Apologetics to the Glory of God
This is the first book of John Frame's that I have read and I will have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is very well done and covers a lot of ground in a mere 250 pages. Although you can tell that Frame and Schaeffer have a lot in common, the way that they write is thoroughly different. Schaeffer focuses in on showing the historical understanding of thought and then showing the holes and practice of those in the past, while Frame skips all that and goes more general in thought and shows the holes in the thoughts of the atheist, the agnostic and the practical atheist. The former is one who says there is a god but lives like there is none.
I haven't read much of Van Til, but what I have read, I figured that Frame would be a lot like him and give him much praise. While I didn't find the direct opposite in Frame, Frame was very honest when he found Van Til to be lacking and where he found him to be strong. Van Til was known to stay mainly on the defensive and poking holes in the atheist's arguments, but rarely, if ever, went offensive with the atheist. Frame showed both, like Schaeffer did.
Frame's book is technical in parts but also very readable and very enjoyable. He opens up with showing the basics of apologetics and then he goes into showing what the apologist must show while writing or speaking to others. He, like Schaeffer and many others, points to the metaphysical (the study of being), epistimology (the study of knowledge) and ethics.
After giving this lengthy defense, he then shows the gospel as proof and then gives a lengthy answer to the problem of evil. Through this answer he shows that the previous answers to evil, although sometimes helpful, don't really give the final or most thorough answers in of themselves. What he does show is that they almost all have some of the answer, but not the complete answer to the problem of evil. I do like his honest answer in the end to evil though. He simply says that we can give some explanation to evil, but we really don't know the entirety of the answer of why there is evil.
After this section, the final section is devoted to showing why the gospel is true and he does so in a way that I have yet to see. He biblically walks one through the entirety of the Bible to show the problem of man and sin and the redemption of man through Christ. Through this he also dismantles other religions in a few sentences as though they were a mere sidebar to the discussion.
The final chapter is a mock conversation to guide the reader. Admittedly, Frame says this conversation is a bit simplistic and "perfect" in responses from both the defender of the gospel and the opposer. What I found to be helpful in this discussion is that it really served as a conclusion and recap to the entirety of the book.
I truly enjoyed this book and will be one that I continually go to, to aid in my discussions with others that oppose the faith. I will be now picking up some more Frame books to add to my collection and will put him in the top scholars of our era in regards to presuppositional apologetics. I highy recommend this book to any who are looking to answer the tough questions posed by the atheist or seekers of our Saviour. Link to Buy
4 comments:
Hey Seth. Thanks for the review. Frame has his flaws, but I agree that he's a top apologist of our day.
He, like Schaeffer and many others, points to the metaphysical (the study of being), epistimology (the study of knowledge) and ethics.
Metaphysics is the study of the nature of reality. The study of being is ontology (:
I do like his honest answer in the end to evil though. He simply says that we can give some explanation to evil, but we really don't know the entirety of the answer of why there is evil.
What does he mean by "know the entirety"? Is he referring to an exhaustive knowledge of God's plan, or to the answer in principle? If the former, that's a fairly trivial statement. Obviously we very seldom know why any particular evil occurs. But if the latter, I'd have to disagree. We know very well why there is evil in general. We can know the answer in entirety, because it is given us: for the glory of God. That's the entire answer. We don't know the details of the answer, necessarily (ie, how does this or that particular instance of evil glorify God); but we certainly know the answer, in principle, in its entirety.
Regards,
Bnonn
Hey Dom.
As far as metaphysics, everything that Schaeffer, Frame, et al would say is that metaphysics is the study of being and ontology would then be a part of that corresponding study.
As far as the part on evil. You would probably agree with Jay Adams on this point. I would tend to agree with Frame on this as a general answer by saying "God's glory" although true, does not give the questioner the exact answer or the answer in its entirety. Frame continues to beg the question of "why?" where Adams would say that is like being a little kid who follows up every answer from their parent with a "why?"
I get where you are coming from, and ultimately where Adams is coming from. I believe that as a believer I can rest on the notion that it is all for God's glory and be satisfied, but I believe that answer is found wanting by skeptics. So, although I would tell the skeptic my beliefs on the subject I would understand if they said that it was an insufficient answer for our finite minds.
As far as metaphysics, everything that Schaeffer, Frame, et al would say is that metaphysics is the study of being and ontology would then be a part of that corresponding study.
I'm not sure why they'd say that, Seth. Maybe you misunderstood?
Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the nature and ultimate structure and constitution of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.
Ontology is the branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being.
There's obviously some overlap; ontology is metaphysics—but metaphysics is not just ontology.
I believe that as a believer I can rest on the notion that it is all for God's glory and be satisfied, but I believe that answer is found wanting by skeptics. So, although I would tell the skeptic my beliefs on the subject I would understand if they said that it was an insufficient answer for our finite minds.
Oddly, I haven't actually engaged skeptics on the problem of evil all that much. I think it's the most overrated objection to Christianity ever, to be honest. But I have butted heads a few times with the infamous John Loftus, whose atheist fiddle is fitted with just one string (the POE string), and he basically won't touch the Reformed answer because there is no way to mount a successful skeptical response. He just says that it's barbaric and that Reformed theology creates atheists because it's so horrible, and refuses to present any actual argumentation. So I think that although the Reformed answer isn't one that skeptics like, it is one which they cannot successfully refute or undermine or reject.
I've also argued the Reformed answer to the problem of evil against libertarian Christian philosopher Victor Reppert, with the result that his objections effectively died the death of a thousand qualifications. So whether we're addressing atheist skeptics, or Christian skeptics, the Reformed answer is successful, and does constitute a sufficient answer. It just doesn't constitute an answer which many people like or want to agree with.
Regards,
Bnonn
Great Book. You'll want to get his "Doctrine of the Knowledge of God" next.
Post a Comment