Latest / Reformed Thinking / Frameworks, Arguments, and Worldviews

Transcript

Frameworks, Arguments, and Worldviews · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking. This is where we take a deep
0:03
dive into the ideas that shape our understanding of God, his
0:06
world and his truth. Today we're diving into a really
0:09
fascinating area of Christian thought, presuppositional
0:12
apologetics, and we'll be looking especially at how one of
0:16
its leading contemporary voices, John Frame, has shaped it.
0:20
That's. Right.
0:20
For anyone seeking to grasp, you know, the foundations of belief
0:24
and how we talk about God. In a world with so many
0:26
competing ideas, this should be a really helpful exploration.
0:30
We get a stack of sources here, including frames own work, and
0:34
we're aiming to pull out some useful insights for you.
0:36
Yeah, our mission for this deep dive is really to unpack the
0:39
core ideas of presuppositional apologetics.
0:42
We want to see how key thinkers like Cornelius Van Till, Greg
0:45
Bonson, and John Frame have shaped it.
0:47
And we'll also wrestle with some of the significant discussions
0:50
within this field, like the problem of evil.
0:52
So let's get into it and see what it means for how we think
0:55
and talk about our faith. OK, let's start with the big
0:57
picture then. What is presuppositional
1:00
apologetics, really? And who are the main figures we
1:03
should keep in mind as we talk? Right.
1:04
Well, at its core, presuppositional apologetics
1:07
defends the Christian faith by by starting with God with his
1:12
Word is the ultimate standard for all truth.
1:15
It holds that all human thought, all reasoning actually depends
1:18
on God's existence and His self revelation.
1:21
You can't really make sense of anything without him.
1:24
Of the 20th and 21st century saw some crucial figures emerge.
1:27
Cornelius Mantill, he's really seen as the pioneer.
1:30
He developed this specific reformed approach, you know,
1:33
coming out of Westminster Theological Seminary.
1:35
His work really laid the foundation.
1:37
Then you've got Greg Bonson, a really formidable advocate,
1:40
intellectually sharp. He brought this approach into
1:43
public debate, particularly highlighting that offense aspect
1:46
of apologetics we'll talk about. He was known for just being
1:48
incredibly rigorous. Yeah, his debates for something
1:50
else. Definitely, and carrying the
1:53
torch today, especially into the 21st century, is John Frame.
1:56
His writings are going to be a major focus for us in this deep
1:59
dive. His book, which is kind of our
2:00
guide here, it's aimed at say, college level readers who are
2:05
tackling these complex issues in apologetics and Frame himself.
2:08
He clearly states his work is reformed apologetics.
2:11
He says it belongs to the approach developed by Van Till.
2:14
He sees Van Till's foundation as the best starting point we have
2:17
right now because it begins where it should, with God's
2:20
revelation. OK, so Frame clearly sees
2:23
himself in that Van Till lineage, but you also hinted
2:26
he's willing to refine things, maybe even question some of Van
2:29
Till's points. How does that work, given Van
2:31
Till's, you know, almost foundational status in the
2:33
school of thought? That's a really good
2:35
observation, and yeah, Frame is quite upfront about it.
2:38
He acknowledges that some people may be stricter.
2:40
Followers of Van Till will describe this work as
2:43
revisionist. He doesn't shy away from
2:46
disagreeing on certain points. He seems to see his own work is
2:50
building on continuing and refining Van Till, not just
2:53
repeating him. In fact, he apparently has
2:55
another book planned where he'll analyze and evaluate Van Till
2:58
more fully. So this willingness to refine
3:01
while still holding to the core principles is actually a key
3:04
part of Frames contribution. So he's a student, but also
3:08
charting his own course a bit. Exactly.
3:10
He's building on the foundation, but maybe adding some rooms or
3:13
reinforcing some walls, you could say.
3:16
He even notes that a potential weakness in Ben Till's own
3:18
writing was sometimes a lack of specific, concrete arguments
3:22
beyond just the outlines. Frame, on the other hand, tries
3:25
to include more detailed examples of reasoning in his
3:27
work. He seems to want to make the
3:29
method more accessible or practical for people today.
3:32
That makes sense, trying to bridge the gap between the high
3:34
level theory and, you know, actually talking to someone.
3:37
Right, he's not just dusting off old arguments, he's actively
3:41
applying and adapting the framework for contemporary
3:44
discussions. OK, so Frame organizes the whole
3:48
task of apologetics into three main aspects.
3:50
What are those and what does each one involve?
3:52
How do they differ from maybe how others might see
3:55
apologetics? Yeah, he lays out this really
3:57
useful framework early on, kind of structures how he approaches
4:00
the whole thing. First, there's apologetics as
4:03
proof. This involves presenting a
4:05
rational foundation for faith, basically showing that
4:08
Christianity is true. Frame is clear.
4:10
Faith isn't irrational. It's not belief without
4:12
evidence. No, it rests on ample God-given
4:15
evidence. So proof isn't about blind
4:17
faith, it's reasoned belief. Precisely, It's about providing
4:22
A reasoned basis to show Christianity is the only
4:24
coherent way to see the world. This really pushes back against
4:27
views that might see faith is just a leap in the dark or
4:30
something separate from reason. Frame insists it's rational,
4:34
even if the final conviction comes from God.
4:36
Second, there's apologetics is defense.
4:39
This is probably what most people think of when they hear
4:40
apologetics. It's about responding to
4:42
objections. Like defending against claims of
4:44
Bible contradictions or historical challenges, that kind
4:47
of thing. Exactly, answering the specific
4:49
questions and challenges people raise.
4:51
But Frame says while that's essential, it's only part of the
4:54
picture. It's necessary, yes, but not the
4:56
whole story. Finally, and this is often where
5:00
presuppositionalism really comes to the fore, there's apologetics
5:03
as offense. Offense that sounds a bit
5:06
aggressive. Well, it means actively
5:08
challenging the foolishness of unbelieving thought itself.
5:12
It ties right into Second Corinthians 10.5.
5:14
You know about demolishing arguments and every pretension
5:18
that sets itself up against the knowledge of God.
5:21
Scripture considers non Christian thinking at its root
5:24
to be foolishness. So apologetics in this offensive
5:28
mode aims to expose the incoherence, the internal
5:31
contradictions within non Christian worldviews.
5:33
Oh I see. So it's not about attacking the
5:34
person, but the underlying assumptions of their worldview.
5:38
Precisely. And Greg Bonson, who we
5:40
mentioned, really championed this approach.
5:43
His famous 1985 debate with the atheist Gordon Stein is a
5:46
classic example. Bonson didn't just defend
5:49
Christian claims, He went on the offensive, arguing that Stein's
5:52
atheistic worldview couldn't even account for things like
5:55
logic, morality, or science. The very tools Stein was trying
5:59
to use, he argued it was inherently self defeating.
6:02
So when we talk about this offensive aspect, what does
6:05
Demolishing arguments or exposing foolishness practically
6:10
look like in a conversation? Does it mean being, you know,
6:13
harsh or dismissive? That's a really important
6:15
practical question. And no, it definitely doesn't
6:18
mean being rude or condescending.
6:19
Not at all. Instead it means graciously but
6:22
firmly showing the limits and the internal problems within a
6:25
non Christian worldview using its own standards.
6:28
For instance, if someone argues that morality is purely
6:31
subjective, totally relative, you might gently ask something
6:34
like, OK, if it's all subjective, how can you
6:36
genuinely criticize someone else's actions?
6:38
What standard are you appealing to when you say something is
6:40
wrong? Pointing out they're borrowing a
6:42
standard they claim not to have. Exactly.
6:45
Isn't your very criticism suggesting there's some standard
6:48
beyond just your personal feeling?
6:50
Or if someone says only science gives us real knowledge, you
6:54
could ask. That's an interesting claim.
6:56
How do you scientifically prove that statement itself?
6:59
Right, the statement itself isn't a scientific finding.
7:01
Precisely what experiment demonstrates that only science
7:05
yields knowledge? Isn't that statement actually a
7:08
philosophical belief about science?
7:10
Not from science. It's about revealing that their
7:13
own worldview often relies on ideas or principles that only
7:17
really makes sense within a Christian framework.
7:20
It exposes whether system breaks down or contradicts itself.
7:23
It shows that their own assumptions, if you push them,
7:26
lead to dead ends or can't explain the world we actually
7:28
live in. And this offensive asect
7:30
connects directly to what Frame calls the ultimate
7:32
resupposition. For him.
7:35
This is the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the truth of his
7:37
word. Frame puts it this way.
7:39
Jesus is the ultimate presupposition.
7:41
He's our basic heart orientation, our ultimate trust,
7:43
His wisdom, his promises. They stand above everything
7:46
else. His word is the standard, the
7:48
ultimate measure for what's true.
7:49
There can't be anything higher. And this leads straight to
7:52
another key idea. There's no neutrality, not human
7:55
life, not human thought. Frame explains that God's claim
7:58
on us is comprehensive. Everything we do, our thinking,
8:01
our reasoning, our knowing, it should all be done to honor
8:03
Christ, seeking to please Him. That proverb comes to mind,
8:06
doesn't it? The fear of the Lord is the
8:08
beginning of knowledge. Exactly that underpins this
8:11
whole view. It suggests that those who don't
8:13
rightly acknowledge God can't even truly begin to understand
8:17
reality correctly. So this no neutrality idea, it's
8:21
a big one. If there's no neutral
8:23
intellectual ground, how do you even start a real conversation
8:27
with someone who has a totally different worldview?
8:29
Doesn't that make dialogue looks seem almost impossible if you
8:32
can't find some common starting point, some middle ground?
8:36
That's a really common question, and it gets right to the heart
8:38
of the presuppositional method. And yes, presuppositionalists
8:42
genuinely believe that trying to argue with an unbeliever as if
8:46
there's some neutral territory is actually misleading.
8:49
It's seen as a serious problem because, as Frame puts it, it
8:53
falsifies the very heart of the gospel that Jesus Christ is
8:55
Lord. You can't pretend He isn't Lord
8:58
just for the sake of argument. So you can't bracket out your
9:01
core beliefs to find common ground, right?
9:04
There's no in between God's wisdom and the world's
9:06
foolishness, our witness frame would say is always grounded in
9:10
one or the other. Now, that doesn't mean there's
9:12
no common ground. We share our humanity.
9:14
We live in God's world, breathe his air, rely on his predictable
9:18
laws of nature. We have common senses, a shared
9:20
moral intuition. That's all common ground.
9:23
But not intellectually neutral ground.
9:25
Exactly. There's no neutral intellectual
9:27
starting point. We can't just set aside our
9:29
ultimate standard, God's Word, and operate on some other basis
9:32
without being inconsistent with her own faith.
9:35
Instead, the conversation starts by recognizing that the
9:38
unbeliever, despite whatever they say their worldview is,
9:41
actually knows God and lives in God's world.
9:44
So the connection isn't finding a shared neutral idea, but
9:48
appealing to something they already have.
9:49
Precisely. It's about appealing to that
9:52
inherent knowledge of God that the unbeliever possesses, even
9:55
though they suppress it. As Romans one says, it means
9:57
showing them that the very tools they use to argue reason, logic,
10:01
morality actually come from the Christian God.
10:04
Their own non Christian worldview can't consistently
10:06
ground those things. So dialogue isn't impossible, it
10:09
just changes its nature. It becomes an appeal to a
10:12
reality they're trying to ignore.
10:13
Yes, exactly. You're appealing to the truth
10:15
that is already there at some level, known but pushed down,
10:19
and this idea of already present knowledge leads us right to the
10:23
point of contact in presuppositional apologetics.
10:25
This asks what is it, if anything, within a non believer
10:29
that God's grace can connect with, Or what can the apologist
10:32
appeal to for frame and ventil? The point of contact is rooted
10:36
deeply in the biblical teaching that humans are made in God's
10:39
image, the imago dei. This image, even though it's
10:42
seriously affected and marred by sin, isn't totally destroyed.
10:46
So every unbeliever still possesses an inherent knowledge
10:49
of God, even if it's suppressed. That's the Romans 1.21 idea
10:53
again, isn't it? Even though they knew God right.
10:56
They've either glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him.
11:00
That knowledge remains, Frame argues, at some level, maybe
11:03
conscious, maybe unconscious. The issue isn't the lack of
11:07
knowledge, but a deliberate suppression of it.
11:09
The unbeliever actively distorts this truth, exchanges it for a
11:13
lie. So the apologist appeals to this
11:16
suppressed knowledge, not just to their autonomous reason,
11:19
which is flawed by sin, or their will, which is bound by sin.
11:22
We're not appealing to their ability to reason neutrally, but
11:25
to the fact that they are God's creatures who can't escape him.
11:28
Exactly. Their reason, apart from God's
11:29
grace, actually works to distort the truth, not affirm it.
11:33
The real point of contact is their status as image bearers
11:36
who inevitably know God. How does this view of the point
11:39
of contact stack up against other theological perspectives?
11:43
What makes it distinct? That's a key distinction.
11:46
Arminian theology, for example, often sees human reason and free
11:49
will understood as a kind of independent capacity to choose
11:52
God as the point of contact. It suggests we retain a natural
11:56
ability to respond positively to God's general call.
11:59
Karl Barth, the Swiss theologian, had a very different
12:02
take. He essentially believed there
12:04
was nothing at all in fallen humanity capable of receiving
12:07
God's grace. For Barth, grace kind of creates
12:11
its own point of contact. There's no pre-existing human
12:13
capacity involved in that way. So polar opposites in a sense.
12:17
Pretty much orthodox Calvinism, which is the tradition
12:20
presuppositional ISM operates in, grounds the point of contact
12:23
in the image of God, specifically this inherent but
12:26
suppressed knowledge, because the unbeliever is made in God's
12:29
image and knows God, even while suppressing that the apologist
12:33
is in a way calling them back to reality.
12:35
So practically, the goal isn't trying to prove God exists to
12:38
someone who at some level already knows it, right?
12:41
The goal shifts. It becomes about exposing the
12:44
inconsistencies in their own worldview, showing how their
12:47
understanding of life breaks down without God, and
12:50
challenging them to repent and believe in the God they are
12:52
actively suppressing the knowledge of.
12:54
The idea is that the unbeliever, even while fighting the truth,
12:58
inadvertently relies on Christian truth just to live
13:00
coherently. They operate within God's moral
13:03
and rational order. They know deep down that non
13:07
biblical standards are wrong and scripture standards are right,
13:10
even if they won't admit it. That really reframes the whole
13:13
apologetic task, doesn't it? It's less about building from
13:15
scratch and more about confronting a pre-existing but
13:18
denied reality. Yes, precisely.
13:22
OK, one very common critique you hear about presuppositional ISM
13:25
is that it's circular. You know you're arguing for God
13:28
based on God's Word and using God's word to prove God's word.
13:32
How does frame tackle that one? Yeah, that's probably the most
13:34
frequent objection, and Frame definitely addresses it.
13:37
He acknowledges it can look circular from the outside, but
13:40
he argues it's not a vicious or invalid circularity.
13:44
His point is that when you're arguing for your ultimate
13:47
criterion, the absolute foundation for all truth,
13:50
everyone, no matter their worldview, reasons in a way that
13:54
could be called circular. How so?
13:56
Well, think about it. A rationalist has to use reason
13:59
to argue for the supremacy of reason.
14:02
An empiricist has to rely on sense experience to argue that
14:06
sense experience is the ultimate source of knowledge.
14:08
They have to use the standard to defend the standard.
14:10
Exactly. And Frame points out the
14:13
skeptics dilemma. They have to be skeptical even
14:16
of their own skepticism. If someone says I doubt
14:18
everything you ask, you doubt that statement.
14:21
If they say yes, their skepticism collapses.
14:24
If they say no, they've just admitted there's something they
14:27
don't doubt, which contradicts their initial claim.
14:29
Frame calls this the Achilles heel is skepticism.
14:32
OK, I see the point. Everyone relies on their
14:34
ultimate starting point to make their case for it.
14:37
Right. So Frame says, if
14:39
presuppositional ISM is guilty of this kind of circularity when
14:42
defending Scripture as the ultimate standard, then every
14:45
world view is guilty when defending its own ultimate
14:47
standard. He does distinguish this from a
14:50
truly bad argument, like just saying the Bible is true because
14:53
the Bible says it's true, and stopping there.
14:56
He affirms, using evidence like historical testimony for the
14:59
resurrection, that kind of reasoning isn't circular.
15:02
So where does the appearance of circularity come in them?
15:05
It comes in when someone questions the ultimate criteria
15:07
behind accepting that evidence. Why trust testimony?
15:10
What view of knowledge allows for miracles?
15:13
The presuppositionalist answer is that ultimately, the only
15:16
framework that makes coherent sense of any evidence or
15:19
argument is the Christian worldview grounded in God's
15:22
revelation. Frame actually argues that
15:24
Christian reasoning is properly linear, starting with God and
15:27
flowing out from Him. The perception of it being
15:30
circular is often subjective, coming from those who don't
15:33
share the same ultimate starting point, God's Word.
15:36
Because they reject the premise, the argument looks circular to
15:39
them. That's an interesting
15:40
distinction at linear reality, circular perception.
15:43
Yeah, and he also stresses the vital role of the Holy Spirit.
15:46
The Christian witness, he says, never stands alone.
15:49
God adds his supernatural work to it if he chooses to use it.
15:53
That divine enabling is what ultimately makes the witness
15:56
effective and breaks through the suppression of truth.
15:59
OK, let's shift gears slightly to the transcendental argument
16:02
often called tag. It's a cornerstone, especially
16:05
for Van Till. What's the core idea there?
16:07
Right tag is central to Van Till's approach.
16:10
The basic idea is pretty stark and all-encompassing.
16:12
Van Till would essentially argue, without the Christian
16:15
God, there is no meaning, no truth, no logic, no morality, no
16:19
uniformity of nature, no possibility of knowledge at all.
16:23
But these things do exist. Therefore, the Christian God
16:26
must exist. So the very possibility of
16:28
thinking coherently depends on God.
16:31
Exactly. The possibility of logic,
16:33
understanding reality, doing science, even making basic
16:37
statements like this is a microphone or murder is wrong.
16:40
All of it, Van Till argued, inherently presupposes the
16:44
existence of the God revealed in the Bible.
16:46
Without him, the universe would be chaotic, unintelligible, and
16:50
for Van Tilde, this was the only truly valid proof for God.
16:54
He argued that other proofs, like those aiming to show just a
16:57
first 'cause or intelligent designer, fell short.
17:00
Why did he think they fell short?
17:02
Because he believed they implicitly granted neutral
17:04
ground to the unbeliever, they tried to argue up to God from
17:07
some supposedly neutral facts. Rather than starting with God as
17:11
the necessary precondition for any facts to make sense at all,
17:15
he felt they reduced God to something less than the fully
17:17
sovereign trinitarian God of Scripture.
17:19
So stricter followers would say tag is the only way to go.
17:22
Yes, stricter Ventilians often maintain that tag is the only
17:27
argument that truly honors God's absolute authority and exposes
17:31
the futility of unbelief. Using traditional arguments, in
17:34
their view, compromises that. It's interesting.
17:37
The philosophical idea of a transcendental argument comes
17:41
from Kant, who actually used it to argue for the autonomy of
17:44
human reason from Revelation van 'til brilliantly flipped it,
17:48
using the method to show the necessity of God's revelation
17:51
for reason itself. And Bonson used this a lot in
17:53
his debates. Very much so In the Stein
17:56
debate, for instance, Bonsen score strategy was tag.
17:59
He wasn't just saying here's evidence for God.
18:01
He was saying, Mr. Stein, your atheistic worldview cannot even
18:04
account for the laws of logic you were trying to use to argue
18:07
against God. Your worldview undermines the
18:09
very possibility of this debate. So for presuppositionalists, the
18:13
goal of any argument for God should be transcendental.
18:16
It should aim to show the necessity of the full biblical
18:18
God as the source of all meaning, possibility and
18:21
reality. That's a very comprehensive
18:23
claim. But you mentioned earlier that
18:25
Frame, while valuing Van Till has some qualifications about
18:29
relying only on tag. What are his reservations?
18:32
Right. This is where Frame introduces
18:34
some important nuances. He fully agrees that the goal of
18:37
theistic argument should be transcendental, proving the God
18:41
of the Bible is the source of everything.
18:43
But he raises several questions about using TAG exclusively or
18:46
as the only valid approach. First, he questions whether TAG
18:50
can always function effectively without the help of more
18:52
traditional arguments like the cosmological first 'cause or
18:56
teleological design arguments. He points out that the main
18:59
premise of tag without God, there was no meaning, logic,
19:02
etcetera, isn't immediately obvious or self-evident to
19:05
everyone. Many people just don't accept
19:07
that right off the bat. So Frame suggests that
19:10
subsidiary arguments, perhaps even traditional ones, might be
19:13
needed to help demonstrate that premise.
19:15
They could help someone see the problems with alternative
19:17
explanations for meaning and order, thus paving the way for
19:20
them to grasp the necessity of the biblical God.
19:23
So traditional arguments as stepping stones towards tag
19:26
perhaps? Sort of, not as independent
19:29
proofs, but his tools to illustrate the failures of other
19:31
world views and show why meaning and rationality do require God.
19:35
Second, Crane pushes back on the idea that traditional arguments
19:39
must conclude with a God less than the biblical God.
19:43
He says look, arguing that God is a designer or a first 'cause
19:46
doesn't limit him to only being those things.
19:49
It's true that he is a designer. The argument simply affirms a
19:52
true aspect of God. It doesn't claim that's all he
19:54
is. Exactly.
19:56
Frame suggests that these traditional arguments often seem
19:58
persuasive precisely because they implicitly presuppose a
20:02
Christian worldview. Even if the person making or
20:05
hearing the argument doesn't realize it, the underlying
20:07
framework that makes the argument work is actually God's
20:10
revealed reality. 3rd Frame challenges Van Till's slogan.
20:14
Christian theism is a unit. At least now it's applied to
20:17
argumentation. While he agrees doctrinally
20:19
compromising 1 doctrine effects others, he doubts that the
20:22
entire system of Christian belief can realistically be
20:25
established by a single argument, unless that argument
20:27
is incredibly complex. So multiple arguments might be
20:30
needed to build the whole case. Yeah, he suggests arguments can
20:33
be part of a larger system of apologetics.
20:37
Different arguments might highlight different aspects of
20:39
God or the Christian worldview, working together cumulatively
20:43
rather than expecting 1 silver bullet argument like TAG to do
20:46
everything. 4th. Related to that, he notes that
20:49
Van Till's TAG primarily focuses on God as the necessary ground
20:53
for meaning and rationality. But a complete argument for the
20:56
biblical God would also need to establish him as personal,
20:58
sovereign, trinitarian, infinite, eternal, wise, good,
21:02
and so on. TAG on its own might not fully
21:06
capture that rich, multifaceted picture.
21:08
It establishes the necessity, but maybe not the full
21:11
character. That seems to be frames, point.
21:13
And finally, frame is realistic. He admits there's no single
21:16
argument, including tag, that's guaranteed to persuade every
21:19
rational person. Why?
21:21
Because people can always question premises or
21:22
definitions. He acknowledges tag isn't
21:25
sufficient by itself to prove the existence of the biblical
21:27
God to everyone's satisfaction. Any argument can be resisted if
21:31
someone isn't willing to accept the starting point or the
21:33
conclusion. So what does this all mean for
21:35
you, the listener? It sounds like Frame is opening
21:38
the door for a more flexible toolkit, maybe using traditional
21:43
arguments sometimes, but always keeping them grounded in that
21:46
overall Christian presuppositional framework.
21:49
Why is this scene a significant and why might some call it
21:52
revisionist? Precisely.
21:55
It's significant because it suggests a more varied approach
21:57
to conversations while aiming to maintain the core commitments of
22:01
presuppositional ISM, namely no neutrality Scripture as ultimate
22:05
standard, and challenging unbelief at its roots.
22:09
For frame, it seems to be about showing how all of reality,
22:12
including what we see in nature, which traditional arguments
22:14
often drawn, points to God when viewed through the spectacles of
22:18
Scripture. He's not ditching the core, He's
22:20
applying it, perhaps more broadly.
22:22
But why the revisionist label from some?
22:24
What's the concern? The concern, typically from
22:27
stricter Vantillians, is that allowing any space for
22:30
traditional arguments, even if reinterpreted
22:33
presuppositionally, risks implicitly conceding neutral
22:36
ground. Or it might suggest, even
22:39
unintentionally, that God's existence can be argued for
22:42
based on something other than his own self attesting word A.
22:45
Slippery slope argument maybe? Perhaps the strict view insist
22:49
that any argument not starting and ending with the absolute
22:51
necessity of the full biblical God is a compromise.
22:55
Fran's response is that these traditional arguments aren't
22:57
being used as independent proofs from neutrality.
23:00
Instead, they can be used, as he puts it, to knock down
23:03
speculations and foolishness that an unbeliever may throw up.
23:07
For example, using historical evidence for the Gospels.
23:10
Reliability isn't claiming neutrality.
23:12
It's using God-given reason and evidence within a framework that
23:15
affirms God's action in history to counter specific objections.
23:19
So, using evidence as part of a godly engagement with the world
23:22
interpreted by scripture. That's how Frame seems to see
23:25
it. He calls the use of extra
23:27
biblical evidence potentially part of a godly use of Scripture
23:30
itself, because Scripture teaches that nature does point
23:33
to God. It's about leveraging all truth,
23:36
but always with the Christian worldview as the non negotiable
23:39
interpretive lens. Moving beyond specific
23:42
arguments, Frame also talks a lot about Christianity as a
23:45
complete worldview. What does that imply for how we
23:48
approach apologetics? How does it set Christianity
23:50
apart? Yeah, this is crucial for Frame.
23:53
He asserts that Christianity isn't just a religion, it's a
23:55
comprehensive worldview, a viewpoint on everything.
23:58
The apologist message isn't just bits and pieces.
24:01
It's the whole council of God, the whole of scripture applied
24:04
to life. It addresses the biggest
24:05
questions. Where do we come from?
24:07
What's wrong with the world? What's the solution?
24:09
Where are we going? It touches on metaphysics.
24:11
What's real epistemology? How do we know ethics?
24:15
Right and wrong, Aesthetics. Beauty.
24:17
Economics, history, science, psychology, everything.
24:21
Everything because Christ's Lordship is comprehensive.
24:24
No area of life or thought is outside his authority or the
24:28
scope of his truth. Christianity claims to give
24:31
truthful answers to these fundamental questions, and where
24:34
other worldviews differ, Frame would say they are simply an
24:37
error or incomplete. Christianity offers this
24:40
integrated, coherent system that explains reality in a way that
24:44
other worldviews, he argues, ultimately cannot.
24:47
So the apologist is presenting an entire consistent system of
24:50
thought. Exactly.
24:52
Not just descending isolated doctrines, but showing how the
24:54
whole Christian picture fits together and makes sense of the
24:57
world in a way nothing else does, and a particularly a
25:00
powerful aspect of this comprehensive worldview. 1 frame
25:03
highlights for its apologetic value is the doctrine of the
25:06
Trinity. How does the Trinity function
25:08
apologetically? That's interesting.
25:09
Frame argues it's key to explaining things like
25:11
personality and relationships. Think about Unitarian views of
25:15
God, where God is seen as just a single, undifferentiated person,
25:19
like an Islam or some forms of Gnosticism or Neoplatonism.
25:23
Freeman observes these views often struggle to ground
25:25
personality at the ultimate level.
25:27
If the ultimate reality is just impersonal oneness, where do
25:31
consciousness, wisdom, will, and relationship come from?
25:34
But if the ultimate reality is the triune God, personal
25:37
relational within himself, that it makes sense that the universe
25:41
he created reflects personality and rational order.
25:44
So the Trinity provides a basis for personhood itself.
25:47
Yes, and Frame also points out that anti trinitarian views can
25:51
sometimes blur the creator creature distinction.
25:54
They might end up with a God who is holy other, but also somehow
25:57
dependent on the world. For instance, how can a solitary
26:01
God be eternally love if there's no one else within the Godhead
26:04
for him to love before creation? Does he need creation to express
26:07
love? But the Trinity has love
26:10
eternally within Godhead, Father, Son, and Spirit.
26:13
Precisely. God is love inherently and
26:16
eternally independent of creation.
26:18
The Trinity allows God to be fully personal and relational
26:21
without being dependent on the world.
26:23
It also helps explain the One in many nature of reality.
26:27
The world is a unified whole, yet full of diversity.
26:30
Frame suggests this reflects the very nature of the triune God,
26:33
who's both one God and three persons.
26:36
Unity and diversity are grounded in God Himself.
26:39
That contrast would say Islamic views of predestination.
26:42
Frame would argue it does. He suggests that predestination
26:46
flowing from a solitary Unitarian deity can sometimes
26:49
appear more like an impersonal determinism, whereas the plan of
26:52
the Triune God is understood as the wise, personal and good
26:55
interaction with the Father, Son, and Spirit.
26:57
It grounds reality and personal relationship, not just bear
27:00
sovereignty. OK, let's turn now to one of the
27:02
toughest questions, one that comes up constantly in
27:04
apologetics, the problem of evil.
27:06
How can evil exist if God is all good and all powerful?
27:10
Frame tackles this and he interacts with a specific view
27:12
from Jay Adams. Right Frame does discuss the
27:15
classic approaches people have taken.
27:17
You know, some try to deny evil's reality, like saying it's
27:20
an illusion as in Christian Science or some Eastern thought.
27:24
Others try to solve it by tweaking God's attributes.
27:26
Maybe he's not all powerful, or maybe not perfectly good in the
27:31
way we think. Then you have the free will
27:33
defense. God gave us freedom.
27:35
We chose poorly. Evil is the result.
27:37
And the idea that suffering builds character.
27:40
Yeah, the character building or soul making theodicy sometimes
27:43
linked to Irenaeus frame acknowledges these, but
27:45
generally finds them insufficient on their own to
27:47
fully address the issue from a solid biblical perspective.
27:51
Now Jay Adams, known for Not a Get at Counseling which is
27:54
heavily scripture based, offers a very direct explanation.
27:57
Drawing primarily from Romans 9, Adams basically argues the
28:01
problem of evil isn't really a problem in the way people frame
28:03
it. He asserts God sovereignly
28:05
allowed evil to enter the world specifically to demonstrate His
28:08
nature. To demonstrate his nature.
28:10
How so? Adams contends that certain
28:12
aspects of God's character, like his wrath against sin, his
28:15
justice and judgement, his awesome power over evil,
28:19
wouldn't be fully displayed or understood if evil didn't exist.
28:23
Likewise, attributes like mercy, grace, and patience are
28:27
demonstrated in God's response to sin and evil.
28:30
They would be needed or seen in the same way in a world without
28:33
sin. So evil serves as a backdrop
28:36
against which God displays the fullness of his attributes.
28:39
That's Adams argument from Romans 9.
28:42
He maintains this is God's revealed solution to the why of
28:45
evil. He insists there's no mystery
28:47
left in this specific aspect revealed in Romans 9, even if we
28:50
don't know God's ultimate reasons for wanting to
28:52
demonstrate His nature in this way.
28:54
Adams even directly challenges Frame who might lean towards
28:57
acknowledging more mystery. Adams basically says, come on,
29:00
John. Romans 9 gives us the reason God
29:02
revealed. What more do you want?
29:03
That's a very direct, almost stark answer.
29:06
How does frame respond and what are the potential issues or
29:09
implications, especially for someone actually going through
29:11
terrible suffering? Well, frames response.
29:13
It's described as being kindly, somewhat jocular.
29:17
He essentially suggests atoms might be a bit too quick to find
29:20
a complete, tidy solution to every theological puzzle.
29:23
Frame seems to imply that even with Romans 9, some mystery
29:26
likely remains beyond the specific reasons God has
29:28
revealed. While Adam's focuses on the
29:31
revealed purpose, demonstrating God's nature, Frame might still
29:35
point to the unrevealed aspects of God's eternal counsel.
29:38
The source material notes that ultimately, both Frame and
29:41
Adam's probably agree there's a limit to human understanding of
29:43
God's mind. But Adam sees Romans 9 is
29:46
closing the book on the specific question of why evil exists in
29:49
God's plan. And Frame might emphasize God
29:52
being his own standard more generally.
29:54
Right Frame often stresses that God is the standard for his own
29:58
actions. Whatever God does is right
30:00
simply because he does it, rather than needing an external
30:04
purpose like demonstrating attributes to justify it, though
30:07
that demonstration is certainly a result.
30:10
Now for the listener grappling with suffering, this raises some
30:12
significant points. One concern with Adams view, if
30:16
pressed too hard, is whether it makes God seem dependent on evil
30:19
to show his character. Does God need sin to be
30:22
merciful? That could seem to contradict
30:25
God's self-sufficiency or independence's AS 80.
30:28
Yeah, that God's attributes are inherent, not contingent on
30:31
creation or sin. Exactly.
30:33
Another major concern is pastoral.
30:36
Imagine presenting Adams's argument bluntly as a solution
30:38
to someone in deep grief, say a parent who just lost a child,
30:42
saying, well, God allowed this so he could demonstrate his
30:44
wrath and mercy. That sounds incredibly
30:46
insensitive, even if the theology has a point somewhere.
30:49
Right. It could be deeply hurtful and
30:51
pastorally inadequate in that raw moment.
30:54
It risks sounding like a cold, detached explanation rather than
30:57
offering comfort or acknowledging the pain and
30:59
mystery involved. There's also critique mentioned
31:02
that Frames sometimes seems too quick to dismiss other views,
31:06
like CS Lewis's ideas about free will and the kind of world
31:09
necessary for genuine creatures. Lewis in The Problem of Pain
31:14
talks about how a stable environment with predictable
31:16
laws necessary for free action also creates the possibility for
31:20
things to go wrong. Frames critiques can sometimes
31:23
feel like they oversimplify or brush aside potentially helpful
31:26
insights from other thinkers. So while Adam's point from
31:29
Romans 9 is biblically grounded, maybe it's not the whole story,
31:33
or at least needs careful, compassionate application.
31:36
That seems to be the consensus. It's a crucial part of the
31:39
biblical data, but whether it's the single comprehensive
31:42
solution and how it's applied pastorally remain areas of
31:45
ongoing thought. OK, finally, let's touch on
31:48
natural revelation, God revealing himself through
31:50
creation and human nature. How does this fit into the
31:53
presuppositional framework, especially with that idea of
31:56
suppressed knowledge? Natural revelation is seen as
31:59
absolutely universal. God has revealed Himself
32:02
clearly, His eternal power, His divine nature, to every single
32:06
person's through the created order and through their own
32:08
conscience and being. So Romans one again, every
32:12
unbeliever knows God. That knowledge is there, but as
32:14
we've said, it's actively repressed, distorted, suppressed
32:17
because of sin. It remains though, at some
32:19
level. And that suppressed knowledge is
32:20
the point of contact. Yes, that inherent, inescapable,
32:25
yet resisted knowledge of God is what the apologist appeals to.
32:29
Not to some independent, neutral reason, but to the reality God
32:33
is already embedded in them and around them.
32:35
The unbeliever, Frank would say, lives inconsistently.
32:38
They rely on God's order and moral law even while denying
32:41
him. They argue for justice or use
32:43
logic implicitly, drawing on the very reality they reject.
32:48
But while natural revelation is valuable, it has to be
32:50
interpreted correctly, and that's where Scripture comes in.
32:53
Frame uses the famous Calvinistic image of Scripture
32:56
as spectacles. Spectacles to see natural
32:59
revelation clearly. Exactly.
33:00
Natural revelation has tremendous value, but it must be
33:03
rightly understood through the spectacles of Scripture.
33:06
What this means is that our understanding, derived from
33:08
God's clear, special revelation in the Bible, must take
33:11
precedence. It corrects and clarifies our
33:14
reading of natural revelation. So we don't put the Book of
33:17
Nature in the Book of Scripture on the exact same level.
33:19
No, Frame argues it's misleading to suggest they carry equal
33:23
weight in every respect. He warns that approach has
33:26
sometimes been used to uncritically accept secular
33:29
ideas, maybe certain views of evolution or psychology, and for
33:33
Scripture to fit them rather than letting Scripture critique
33:36
those ideas. So Scripture provides the
33:38
authoritative framework for interpreting nature, yes.
33:42
Any conclusions we draw from observing the natural world must
33:45
align with clear scriptural teaching.
33:47
We don't adopt non Christian assumptions or claims of
33:51
neutrality when interpreting nature.
33:53
Frame actually says that using extra biblical evidence like
33:56
from science or history may be seen as part of a godly use of
33:59
scripture itself. Why?
34:02
Because Scripture itself teaches the nature points to God.
34:05
So exploring nature using evidence can be an act of
34:07
obedience, as long as it's done through the lens of Scripture.
34:10
Using traditional arguments then fits in here as ways of showing
34:13
how nature seen rightly points to God.
34:16
Right. They can be used to challenge
34:17
the inconsistencies of unbelief, to knock down speculations by
34:21
showing how the natural order only makes sense within a
34:23
Christian framework, always guided by Scripture.
34:26
Now, the source material also brought up something quite
34:28
striking, maybe not always emphasized in apologetics
34:31
discussions. The coming judgment, How does
34:34
that connect? Yeah, that's a powerful point.
34:36
The idea is that because God has provided sufficient evidence
34:40
through creation and conscience, natural revelation, everyone is
34:43
accountable. He will hold people responsible
34:45
at a future judgment. The unbeliever is truly without
34:49
excuse, as Romans one says. Why?
34:51
Because the revelation was given.
34:52
It wasn't genuinely unknown. It was known and suppressed.
34:55
No one will be able to plead ignorance at the judgement bar.
34:58
And Paul in Acts 17 is an example.
35:00
Exactly. On Mars Hill, Paul starts with
35:02
general revelation, their altar to an unknown God, the God who
35:06
made the world. But he doesn't stop there.
35:08
He moves directly to repentance and the coming judgement through
35:10
the man God appointed Jesus. So this is the vital part of the
35:13
message. God has revealed truth
35:14
adequately. People are responsible for how
35:17
they respond. It underscores the seriousness
35:19
of it all. Apologetics isn't just an
35:22
intellectual game. It's a summons to respond to the
35:24
known God who will judge. Wow, OK, that really brings a
35:28
lot together. What a deep dive into
35:31
presuppositional apologetics and John frames thought we've seen
35:35
how frame definitely building on Van Till anchors everything in
35:38
God's word is the ultimate standard that non negotiable
35:41
truth that really undergirds all valid reasoning.
35:44
We unpacked his three aspects, proof, defense and that key idea
35:48
of offense. We looked at no neutrality and
35:50
how that suppressed knowledge, knowledge of God, becomes the
35:52
point of contact. We also wrestled with the
35:54
nuances of tag, the transcendental argument, and how
35:56
frame makes room for using traditional arguments, but only
35:59
when seen through that Christian worldview lens.
36:02
And of course, we touched on the complexities around the problem
36:04
of evil. Yeah, and if you connect all
36:06
these threads, it really highlights how Christianity
36:09
presents itself as this comprehensive worldview.
36:12
It offers or claims to offer cohesive answers to life's
36:16
biggest questions in a way that holds together.
36:18
The very nature of God as Trinitarian, for example,
36:21
provides such a stable ground for understanding things like
36:24
personality, love, relationships, even the unity
36:27
and diversity we see all around us.
36:28
And that reliance on Scripture, God's special revelation, as the
36:32
ultimate authority, those spectacles, helps us view
36:34
everything else, nature, reason, experience, through the right
36:37
lens, allowing us to discern truth from error more
36:40
consistently. So for you listening, what does
36:42
this all mean? Well, it suggests approaching
36:44
conversations about faith, maybe not from a blank slate assuming
36:47
ignorance, but from the conviction that God has already
36:50
revealed himself to everyone in some way.
36:54
It encourages you to think holistically about the truth of
36:57
Christ, how it applies to absolutely every area of life
37:00
and thought. And it helps you see that even
37:02
when you feel like you haven't proven God to someone's
37:04
satisfaction. Maybe what you're actually doing
37:06
is calling them back to a reality they on some level
37:09
already know but are resisting. It shifts the conversation
37:12
towards consistency with reality.
37:14
And thinking about frames emphasis on exposing the
37:17
foolishness of unbelieving thought and the reality of
37:20
suppressed knowledge, it raises an interesting question for
37:23
further thought. How might a clear grasp of the
37:26
biblical teaching on Satan's role in actively blinding the
37:29
minds of unbelievers? You know, like Paul mentions in
37:31
2nd Corinthians 4.4? How might that shape our
37:34
approach to apologetics even further?
37:36
What does that imply about our methods and our ultimate
37:39
reliance on God's grace in any conversation?
37:41
That is definitely something to ponder as you reflect on this
37:44
deep dive. Thank you so much for joining us
37:46
on Reformed Thinking. Until next time, keep seeking
37:49
truth and building up your grasp of God's wisdom.