self-made god, whether it be the god of reason, or of naturalism. Exposing this fraudulent paradigm is a part of presuppositional apologetics that makes it superior to the other competing forms. Frame’s book will be referenced in my library again and again as I seek to accurately defend God’s truth.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Jacob Aitken

    My review will be on two lines. I will evaluate the book on its own terms and then offer my own criticisms. My criticisms should not detract from the book's initial value. The story of Van Tillian presuppositionalism is similar to the Confederate army: it is a victim of its own success. Ever since the Bahnsen-Stein debate, presups think they can repeat Bahnsen's arguments and gloriously slaughter the opposition. It simply doesn't happen that way. And that's where Frame helps us. For, another pro My review will be on two lines. I will evaluate the book on its own terms and then offer my own criticisms. My criticisms should not detract from the book's initial value. The story of Van Tillian presuppositionalism is similar to the Confederate army: it is a victim of its own success. Ever since the Bahnsen-Stein debate, presups think they can repeat Bahnsen's arguments and gloriously slaughter the opposition. It simply doesn't happen that way. And that's where Frame helps us. For, another problem in presuppositional thinking is the obscurity of its most basic arguments. Few unbelievers (or anybody, for that matter) understands transcendental reasoning. Frame helps us by clearing away a lot of the unresolved issues Bahnsen left us and explaining both the pros AND cons of the TAG. Frame is not being wishy-washy here. He is not "waffling" on the TAG. He is simply being a mature and responsible scholar and many presups need to shut up at this point. Frame tries to be consistent in his application. He touches on the basics in apologetic discourse: evil, creation, etc. And he tries to do all from a Calvinist viewpoint. He even gives a defense of Calvinist predestination. Criticism: To what degree does presuppositionalism actually depend on Reformed soteriology? Be very careful answering this question. On one hand, if you answer, as do most of its adherents, that they stand or fall together, then you have just given the falsificatory conditions for your own worldview. That's a gutsy move and I have seen it destroy many Calvinists. On the other hand, the TAG argument easily works and defends Vatican 1 Roman Catholicism. In fact, it almost works perfectly. At this point we should be *very* grateful for Frame's critiques of TAG!!!!!! I am not so sure I buy Frame's critiques of Free-will. Exactly what type of Free will is he talking about? Is he using that term to simply refer to libertarian free will? Well, I guess I agree with his critiques there. But what about St Thoma Aquinas? Does St Thomas's free will defense necessarily contradict Frame? I have long argued that it does not. And what about St Maximus the Confessor? That changes the entire field of discourse. EVALUATION: This is probably the best primer to presuppositional apologetics. It's not so much that the book is flawed, but that it only applies to a very limited field of discourse and cannot be used in all apologetic encounters.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Adam Calvert

    This introduction to apologetics is of great value. While admittedly not being nearly as in depth as in 'Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, (DKG)' John Frame does a wonderful job of presenting a Biblical view of apologetics. Frame has a good way of making things clear and orderly. And he presents a very compelling theory and method of argumentation in this book. At the same time, however, some of his thoughts raise questions for the reader that he does not answer. (Although he seemingly anticipate This introduction to apologetics is of great value. While admittedly not being nearly as in depth as in 'Doctrine of the Knowledge of God, (DKG)' John Frame does a wonderful job of presenting a Biblical view of apologetics. Frame has a good way of making things clear and orderly. And he presents a very compelling theory and method of argumentation in this book. At the same time, however, some of his thoughts raise questions for the reader that he does not answer. (Although he seemingly anticipates this and frequently references DKG in his footnotes, making me want to read that book all the more). While not strictly adhering to Van Tillian presuppositionalism, Frame does a great job of introducing apologetics from a Biblical mindset - that is, as Christians we should defend the faith without departing from it to some alleged "neutral" ground. And he demonstrates an interesting active method of encountering unbelievers. For those unsure if they are ready to study the theoretical aspect of Biblical apologetics, Frame encourages the reader to read Chapter 9 first (a hypothetical conversation between a Christian and a non-Christian). this will help the reader to see whether or not he would be interested in pursuing the theoretical discussions behind that conversation. I did, and it was compelling enough for me. While this book was a great read and introduced apologetics in an orderly fashion: proof, defense, offense - a companion volume that I would highly recommend is Greg Bahnsen's book, 'Always Ready,' which has a great impact on the heart and application of Biblical apologetics.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Chad Barnes

    This is one of my favorite books on apologetics mainly because of its thorough and honest treatment of the so-called “problem of evil.” Frame identifies/explains the flaws with a number of popular attempts to explain the problem (i.e., the free-will argument, the ), and essentially comes to what seems to the same conclusion as Paul in Romans 9. That said, Frame does provide wonderful detail and explanation along the way, defending God’s perfect goodness and absolute sovereignty while upholding h This is one of my favorite books on apologetics mainly because of its thorough and honest treatment of the so-called “problem of evil.” Frame identifies/explains the flaws with a number of popular attempts to explain the problem (i.e., the free-will argument, the ), and essentially comes to what seems to the same conclusion as Paul in Romans 9. That said, Frame does provide wonderful detail and explanation along the way, defending God’s perfect goodness and absolute sovereignty while upholding human responsibility. Very well done.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Charlie

    This is perhaps the only book ever written by a presuppositional apologist that is attractive even to those who differ with presuppositionalism. Success is the best evidence for a theory; this volume delivers a plan that may well lead there.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Drew

    Great introduction to much of John Frame's thought and presuppositional apologetics (the two go hand in hand!). Recommended for those who enjoy Keller's The Reason for God and are looking for a little more of a challenge. Great introduction to much of John Frame's thought and presuppositional apologetics (the two go hand in hand!). Recommended for those who enjoy Keller's The Reason for God and are looking for a little more of a challenge.

  11. 5 out of 5

    Micah Lugg

    Provided a clear presentation of presuppositional apologetics. After Every Thought Captive, this is the first book I'd recommend on the subject. Provided a clear presentation of presuppositional apologetics. After Every Thought Captive, this is the first book I'd recommend on the subject.

  12. 5 out of 5

    Josef Komensky

    I red this book at my study of Apologetics for a V.E.T.T.I certrificate. First I have to admit, that i have not read the original book Doctrine and knowdlege of God a Bigger, Broader and Better version of this two hunderd of something digest. This book / texbook seems to me consist of two books actually. First is the original text of the book and second is the aboundance of side notes. There is so much of side info , that it seems like if the reader have to read two instead of one single book. S I red this book at my study of Apologetics for a V.E.T.T.I certrificate. First I have to admit, that i have not read the original book Doctrine and knowdlege of God a Bigger, Broader and Better version of this two hunderd of something digest. This book / texbook seems to me consist of two books actually. First is the original text of the book and second is the aboundance of side notes. There is so much of side info , that it seems like if the reader have to read two instead of one single book. Second is the Autoritative I know it all style of the writter. I know it all better - there is nobody exept God himself who can claim differrently. Atleast by the Chapter of Problem of evil was mister/ Pastor John M. Frame humble innough to admit that even He himself was not able to give the only one omnipotent and omniscent answer to the beggining of the time old issue. But he was very quick to add " But thou shall not question of the Lords almigty motives. " There is going on great deal of criticising and questioning of works of other authors - his fellow colleges, perhaps another schollars I dont know and I don' know and I dont care but hte amount of criticism of other schollars , philosophers, churchvaders ectra is astounding. Fourth there is not single page with used literature, or read furder tips. All possible books to read or better to say " better not to read " is to find in the aboundance of the side lines. All with all read this book was for me quite confusing experience. However because of reading this digest i was able to find dousend of name another schollars, historians, philosophers and christian writters worth to look more closely upon.

  13. 5 out of 5

    Christopher David

    Frame is an amazing writer and in this work he distills Van Til's thought in apologetics in very easy to understand terms and explains exceptionally well the particularly Van Tillian terms. He also openly states when he deviates from Van Til's thought such as in the positive use of the transcendental arguement which is helpful to make the distinction. This is a must read for anyone interested in Presuppositional apologetics. Frame is an amazing writer and in this work he distills Van Til's thought in apologetics in very easy to understand terms and explains exceptionally well the particularly Van Tillian terms. He also openly states when he deviates from Van Til's thought such as in the positive use of the transcendental arguement which is helpful to make the distinction. This is a must read for anyone interested in Presuppositional apologetics.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Dave

    I have become thoroughly convinced that presuppositional apologetics is the correct/biblical evangelistic method, through this book and other resources. I find Greg Bahnsen more persuasive than Frame in making a case for the presuppositional approach; however, this is the first book I read on the topic, and being my first exposure to presuppositional apologetics it had a massive effect on me, hence the 4 stars.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Aaron Ventura

    Blazed through this in one sitting so I can't confess to interacting with all of Frame's points. I am very sympathetic to Van Til/Frame/Presup and have yet to hear a persuasive counter-position to the methodology of Bahnsen or Doug Wilson who I am more closely imitative of. Planning to read some anti-presup folks in the future. Blazed through this in one sitting so I can't confess to interacting with all of Frame's points. I am very sympathetic to Van Til/Frame/Presup and have yet to hear a persuasive counter-position to the methodology of Bahnsen or Doug Wilson who I am more closely imitative of. Planning to read some anti-presup folks in the future.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Ana Bachand

    Great introduction to much of John Frame's thought and presuppositional apologetics (the two go hand in hand!). Recommended for those who enjoy Keller's The Reason for God and are looking for a little more of a challenge Great introduction to much of John Frame's thought and presuppositional apologetics (the two go hand in hand!). Recommended for those who enjoy Keller's The Reason for God and are looking for a little more of a challenge

  17. 4 out of 5

    Zachary Wilke

    I am in process of assessing Presuppositionalism. Frame does a great job of avoiding the presup caricature, which made this much more enjoyable than I anticipated. He also offers critiques of Van Til that I appreciated (i.e. certainty and the use of evidence).

  18. 4 out of 5

    Coram Deo Church

    Apologetics to the Glory of God is not currently available at local libraries.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Holly Lazzaro

    Read this in conjunction with lectures by the author for grad school. Pretty awesome experience. This guy is legit.

  20. 4 out of 5

    J. Rutherford

    Fantastic book, my introduction to presuppositional apologetics and epistemology.

  21. 5 out of 5

    Jimmy

    When I was still very new to Van Til’s Presuppositional apologetics, I attempted to read John Frame’s Apologetics to the Glory of God but eventually stopped because it seem to deviate from Van Til’s apologetics in some key areas. In addition, there were names of Christians Frame mentioned who were strangers to me. It seemed back then as if Frame was boxing some shadowy unknown interlocutors, whom he assume his readers were aware of. Some years later, I finally re-read John Frame’s intro When I was still very new to Van Til’s Presuppositional apologetics, I attempted to read John Frame’s Apologetics to the Glory of God but eventually stopped because it seem to deviate from Van Til’s apologetics in some key areas. In addition, there were names of Christians Frame mentioned who were strangers to me. It seemed back then as if Frame was boxing some shadowy unknown interlocutors, whom he assume his readers were aware of. Some years later, I finally re-read John Frame’s introduction to apologetics, and can now say I appreciate what Frame is trying to say. The names are no longer a mystery though Frame should properly introduce them! Early in the book, Frame warns in his preface that some Van Tillian will see his work as “revisionistâ€. I do agree that Frame is in some sense a revisionist Van Tillian, notably with his acceptance of the traditional arguments. In his criticism of the Transcendental argument (69-72), of how the Transcendental argument need additional arguments to support its premises with arguments of the traditional forms, I was disappointed that he didn’t interact more with Van Til’s concept of the “impossibility of the contraryâ€. Published in 1994, Frame even made reference in the book to his former student and colleague Greg Bahnsen but did not interact with what he has to say. Bahnsen (who was still alive at this point) has been one of the chief proponent of the “impossibility of the contrary†argument. Unlike others who have critiqued Van Til (Clark, Sproul and company, etc), Frame actually understands Van Til and doesn’t misrepresent him, which makes his work more valuable for those who wish to strengthen Van Til’s apologetics. Frame’s criticism of Van Til is fairly constructive. In fact, Frame strikes me as a good example of a godly apologist who is humble and charitable, something that can be a short supply among apologists in general. In the book, he expressed his disagreement with Jay Adam’s take on the problem of evil in The Great Demonstration, yet Frame included in the appendix of his work Adam’s response to Frame. Christians who desire to engage in apologetics have a good Christian example to follow in John Frame. Frame has the best summary I have ever read of Van Til’s argument of the One and the Many, and the Trinity as the solution to the dialectical problem of monism/pluralism, continuity/discontinuity in philosophy (46-50). He explained it better than Van Til! This has some influence then with perspectivalism. John Frame’s perspectivalism (different fields and spheres as perspectives, which are inter-related with each other) is evident throughout this work. While I am aware that there is some caution of some Van Tillian toward this as Frame’s revision, I do think the incipient form of perspectivalism in Van Til’s work. I am in general agreement with Frame’s overall effort to demonstrate the rational coherent inter-dependability of the various aspects of Christianity. While perspectival argument can be distinct from the transcendental argument (Frame’s perspectivalism has influenced me: I think the two broad form of arguments are inter-related!), a perspectival form of argument is also a valuable tool in the apologists arsenal, especially in the defense of Christian doctrines as an entire inter-related system.

  22. 4 out of 5

    Jason

    Professor Frame introduction to Apologetics has attempted to pull off the near impossible: appeal to the in depth theological student and the general Christian reader. He nearly pulls it off. His ultimate goal, providing reasons for thinking and explaining the reasons of a Christian's hope is done well enough. The general reader who is not as familiar with debates within the apologetic community or in some of the philosophical and theological concerns may find some of the material hard to follow Professor Frame introduction to Apologetics has attempted to pull off the near impossible: appeal to the in depth theological student and the general Christian reader. He nearly pulls it off. His ultimate goal, providing reasons for thinking and explaining the reasons of a Christian's hope is done well enough. The general reader who is not as familiar with debates within the apologetic community or in some of the philosophical and theological concerns may find some of the material hard to follow. The nine chapters of this 200+ page book can be divided into three sections: a Christian theory of knowledge, historical and contemporary views of the apologetic method and topics in apologetics. Frame is a presuppositional apologist. That is, he is not neutral, nor does he believe anyone else is neutral in how they understand reality, or the Christian faith. Particularly Frame's view, that men are unable to understand, much less accept the Christian faith without an external, supernatural change in their life. The book makes the claim that it aims to clarify the relationship of reason, proofs and evidence to faith, biblical evidence and the lordship of Christ. Frame does this without relying on circular reasoning, and by showing that faith is reasonable and with evidence from the pages of scripture. For the general reader, even among the evangelical community, Frame's work will encourage and challenge them to see just how much personal autonomy in life compares to an understanding of divine sovereignty. Frame's argues that the Biblical position that nature and specifically the Bible are sufficient in of themselves to bear testimony about the work of God are only obscured by the direct denial of their affects. Of particular importance in this book, is just how Frame emphasizes the importance of mystery and faith in aspects of the Christian believer. Understanding that academic thought can often be severely limited by the autonomy of the individual, Frame is comfortable saying that at times we just don't know. His explanation of the mysteries of sovereignty are particularly helpful in regards to his discussion on the problem of evil, atheistic relativism and idolatrous rationalism. If the general reader can get past debates that seem unfamiliar to them, they can benefit greatly by understanding the breadth and depth of Christian apologetic thinking. The lay leader, the teacher, or even someone just wanting to be more educated about the Christian faith will find Frame's discussion on Apologetics as Offense, Defense and Proof quite useful.

  23. 5 out of 5

    Luís Alexandre Ribeiro Branco

    In this book, John M. Frame sheds needed light on the message and method of genuinely Christian apologetics. Giving special attention to application of the truth, he insightfully examines apologetics as proof, defense, and offense. Frame clarifies the relationships of reason, proofs, and evidences of faith, biblical authority, and the Lordship of Christ. He offers a fresh look at probability arguments and gives particular attention to the problem of evil. I couldn't find any weakness in the book In this book, John M. Frame sheds needed light on the message and method of genuinely Christian apologetics. Giving special attention to application of the truth, he insightfully examines apologetics as proof, defense, and offense. Frame clarifies the relationships of reason, proofs, and evidences of faith, biblical authority, and the Lordship of Christ. He offers a fresh look at probability arguments and gives particular attention to the problem of evil. I couldn't find any weakness in the book that raised many of my concerns. i am not saying that the book is perfect but it definitely provides us more strong points and evidence on the matters concern to the absolute of God as creator of the whole universe and also provides us with very good insights on the the arguments related to the existence of God and also the relevance of the Scripture. On page 122, Frame gives us a very striking argument about the importance also of the Scripture. He says: "Scripture itself is one element in the saving message. And the doctrine of the Scripture is not located only in a few texts of the Bible. Rather, it pervades the Scripture. God is very concerned, not only that we believe in Christ, but also that we believe in the Word which tells us about Christ, the very Word of God. God has not only given us salvation in Christ, but also a wonderfully simple way to know about that salvation." I could make a long list of the issues raised while I was reading this book, but main issue for me is the need that we have as Christian to manage well the Word of God but also be aware of the philosophies around us and without fear and anger deal with them, clarify their mistake and show the relevance of the Word and Christ. God is glorified in us when we surround ourselves to Him to be used as a living testimony of his love for humanity.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Jeff Bettger

    It took me a while to get into this book. I am not much of a guy for technical jargon, and this book is full of it. It is well crafted and has some good ideas here and there. It just kept putting me to sleep. However I am not much of an intellectual, and don't really try to pretend I am, so the manual type language of the book is what put me off. Big words without explanation of them make it a hard read. Many guys I am around love this book, but I am not one of them. I would rather recommend Tim It took me a while to get into this book. I am not much of a guy for technical jargon, and this book is full of it. It is well crafted and has some good ideas here and there. It just kept putting me to sleep. However I am not much of an intellectual, and don't really try to pretend I am, so the manual type language of the book is what put me off. Big words without explanation of them make it a hard read. Many guys I am around love this book, but I am not one of them. I would rather recommend Tim Keller's Reason for God, to any person desiring a Biblical approach to apologetics, with a huge hands on approach. The story at the end of this book should be noted as an example of how the formulaic approach to sharing the good news of Jesus can be applied, but I was bummed there was no follow through or relationship. I don't like tons of technicalities, and often just go with the Ghost throughout my life, so this was not a book for me.

  25. 5 out of 5

    Heather

    There are so many things I like about this book. Working in apologetics, there are several theologians I work with who seem to take slightly different approaches to the subject - some more evidentialist, some more presuppositionalist. Because we are worldview ministry and the Probe line is that everyone has a wv, basically we're all presuppositionalists to some extent. Frame's crique is quite helpful. I also really liked how he divided apologetics into offensive, defensive, and proof, and gives b There are so many things I like about this book. Working in apologetics, there are several theologians I work with who seem to take slightly different approaches to the subject - some more evidentialist, some more presuppositionalist. Because we are worldview ministry and the Probe line is that everyone has a wv, basically we're all presuppositionalists to some extent. Frame's crique is quite helpful. I also really liked how he divided apologetics into offensive, defensive, and proof, and gives biblical examples for each. If I end up teaching "Apologetics in a Postmodern World" to this youth group in PA, then I will probably use this portion. It is quite clear and helpful.

  26. 5 out of 5

    Catherine Gillespie

    I’m glad I read the book, although at times it was over my head or denser than I needed. Although it wasn’t so much a practical applications book, I do think that understanding the foundations of how to have a discussion about doctrine, sovereignty, the problem of evil, and other issues that I think come up naturally when you’re having discussions with people with whom you’ve developed relationships. Overall I think the book was worthwhile and I’d recommend it if you want a good foundation in the I’m glad I read the book, although at times it was over my head or denser than I needed. Although it wasn’t so much a practical applications book, I do think that understanding the foundations of how to have a discussion about doctrine, sovereignty, the problem of evil, and other issues that I think come up naturally when you’re having discussions with people with whom you’ve developed relationships. Overall I think the book was worthwhile and I’d recommend it if you want a good foundation in the theories of apologetics or common philosophical questions and objections to faith. {Read my full review here}

  27. 5 out of 5

    Chris Comis

    Frame is such a clear and concise thinker and writer. This book is a great introduction to presuppositional apologetics. But Frame also leaves some elbow room for the classical/evidential approaches as well. I think this is Frame's strength over that of G. Bahnsen. He knows where to draw the line, and where to back off. Plus he's much more pastoral than GB. Frame is such a clear and concise thinker and writer. This book is a great introduction to presuppositional apologetics. But Frame also leaves some elbow room for the classical/evidential approaches as well. I think this is Frame's strength over that of G. Bahnsen. He knows where to draw the line, and where to back off. Plus he's much more pastoral than GB.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Luke Stamps

    Great intro to apologetics from a presuppositional/transcendental perspective. Frame incorporates the best of Van Til but corrects some of his inconsistencies and extreme positions. I especially appreciated how Frame recast the traditional theistic arguments in a transcendental light (ch. 4). The fictional dialogue in ch. 9 helps the reader to see how this method might play out in an actual apologetic encounter.

  29. 4 out of 5

    Jeff Boettcher

    This is probably my best recommendation for a one stop shop for Apologetics. He builds a strong case for how the Bible discusses apologetics, while at the same time recognizing the helpful contributions that traditional apologetics have made. Still not as practical as I would like...

  30. 5 out of 5

    Todd Miles

    This is an excellent primer on apologetics, focused on a presuppositional approach, but correcting some of the extremes of van Til. Frame focuses on apologetics as proof, defense, and offense. He also interacts well with arguments for the existence of God and evidentialism. Highly recommended.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.