Someone I know wanted to know how to do this, so I made this up for him.
This is a short one-page review; there were things I appreciated about Frame’s book, but given the short nature of the review, I filled it with what I saw as problems in his work.
Right on the first page, Frame gives away what I believe to be his tendency to eisegete the Biblical text. He uses 1 Peter 3:15-16 as his premier verse for apologetics, pointing out that apologetics may be defined as, “the discipline that teaches Christians how to give a reason for their hope” (p. 1). While at first glance, this might not seem to show any tendency toward eisegesis, it becomes clearer as Frame moves farther into his explanation. “In the larger context, Peter is telling his readers to do what is right, despite the opposition of unbelievers (vv. 13-14). He tells us not to fear them. Surely it was not his view that in apologetics we should set forth something less than the truth, out of fear that the truth itself might be rejected” (p. 6). But I believe Frame is seeing what he wants to see here, and is reading apologetics into this verse. Read the rest of this entry »
We are listening to this debate in my Apologetics class. This is hailed as one of the most sucessful debates ever by a presupositional apologist. And since it took me a while to track down a copy of it on the web, I thought I would post it here for everyone.
You can download it here: Greg-Bahnsen-vs-Gordon-Stein-The-famous-debate-that-people-still-talk-about.mp3
And you can download the transcript of it here: Bahnsen_Stein_Debate_Transcript
It was held at the University of California, Irvine, in 1985.
In the discussion of Apologetics, the question is posed does anyone come to the table without presuppositions? The Atheist claims Christians commit logical fallacies and therefore should be ignored. But how does one decide what a “logical fallacy” is? How does one prove the fact that logic is what we should base our “beliefs” on? Or must one presuppose that logic should be the basis for ones argument of God’s existence? For example: “We must use logic because it is logical”
Is that not a circular argument?
In my Apologetics and Evangelism class, there was a very interesting quote I thought I would share. It is against the claim that Presuppositional Apologetics is circular in its reasoning. What do you think?
“To deny circularity when it comes to an ultimate authority is to subject oneself to an infinite regress of reasons. If a person holds to a certain view, A, then when A is challenged he appeals to reasons B and C. But, of course, B and C will certainly be challenged as to why they should be accepted, and then the person would have to offer D, E, F, and G, as arguments for B and C. And the process goes on and on. Obviously it has to stop somewhere because an infinite regress of arguments cannot demonstrate the truth of one’s conclusions. Thus, every worldview (and every argument) must have an ultimate, unquestioned, self-authenticating starting point. Another example: Imagine someone asking you whether the meter stick in your house was actually a meter long. How would you demonstrate such a thing? You could take it to your next-door neighbor and compare it to his meter stick and say, “see, it’s a meter.” However, the next question is obvious, “How do we know your neighbor’s meter stick is really a meter?” This process would go on infinitely unless there were an ultimate meter stick (which, if I am not mistaken, actually existed at one time and was measured by two fine lines marked on a bar of platinum-iridium allow). It is this ultimate meter stick that defines a meter. When asked how one knows whether the ultimate meter stick is a meter, the answer is obviously circular: The ultimate meter stick is a meter because it is a meter. This same thing is true for Scripture. The Bible does not just happen to be true (the meter stick in your house), rather it is the very criterion for truth (the ultimate meter stick) and therefore the final stopping point in intellectual justification” (Michael J. Kruger, “The Sufficiency of Scripture in Apologetics,” in The Master’s Seminary Journal, 12/1 (Spring 2001) 81, n. 31).
I was grateful to have read Cowan’s work, being that there are so many views on Apologetics, it was very interesting to have them all together, and have them all interact with each other in the same book. But, I will say I was somewhat disappointed with the fact that it seemed some of those he chose to represent certain positions were not necessarily in line with that position as it had been traditionally represented in the past. But given the nature of the work, it seemed like the contributors were looking for as much “dirt” as possible on each other, so maybe accusations that someone did not line up with “tradition” should not bother me. Read the rest of this entry »