Category Archives: Apologetics

Johnson on Van Til: A Rejoinder (Frame & Hays)

Apologetics, Articles, John M. Frame, Steve Hays

“Johnson on Van Til: A Rejoinder” by John M. Frame and Steve Hays

John Johnson has taken the position that Van Tilian apologetics can at most prove a generic theism, but not Christian theism. He further alleges that a Muslim apologist could just as well deploy a presuppositional defense because, in Johnson’s opinion, Van Tilian apologetics offers no way to broker rival religious claims. His final contention is that the presuppositional method robs the Christian apologist of appeal to the Resurrection, in direct contravention of NT practice.

 

The purpose of this paper will not be to offer a full-blown exposition and defense of Van Tilian apologetics. Rather, its aim is limited to a rebuttal of Johnson’s leading contentions. …

Divine Aseity and Apologetics (John M. Frame)

Apologetics, Articles, John M. Frame, Theology

“Divine Aseity and Apologetics” by John M. Frame

The term aseity comes from the Latin phrase a se, meaning “from or by oneself.” In the theological literature, the term designates a divine attribute by which God is “whatever he is by his own self or of his own self.” Since God is a se, he does not owe his existence to anything or anyone outside himself, nor does he need anything beyond himself to maintain his existence. He is not like the idols that depend for their existence on select materials, skilled craftsmen, and ritual offerings (Isa. 40:19-20, 44:15-17, Psm. 50:8-15). Indeed, he has no needs at all (Acts. 17:25). So the terms self-contained, self-existent, self-sufficient, and independent are often used as synonyms for a se. …

The Martin-Frame Debate

Apologetics, Debates, John M. Frame

The Martin-Frame Debate on the Transcendental Argument for the Non-Existence of God

This debate is about Martin’s 1996 article, “The Transcendental Argument for the Nonexistence of God” (TANG), which attempts to reverse the claims of the transcendental argument given by presuppositionalist apologists. The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God demonstrates God’s existence by showing that knowledge itself would be impossible if the Christian God did not exist.

The Fountainhead of Presuppositionalism (J. Oliver Buswell)

Apologetics, Articles, J. Oliver Buswell, Reviews

“The Fountainhead of Presuppositionalism” by J. Oliver Buswell

The origin of the name “Presuppositionalism” was given in a review under that title in The Bible Today for May 1948, page 235. A friendly letter from Professor Carnell, whose recent book was there reviewed, indicates that he at least does not resent the term. He suggests “Inductivism” as a counter designation, and this of course I do not resent. There is this difference, however, those who hold to presuppositionalism are advancing a negative thesis, denying that there is common ground of reasoning between those who accept Christian presuppositions and engage in the spread of the Gospel, and those who do not accept Christian presuppositions and reject the Gospel. The inductionist thesis is positive and partial rather than negative and universal. It is held that ordinary processes of inductive reasoning are valid as a part of the method of evangelism. As a part of the inductive reasoning process, it is further held that there are areas of common knowledge occupied by the Christian evangelist and the unsaved inquirer or doubter. If the unsaved person or persons declare, “The God of the Bible is only a mythological figure,” and the Christian evangelist declares, “The God of the Bible exists as a substantive entity, an actual Being,” there must be some element of common meaning in the terms employed in the two contradictory statements, if the Scriptural conception of “unbelief” has any meaning at all. …

Response to John Gerstner (Greg L. Bahnsen)

Apologetics, Greg L. Bahnsen, Letters

“Response to John Gerstner” by Greg L. Bahnsen

In Dr. Gerstner’s response to my review of his book (Dec. 4) he asserts that the review offers “mere allegations” as to the book’s apologetical position. This plea is weak, disregarding the review’s many substantiating page references.

 

Gerstner asserts the book “already answers” the review’s objections. This is dubious, for were it true, those objections would not have been raised in the first place. For instance, contrary to his claim, there just is no “carefully worked out argument” against Hume in the book. (Let Gerstner rehearse its premises for us.) The fact is, no philosophy department would give passing marks to his “tautological” defense of the law of causality (p. 83). Hume has just been misunderstood. …

A Critique of Classical Apologetics (Greg L. Bahnsen)

Apologetics, Articles, Greg L. Bahnsen, Reviews

“A Critique of Classical Apologetics” by Greg L. Bahnsen

Intellectual respect for Biblically-defined Christian faith is not prevalent in this age. For that reason alone Reformed Christians should readily welcome any honest effort to clarify and strengthen our method of defending the faith, as this book aims to do. We need each other’s help in more faithfully practicing the common task of defending the Word of our common Lord. …

Why I Believe in God (with Introduction and Revisions)

Apologetics, Articles, Cornelius Van Til, Steve Scrivener

“Why I Believe in God” (with introduction and revisions) by Cornelius Van Til and Steve Scrivener

Later below you will find Van Til’s pamphlet called Why I Believe in God. He says he wrote this pamphlet “to point out in simple terminology why I believe in the God of the Bible, the God of historic Reformed theology.” And then he summarizes its message:

 

“The God I believe in is the triune God of the Bible. I believe in this God because He Himself has told me in the Bible Who He is, what I am, and what He, in Christ and by the Holy Spirit, has done for me. Or I might say “has done for men.” I was brought up on the Bible as the Word of God. Can I, now that I have been to school, still believe in the God of the Bible? Well, can I still believe in the sun that shown on me when I walked as a boy in wooden shoes in Groningen? I could believe in nothing else if I did not, as back of everything, believe in this God. Can I see the beams underneath the floor on which I walk? I must assume or presuppose that the beams are underneath. Unless the beams were underneath, I could not walk on the floor.”

Why I Believe in God (Cornelius Van Til)

Apologetics, Articles, Cornelius Van Til

“Why I Believe in God” by Cornelius Van Til

You have noticed, haven’t you, that in recent times certain scientists like Dr. James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington, as well as some outstanding philosophers like Dr. C.E.M. Joad, have had a good deal to say about religion and God? Scientists Jeans and Eddington are ready to admit that there may be something to the claims of men who say they have had an experience of God, while Philosopher Joad says that the “obtrusiveness of evil” has virtually compelled him to look into the argument for God’s existence afresh. Much like modernist theologian Dr. Reinhold Niebuhr who talks about original sin, Philosopher Joad speaks about evil as being ineradicable from the human mind. …