In chapter three, Apologetics as Proof: Some Methodological Considerations, and the next three chapters, John M. Frame discusses one, proof, of the three aspects of apologetics that he discusses in chapter one:
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.
Faith, Scripture, and Evidence
When Paul tells us in Romans 8:1 that “there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,” he adds the therefore. Therefore indicates a reason. Here Scripture does not merely proclaim the truth; it also proclaims reasons (Romans 1-7) for believing the truth.
The Concept of Proof
The only restrictions on apologetic argument that emerge from our discussion so far are these:
1. The premises and logic of the argument must be consistent with biblical teaching (including biblical epistemology).
2. The premises must be true and the logic valid.
3. The specific subject matter of the argument must take into account the specific situation of the inquirer: his education, his interests, his questions, and so on. The third point means that apologetic argument is “person-variable.” No single argument is guaranteed to persuade every unbeliever or to assuage every doubt in a believer’s heart. But since every fact testifies to the reality of God, the apologist has no shortage of resources, but rather a great abundance.
The Need of Proof
Scripture never argues the existence of God; rather, it states that he is clearly revealed (Rom. 1:18ff.), and it ridicules those who deny him (Ps. 14:1). The “fool” in the psalm who says “There is no God” says it not out of intellectual error, but out of moral blindness (see the following verses). He has repressed the truth, as have the unbelievers described in Romans 1:21ff. Or, to put the same point differently, he is blinded by Satan (2 Cor.4:4).
Point of Contact
The point of contact with a totally depraved sinner, according to Van Til, is the knowledge of God that every sinner possesses, in spite of the fall, that the sinner represses according to Romans 1:21. This is the point of contact that the apologist must appeal. How do sinners repress the knowledge of God?
In Romans 1, sinners repress the knowledge of God in idolatrous worship and illicit sexual behavior. The unregenerate represses the truth by disobeying God. This is ethical rebellion.
For the question of point of contact boils down to this: are we accepting and thus addressing the unbeleivers's distorted worldview, or are we accepting and thus addressing the undistorted revelation that he holds within himself despite his distorted worldview?
Are we so impressed by unbelieving "wisdom" that we seek to gain the approval of unbelieving intellectuals based on their own criteria? We guard against it by reminding ourselves that our job is to rebuke unbelieving criteria, not affirm them. Our appeal is not to those criteria, but to that knowledge of God that the unbeliever has "deep down" as Van Til liked to say.