Apologetics to the Glory of God by John Frame

Hello, everyone. It's John from RoarNoMore .blogspot .com,

coming to you from a very dark attic. Yes, I live in upstate

New York, and it's kind of depressing because it gets dark now at like, just like a little bit after 5 o 'clock.

So, like 5 .30, it's dark outside, and I miss the summer.

So, all that to say, when it's dark outside and you can't go outside to do anything, what should you do?

Well, you should probably stay inside, because you really don't have a choice, and read books that you didn't get to read during the summer.

Reviewing this book, this is a book I just read, Apologetics to the Glory of God, an

Introduction. I don't know if you can see there, by John M. Frane. It is an apologetics book, obviously.

I mean, it's in the title. And I just wrote a blog about it, and I want to share with you some of the things that I think are good about it, some of the things that I think are bad about it.

Chapter one is called Apologetics, the Basics. Actually, that was a very, very good chapter. It just gets into what is the purpose of apologetics.

Chapter two, The Message of Apologetics. Again, actually a very good chapter. Apologetics as Proof, Some Methodological Considerations.

I actually thought this was a fairly good chapter, because he really reconciles evidentialism and presuppositionalism, sort of.

Let me explain. If you don't know what those terms are, I'll explain them real quick. Evidentialism starts with, basically, man's autonomy.

It doesn't have to. That is really the guy's, is really Frane's point. But most often it starts with, we can observe the world around us, and therefore, based on those observations, based on science and theological and epistemological and the different arguments, we can arrive at theism.

And then from there, we can arrive at, maybe through the resurrection of Christ and the proof there, how Christ is true.

So, Christianity is true because of this. Well, of course, presuppositionalism says, uh -uh, you can't do that.

You rely on God to even meet the preconditions of intelligibility. I mean, you can't even ask the question if it weren't for God giving you, equipping you with the faith necessary to believe that your words actually mean something, that the question is worth asking, that a conclusion is possible to arrive at.

We've talked about presuppositionalism in the past, so if you don't know what it is, go to some of my other blogs.

I think the last one we did was a review of a book by, I want to say,

Lyle, Dr. Jason Lyle, and The Ultimate Proof of Creation.

So go to that blog if you want more clarification. He does actually sort of speak against evidentialism.

I think he calls himself a presuppositionalist, but he kind of broadens the tent and he says, listen, you can use the teleological argument or cosmological argument, or there's many other ones, for God's existence, positive arguments that use the sensory perception and logic and so forth, and you can just place them in a presuppositional framework.

In other words, you aren't granting that man is autonomous and that man can arrive at truth starting with himself. You still are saying that you have to start with God.

He was a little confusing how he explained it, but I guess my takeaway from it was that you can personally understand that you couldn't even ask the question if it weren't for God equipping you with the faculties necessary to ask it.

Some of you, that might have just made your day. You're just like, oh, wow, because it made mine.

I was just like, man, I was sort of writing off everything evidential. To others of you, you're just like, huh, what did he just say?

And don't worry about it if you don't understand it. If you're getting into apologetics, you will understand it eventually.

So, and I would actually recommend this book if you ever wonder which is right, evidentialism or presuppositionalism.

Getting into chapter four, apologetics as proof of the existence of God, I would write that chapter off.

It just sort of summarizes some of those different proofs, but it doesn't even do a good job, I think, of summarizing them and showing how you can apply them.

It's just, I don't know, I didn't find it helpful. Apologetics as proof, chapter five, proving the gospel.

Again, didn't really find this one that helpful either. Chapter six, apologetics as a defense, the problem of evil one, and actually chapter seven is the problem of evil two.

This was slightly helpful, but like, if you have the book, read it, because these chapters

I think are helpful, but don't buy the book because of these chapters. They're not, the only thing

I think I found profitable from it was his critique of the free will argument and why we can't really use that.

He's a reformed apologist, so, you know, and I'm more on the Calvinistic side as well, so some of you may not be,

I don't know, but that's the only thing I found good out of that. His last chapter, actually his second to last chapter, chapter eight, apologetics as offense, semi -good.

I wouldn't buy the book for it, but read it if you have the book. And then this was a horrendous chapter, chapter nine, talking to a stranger.

Why was it horrendous? Because, actually, I will read to you, I readily admit that this is not my own natural inclination.

See, he's basically saying, I don't talk to strangers. I don't witness, I don't evangelize. He says,

I am far better suited to technical discussions than to exchanges with people on the street. Indeed, I rarely enter into such exchanges, since I think

God has equipped me to carry out the Great Commission through the written medium much better than orally. And then he gives some excuses of why he's not equipped to.

Anyways, that was just like, you've got to be kidding me. That's like, that's like, you know, a medical professor who teaches at a medical school trying to tell a doctor what, you know, how to deal with patients when he's never dealt with them himself.

You know, sure, this guy, he might be in his ivory tower, he might be smart and all, but like, really, you don't apply this and then you're going to give me a whole chapter on how to talk to someone when you don't?

I don't know, I just put a bad taste in my mouth. Some of the profitable things, though, because I know

I've gone through most of the sort of unprofitable things. Some of the profitable things that Dr. Frame has to say.

I already went over one of them. He reconciles, kind of reconciles presuppositionalism with evidence and using quote, evidential arguments or classical arguments.

He also, though, this kind of hit me between the eyes, he says, it is interesting that Peter does not urge apologists to be intelligent and knowledgeable, but to deal consistently, to lead consistently godly lives, and that's really important.

This is not about us and our intelligence, this is about Jesus Christ, and you know what? He will, through our weakness, he'll be made strong.

So just lead a godly life, and you can be an apologist, alright? You can defend the faith, and we're all commanded to do that. So, you know, stop trying to, you know, you can pursue academics, but don't try to just be smart and think that's the only thing you need.

It's not about being smart, it's about being godly. Here's another thing. This is about the Trinity.

I thought this was great. He says, 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.

So he basically critiques every system that's not Triune. In the Triune, you know, before the world existed,

God the Father, love God the Son, love God the Holy Spirit, they had unity in diversity. I don't think it was a full and complete and applicable thought that he brought in the book on that, but at least it was kind of intriguing, that one paragraph.

He also says, he talks about circular arguments, and he actually,

I thought that was a great section as well. Those who believe that human reason is the ultimate authority, rationalists, must use arguments, or rather presuppose the authority of reason in their arguments for rationalism.

Those who believe in sense perception must presuppose that in arguments for their philosophy, which is empiricism.

A skeptic must be skeptical of his skepticism, so forth and so on. When it comes to your ultimate authority, you have to make a circular argument.

Every worldview does. What ultimate authority can be self -consistent?

And the only one, I think, is the God of the Bible. That's another great point he makes.

And that's pretty much it. So, should you buy the book? If you're really into apologetics, yes, I think you should.

If you're just looking for, like, hey, I want to be able to apply things and share with some of my more antagonistic friends, then no,

I wouldn't get this book. This is for really the apologist's apologist, someone who not only cares about how to do apologetics, but the methodology of why certain types of apologetics are right as opposed to others.

So, if you're into that, then I recommend the book. If not, then don't buy it.

So, anyways, that is my review of Apologetics to the Glory of God by John M. Frame.