Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction

Rating:
Summary: An Intro to Semi-Van Tillian Apologetics
Review: John Frame, once a student of Cornelius Van Til, provides "new" light upon the topic of apologetic methodology in his work, Apologetics to the Glory of God. I say "new" in quotes because this work was written in 1994, and much has been said since. Nevertheless, Frame does make some contribution to the discussion. I take it that his main emphasis is that apologetics has to do with one's "heart-committment." Some original contribution has do with direct vs indirect arguments (also negative vs positive argumentation). Quite a bit, however, is just regurgitated from other books (i.e. The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God) - but what else is to be expected of an introduction like this? And that is not totally original with Frame. Other philosophers have clearly recognized various types of arguments. Rather, Frame's contribution of them has to do with the role of the traditional arguments indirectly proving a transcendental conclusion. There is a nice discussion at the end of the book regarding the book, Classical Apologetics. Frame locates some misunderstanding that the authors of that book make regarding presuppositionalism.

I noted this is a semi-Van tillian approach. In what way is it van tillian? It is Van Tillian in that Frame is correct that reasoning is not this neutral process that occurs independently of commitments to any worldview in particular. But Frame is not totally on board with Van Til (or Bahnsen for that matter). Frame thinks that the traditional proofs might be needed to "supplement" the transcendental argument. What Van Til and Bahnsen mean, more precisely, is that these other arguments are illustrative. They are not, however, a group of syllogisms that prove - independently of the Christian worldview - the truth of the Christian worldview. So, it is this point that makes Frame Semi-Van Tillian (c.f. Bahnsen's answer to Frame from Covenant Media Foundation).

Now what about the argumentation in this book? This is why Frame deserves a three star rating. Much of what he says is correct and it is good. However, Frame has a M.Phil from Yale. I kept asking myself, "what happened to Yale?" Let me provide an example. Frame discusses different arguments that have traditionally been provided for God's existence. When he discusses the ontological argument, specifically Anselm's, he raises the good point about how "perfection" implies things for Anselm that others could not agree with (e.g., a Buddhist conception of perfection differs from a Christian conception). Unfortunately, Frame concludes, "the ontological argument proves the biblical God only if it presupposes distinctively Christian values and a Christian view of existence" (117). This is simply wrong. Anselm's ontological argument fails even if the Christian concept of perfection or existence is correct (and they are!). Furthermore, Frame seems to lump the different ontological arguments into one group. This too is wrong. Plantinga's modal argument is quite different from Descartes'.

To end on a high note, Frame does make some good points. For instance, I was pleased to see his discussion of different theodicies or defenses to the problem of evil (e.g., Clark's ex lex argument, Irenaeus' soul-making theodicy, Plantinga's free-will defense). It is good to see that some people are interested in giving christocentric answers to this problem.

So, Frame's book has some good points to make. Other times, his arguments are just really weak or simply wrong. A few times, I'm left wondering what exactly is the relationship that apologetics has to whatever he was talking about (I have an idea, but it is only because I'm familiar with CVT's discussion of the relationship of theology and apologetics - contra B.B. Warfield); Frame just didn't make the point explicit. Hence, mediocre book. I think his DKG is worth more time reading. On the other hand, if you're interested in being an "expert" on apologetic methodology, then you're stuck having to read this book.

Rating:
Summary: Good Introduction
Review: This introduction by Frame is to be commended for recognizing proper apologetic priorities - that our biggest apologetic battles should not be with other Christians over apologetic method, but with non-Christians who are outside the Kingdom. Frame refuses to play contentious games over apologetic method, choosing instead to take what he believes is the best (the most Biblical) from each approach and incorporate it into a generally presuppositional approach that emphasizes his version of the transcendental argument.

Frame, following Van Til, spends a good bit of time in this book arguing that atheism in particular, and all non-Christian thought in general, is guilty of being both rationalistic and irrationalistic at the same time in ways that are incoherent. Frame strongly believes that only Christianity is capable of avoiding this serious problem, and that in our discussions with non-Christians, the incoherence of his system should be an important part of our apologetic in terms of playing offense.

His transcendental twist on more traditional forms of apologetics is good for several reasons. First, contra Van Til, Frame acknowledges that a transcendental argument, in order to be persuasive, needs to incorporate elements of classical and evidential apologetics (though Van Til was not totally against these things at all, he just seemed a bit reticent to incorporate them into his own system). The transcendental twist is clearly driven by Frame's conviction that metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics inform each other and are all essential to knowledge. Frame's basic point is that without God, intelligibility is impossible. We cannot understand concepts like cause, motion, evidence, ethics, or anything else without presupposing God. It is here that the reader will see Frame's Calvinist theology, where Romans 1 takes center stage in appraising man's ability to think rightly without God. Frame's discussion of what unregenerate man does and doesn't know about God, and how this impacts on how much 'common ground' the Christian and non-Christian share is quite good and in my view, is far more helpful than Van Til's or Clark's formulation of this problem.

The strengths of Frame's apologetic, first of all, is that it is flexible. His perspectivalism, coupled with his transcendental twist, really enables the Christian to start just about anywhere with a non-Christian in terms of apologetic discussion. Frame provides good tools for starting with metaphysics in dealing with philosophically sophisticated non-Christians, or for non-Christians who care far more about things like ethics, the Christian can start there as well. His appraisal of atheism as incoherent is also quite good, and he provides solid tools upon which we can demonstrate its incoherence to folks who subscribe to it. His secondary embrace of evidentialism as defensive apologetics is also welcome, as is his insistence that positive apologetics are needed in order to make a persuasive argument for Christianity, rather than simply doing negative apologetics in the hopes that people will see that Christianity is the only thing left standing.

Frame's treatment of the problem of evil is good, in that he attempts to erect a Biblically based theodicy rather than a philosophical one without Biblical warrant. As others have pointed out, his rejection of the free-will defense is courageous and absolutely correct as a matter of exegesis. However, his greater-good defense is something I found to be a bit lacking, in that it's good for as far as it goes, but actually raises serious concerns that Frame does not really address.

The other weakness is that while Frame does try to make presuppositional apologetics accessible at the street level (which was a major failure of both Van Til and Clark), I suspect many readers who are not fanatical about apologetics will still be confused and unsure of how to use a good bit of the central pieces of Frame's approach in their interactions with non-Christians. It seems somewhat clear to me that absent a background in philosophy and epistemology, too much of Frame's approach will fall on bewildered ears that don't know what to do with most of the material in this book. In this respect, while those who are familiar with Frame's perspectivalism will indeed find this book to be an introductory work, I suspect that most who are not familiar with Frame's approach will find this book to be far more difficult to get through and practically use.

So this is a good, but improveable effort.

Rating:
Summary: Good intro for understanding Christian presuppositionalism
Review: This was a nice book, in that it shows and introduces the reader to the method of defending Christianity by reasoning transcendentally (ie, argument by presupposition). The book does not go that far into the subjects and never gets very complex, but it is nice for what it intends to accomplish as an introduction.

If you like(d) this book, be sure to check out Greg L. Bahnsen's _Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis_ (generically speaking- Bahnsen agrees more with Van Til than Frame does) and also Stephen E. Parrish's _God and Necessity: A Defense of Classical Theism_ for more on this kind of argumentation.