Kenneth D. Boa and Robert M. Bowman, Jr. explain John M. Frame’s apologetic in Faith Has Its Reasons: Integrative Approaches to Defending the Christian Faith (pages 472-481).
In chapter one, Apologetics: The Basics, Frame defines apologetics “as the discipline that teaches Christians how to give a reason for their hope.” This definition is based on 1 Peter 3:15-6. Frame distinguishes three aspects of apologetics.
1. Apologetics as proof: presenting a rational basis for faith or “proving Christianity to be true.”
2. Apologetics as defense: answering the objections of unbelief.
3. Apologetics as offense: attacking the foolishness of unbelieving thought.
These three types of apologetics are perspectivally related. That is to say, each one, done full and rightly, includes the other two, so that each is a way of looking at (i.e., a perspective on) the whole apologetic approach.
Frame strongly advocates “Lordship salvation” based on, he says, the first part of his theme verse in 1 Peter 3:15, “In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy.” Like most Lordship salvation arguments, this one is a stretch. Peter is instructing believers how to defend the faith not sinners how to be saved.
Presuppositions
God’s Word is our “presupposition” i.e., our ultimate commitment, standard, and criterion of truth and falsity. Frame is very critical of the traditional or classical method of apologetics that uses logic, facts, experience, reason, and such as the sources of truth but divine revelation, especially Scripture, is systematically excluded. Frame quotes Bishop Joseph Butler as an example, “Let reason kept to: and, if any part of the Scripture account of the redemption of the world by can be shown to be really contrary to it, let the scripture, in the name of God be given up” (Analogy of Religion, p. 5).
Circular Argument?
How can you continue your witness to someone who rejects your worldview?
1. At one level, the unbeliever already knows the truth. He is repressing the knowledge (Rom. 1:21ff).
2. Our witness to the unbeliever never comes alone. The Holy Spirit uses our witness of God’s Word (1 Cor. 2:4-5; 12ff).
3. We all already do this. When we give the propositions of God’s Word to the sinner.
4. We never run out of topics for discussion. Christian apologetics can take many forms, such as “offensive” apologetics or the Socratic apologetic of asking questions.
5. Not all circularity is created equal. Frame distinguishes between “narrowly circular” and “broadly circular” argument. Narrow circular states: “The Bible is the Word of God because it says it is.” A broad circular argument that an unbeliever may listen to longer is: The Bible is the Word of God because of various evidences” and then proceed to provide the evidences.
God’s Responsibility and Ours
Frame states it is important for us to maintain a balance between divine sovereignty and human obedience in apologetics, because God sovereignly uses the apologist in defending the truth. Apologetics and preaching are not two different things. Both aim at persuading the unbeliever to receive the truth of God’s Word.
Some think apologetics is not necessary because the Bible can defend itself. When the message is preached so that people understand, the Bible will defend itself.
Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura simply requires that in theology and in all other disciplines, the biggest authority, the supreme standard, must Scripture and Scripture alone.
Sola Scriptura and Natural Revelation
Frame writes “the point is not that Scripture is more divine or more authoritative than natural revelation. Natural revelation is every bit the word of God and absolutely authoritative.”
But he adds, “It is wrong, for example, to suggest (as many do, including Douglas Groothuis) that the ‘two books of nature and Scripture’ should be read side by side, carrying equal weight in every respect.” These two statements seem to contradict each other.
God has given us Scripture, or special revelation, both to supplement natural revelation (by adding to it the message of salvation) and to correct our misuse of natural revelation. As Calvin said, the Christian should look at nature with the “spectacles of Scripture.”
Frame states that “presuppositionalists are often accused of rejecting the use of evidence. This simple is not so…. We do not reject the use of evidences, even the use of theistic proofs. We only insist that these be scriptural arguments---that is, arguments that appeal to scriptural criteria.” Frame quotes Van Till to refute John S. Feinberg’s accusation that Van Till rejected evidence (page 24): “Every bit of historical investigation, whether it be in the directly Biblical field, archaeology, or in general history, is bound to do confirm the truth of the claims of the Christian position” (Defense of the Faith, 257).
Craig presents theistic arguments without the use of scripture. Craig’s approach is natural revelation. I need to cite Craig here to be certain.
Values
Apologetics like preaching can lead to the conversion of the lost and the edification of believers. The unbeliever is surrounded by evidence in creation (Rom. 1:88ff.) and in himself (Gen. 1:26ff.) for the existence of God. The apologist can formulate that evidence and draw the unbeliever’s attention to it.
Dangers
Apologists have been especially prone to sins in two areas. In terms of Ephesians 4:15…. we may say that apologists have been sometimes guilty of speaking 1) falsehoods and 2) sometimes of speaking without love. The first area happens when apologists desire to present Christianity intellectually and compromise the message as Bultmann, Tillich and Pannenberg have done. The second area is speaking the truth with contention rather than love. Frame refers to many biblical references that rebuke pride that causes contention such as Proverbs 14:10.
Frame states that many passages of the Bible from the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles do not sound very “peaceful.” These men were willing to use very strong, angry language when necessary. On many occasions, however, they showed much patience and gentleness. In my view, strong language is appropriate against people who (1) claim to have some religious teaching authority, and (2) are proclaiming false doctrine on serious matters, leading believers astray, or are dishonoring orthodox doctrine by ungodly lives, and (3) have ignored clear and graciously expressed warnings that their conduct displeases God. The Protestant Reformers used similarly strong language (which can usually be justified on these principles). Most of those today who are seeking to emulate the biblical and Reformation writers in this respect are overdoing it, in my opinion. They should learn to give at least equal attention to peacemaking.