A Book Review on “Apologetics to the Glory of God”

by John Davis

Frame, John. Apologetics to the Glory of God. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 1994: 265 pages.

An Overview of Chapters 1-5

In Chapter One Frame argues that there is no neutrality in apologetics, i.e. a Christian of necessity must argue from his Christian understanding. This does not mean that there is no common ground between a believer and unbeliever, for all unbelievers have a faded memory of the true God. Furthermore, the success of the Christian apologist is assured because the true God is active in convincing unbelievers. Frame sees the apologist, not as replacing God, but as working with God “practicing a divinely ordained human vocation” (17).

Frame argues that belief in the sufficiency of Scripture does not diminish the value of natural revelation, which he sees as “the word of God” and “authoritative” (23), as long as extra-biblical data is subordinated to the “corrective” measures of Scripture. He sees verbal revelation as meeting man’s need of a saving promise and as a means “to correct our sinful misinterpretations of natural revelation” (22). This is an important point that Frame makes in viewing natural revelation through the lens of Scripture.

In Chapter Two Frame sets forth the message of the Christian apologist establishing the philosophical framework from which a believer argues. A Christian does apologetics from a metaphysical belief in the ultimate reality of a personal God who as Creator is distinct from creation, who is sovereign and who exists as a Trinity. This leads the apologist to argue on the basis of a personal rather than an impersonal plan for the world. This also means that though God is immanent in that He is involved in all of creation, He is yet transcendent in His separate-ness from creation. The Christian apologist stands on the ground of God’s sovereignty in that He rules the world and works all things according to His wisdom. The doctrine of the Trinity preserves the personality of God as well as the oneness and diversity of creation.

A Christian apologist’s epistemology presupposes that God is the origin of truth and the authority for all knowledge. As opposed to human reason, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

The message of the Christian apologist is not simply an alternative to conventional wisdom but is good news because it offers the free gift of divine forgiveness.

Chapters Three through Five discuss methodological issues in apologetics as well as proof for the existence of God and the gospel. Frame interacts with Van Til’s presuppositionalism (transcendentalism) showing both the positive benefits as well as the limits of the transcendental argument. He also shows that the use of traditional arguments are not antithetical to presuppositionalism. Frame, as a presuppositionalist, is more friendly that Van Til to the use of traditional arguments. He does not believe that there is one single argument that can prove the existence of God. Unlike Van Til, Frame believes that positive arguments are useful and can be just as transcendental as negative ones. Frame appeals for a presuppositionalism of the heart that does not simply depend upon argument itself but also “the behavior/language” (87) accompanying the argument. Frame argues that it may not be possible to distinguish presuppositional and traditional apologetics simply on the externals, because they both may employ similar empirical phenomena. The difference lies in the attitude of the heart.

Frame introduces various arguments for the existence of God. One is an argument on the basis of morals -“Moral values, therefore God” (91). He argues that you moral obligation within relationships and that you can only have an absolute moral obligation with an absolute person. You can only have absolute moral standards if an absolute moral person exists. The God of the Bible best fits the kind of God that absolute morality demands. Another argument is an epistemological one that begins with human rationality and leads to an absolute rational divine personality. He also shows how certain metaphysical arguments (teleological, cosmological, ontological) can be utilized moving from the implications of a reality in the universe to God. Frame appears to have retained a presuppositional apologetic while showing how evidential arguments are useful within the framework of presuppositionalism.

Chapter Six: “Apologetics as Defense, the Problem of Evil, 1- Questions, General Principles, and Blind Alleys”

Frame discusses the issue of resolving the problem of why evil exists in a world where God is supposedly good and powerful. His approach is to examine the teaching of Scripture. At the outset he confesses the inability to find complete answers though we can find answers that bring encouragement (152). In this chapter he first disposes of solutions that contradict the Bible. Describing evil as an un-reality or an illusion contradicts what the Bible teaches about God’s sovereignty over all events, good and evil (156). Suggesting that God is incapable of overcoming evil undermines the biblical teaching of God’s omnipotence and sovereignty (157). Saying that a world with evil is the best possible world and one which is logically necessary to achieve certain ends is a plausible explanation, yet it assumes that God is not free to make things that are imperfect (158-9). The defense that asserts that evil exists because of the free choice of rational creatures allows for a freedom that goes beyond the Bible. Men are free to carry out only what God has foreordained (161). The explanation that views evil as a character building device assumes that the character which God desires can not be developed in any other way (163-4). The argument that a stable environment is necessary for human life and therefore creates the possibility of evil mistakenly blames creation rather than the evil of human hearts (164-5). The assertion that God is the indirect, not direct, cause of evil does not logically, though true, relieve him of responsibility for evil (165). The solution that God is outside of law and therefore free to do things which we perceive as wrong fails to recognize that, though we are forbidden to criticize God, he yet conforms to the law which he has given to us (166-8). Frame, lastly argues against the explanation for evil that simply attacks the unbeliever who offers the question rather than answering the question (168-170).

Chapter Seven: “Apologetics as Defense, the Problem of Evil, 2 – A Biblical Response”

In this chapter, Frame begins arguing that the absence of a clear answer to the problem of evil is God’s prerogative, soliciting trust from us. In the absence of cogent explanations, we are to simply accept and obey what the Bible clearly reveals and to trust Him for the doubts and suspicions we may have (171-178). He proceeds to explain that believers have a “new historical perspective.” This perspective includes a look at the past where God people waited and suffered until the justice and mercy of God were vindicated at the cross. This perspective also includes an outlook on the present that utilizes a refinement of the greater-good defense. Since God’s ultimate purpose is to glorify himself and our chief end to glorify him and enjoy him then the Scripture teach certain ways that God uses evil to bring about greater good (184-7). Also, this new perspective offers encouragement to trust and obey while we wait for that day when there will not be a problem with evil (187-9). Finally, Frame concludes: “Believers, even with their new hearts, do continue to ask about the problem of evil. But there are so many reasons for giving thanks that we can never look at evil with the same passion as the unbeliever” (190).

Evaluation of Chapters Six and Seven

For the most part, Frame briefly, yet adequately refutes the inadequate answers to the problem of evil. The one place where his refutation is lacking is in his discussion of the “Free-Will Defense.” On page 161 he offers scriptural proof that God determines free choices, both good and evil. The problem is that none of the verses cited by Frame offer the same degree of certitude regarding God’s determination of free choices. What can be deduced from those verses is that man’s free choices fulfill God’s plan, correlate with God’s plan; are overruled to accomplish God’s plan, etc. In the purest sense of the word “free”, no one is free. Our freedom is not exercised in a vacuum but in a world where God is sovereign and powerful. Nevertheless our freedom is actual and is in some ways an explanation for the evil that exists. However, our freedom is never a threat to God’s sovereignty and power; our freedom will never thwart his ultimate plan for the universe; and the evil that our freedom creates will never be so great as to be beyond God’s justice and mercy. All of this is not so far from Frames earlier statement in chapter one that “… God’s sovereignty does not exclude, but engages, human responsibility. Indeed, it is God’s sovereignty that grants human responsibility, that gives freedom and significance to human choices and actions, that ordains an important human role within God’s plan for history” (15).

The greater-good argument correlates with the free-will argument as an expression of God’s power and wisdom over the evil that free-will creates. God allows evil and employs evil to accomplish greater glory for Himself. We do not have all the answers as to why God foreordains an evil event, but knowing that he does encourages us to trust him in the midst of evil (187). Because believers have a new heart, they “can never look at evil with the same passion as an unbeliever” (190).

Chapter Eight – “Apologetics as Offense: Critique of Unbelief”

In this chapter Frame reviews the fundamental distinction between the “absolute personality of Christianity and the ultimate impersonalism of every other system…” (191). He shows that the unbeliever in his suppression of the knowledge of God and of truth enters two ways of thinking: atheism and idolatry. Atheism and idolatry may be held in isolation from each other or they may be mixed together. Frame sees atheism and idolatry as the only alternatives to Christianity, either the unbeliever denies all gods or gives his allegiance to a false god. He offers arguments against what he calls atheistic relativism, idolatrous rationalism, and atheistic idolatry (201-2).

His last chapter is an example of how to talk to a stranger about the gospel. The book closes with an evaluation of the Ligonier apologetic as opposed to presuppositionalism. Frame adequately shows that an evidential apologetic that “starts with the self’ is a rationalistic apologetic that denies the biblical assertions upon which Van Til’s apologetics were based: “(1) that human beings are obligated to presuppose God in all their thinking, and (2) that unbelievers resist this obligation in every aspect of thought and life” (223). Frame shows how presuppositionalism utilizes rational arguments and how evidentialism is often presuppositional. The main point of difference is how evidentialists and presuppositionalists understand autonomy. Evidentialists hold that before one can presuppose God he must first think about Him, i.e. “we can not make God our supreme standard unless we know that he exists” (228). On the other hand, presuppositionalists, going back to Van Til’s two main assertions, hold that autonomous reasoning is not possible, because all reasoning is inherently religious, either acknowledging the truth about God or suppressing it in atheism or idolatry.

John Davis

On September 10, 1970 I came to understand the great love of God for me, a sinner and a rebel. That evening I received God’s forgiveness and a new life through Jesus Christ, who died in my place and rose again to offer forgiveness and new life. I have been senior pastor for over 30 years planting two churches in Buckingham, PA and Queens, NY and serving two other churches in Brooklyn, NY and Roslyn, PA. I am currently the lead pastor at Grace Church of Philly.