Atomic Bomb Apologetic

The Only Consistent Biblical Apologetic

The Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) stands as the sole biblically consistent method of defending the Christian faith, particularly as understood in Reformed theology. Cornelius Van Til, the father of presuppositional apologetics, insisted that his apologetic approach is “the only approach to philosophy and apologetics that is consistently Christian and Reformed,” viewing all alternative methods as compromises with non-biblical thought . His student Greg Bahnsen vigorously defended this stance, maintaining that only the Christian worldview grounded in the one true God can provide the foundation for logic, science, and morality. In other words, TAG asserts that without presupposing the God of Scripture, no knowledge or proof is possible . This revised article will emphasize why TAG is the only biblically consistent defense of the faith, explain how it explicitly presupposes the one true God as revealed in nature and Scripture (Romans 1:18–21), and underscore that apologetics is not a neutral intellectual exercise but a theological confrontation rooted in God’s revelation. We will also offer a respectful critique of Dr. John Frame’s approach, suggesting that it lacks the rigor of Van Til’s and Bahnsen’s presuppositional method, which we present as the most faithful and robust expression of biblical apologetics. Throughout, additional scriptural references (e.g. Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3; 1 Corinthians 1:18–25) will reinforce a God-centered epistemology and show that rejection of God is ultimately a matter of moral suppression rather than mere intellectual skepticism.

Presupposing the One True God in Apologetics

A truly Christian apologetic starts by presupposing the triune God revealed in Scripture and nature, rather than attempting to reason to God from a position of neutrality. Van Til taught that the apologist “must presuppose the truth of God’s word from start to finish in his apologetic witness” . This means we begin with the certainty that the God of the Bible exists and has spoken. Scripture itself demands this starting point: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7 ). In other words, reverence for God’s revelation is the foundation of all true knowledge. If one does not start with “the fear of the Lord,” one ultimately ends up in foolish thinking. Likewise, Colossians 2:3 declares that in Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” . All wisdom and knowledge have their source in God; to attempt knowledge apart from Him is to cut oneself off from the very possibility of truth. Van Til and Bahnsen therefore argued that Christian theism must be taken as the precondition for any intelligible thought. Indeed, only the Christian worldview, based on the presupposition of God’s revealed truth, “provides the philosophical preconditions necessary for man’s reasoning and knowledge in any field whatsoever” . Any alternative worldview will ultimately be “philosophically untenable” because it cannot account for the fundamental realities (such as logical laws, moral absolutes, or uniformity in nature) that we rely on in reasoning. In sum, a biblical apologetic does not infer God’s existence as a mere conclusion; it starts with God as the necessary starting axiom for all reasoning .

Crucially, this presupposition is not arbitrary or a mere “leap of faith.” It is grounded in God’s own revelation of Himself to everyone. According to Romans 1:18–21, God has clearly revealed His existence and attributes through nature, such that all people “know God” inescapably, yet unrighteously suppress that truth . The Apostle Paul states that God’s eternal power and divine nature have been “clearly seen, being understood from the things that have been made, so that men are without excuse” . Even though “they knew God,” unbelievers “did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but became futile in their thinking” . This means every person at root has a knowledge of the one true God — not a saving knowledge, but an inescapable awareness from general revelation. The unbeliever’s denial of God, therefore, is not due to lack of evidence or intellectual ability; it is a willful suppression of truth for moral reasons (“suppress the truth by their unrighteousness” ). Van Til built upon this Pauline insight: the conflict between belief and unbelief is ethical at its core, not merely factual. The sinner’s impulse is to “suppress the truth in unrighteousness,” because acknowledging the Creator would mean submitting to Him. Thus, apologetics, in Van Til’s view, is “a biblical challenge to the unbeliever’s suppression of truth,” aiming to expose that suppression and call the unbeliever to repentance. It is presuppositional in that it refuses to grant the unbeliever a neutral ground on which God is not already truthfully known. We presuppose God because the unbeliever already knows God deep down (as Romans 1 affirms), and our goal is to expose the inconsistency of denying that knowledge.

No Neutral Ground: Apologetics as Theological Confrontation

Because the unbeliever’s problem is ultimately ethical rebellion, Christian apologetics cannot be a neutral, purely intellectual debate as if God were a hypothesis to be tested. Instead, it is a theological confrontation: the clash of entire worldviews, truth against suppression. Van Til famously said that “there is no neutral ground” between believer and unbeliever. The two start with opposite ultimate commitments — God’s authority versus man’s autonomy . The presuppositional method therefore challenges the unbeliever’s assumed autonomy and calls out the pretended neutrality as a myth. Every fact, every piece of evidence, will be interpreted in light of one’s underlying commitments; thus the Christian apologist insists on interpreting facts in the light of God’s revelation, not from within the unbeliever’s false perspective. As Bahnsen summarizes Van Til’s approach, “Only the Christian world-view, based on the presupposition of the truth of God’s Word,” makes sense of our experience . The apologist’s task is to show the unbeliever that, by rejecting God, he undermines the very basis for reasoning, science, and morals that he himself relies upon. We do this by performing an internal critique of the unbeliever’s worldview and then inviting him to consider reality from the biblical worldview. This method is often called an “transcendental argument” because it asks: “What must be true for the very possibility of knowledge, logic, and morality to make sense?” The answer is that the God of the Bible must exist, for no other worldview can furnish those transcendental preconditions. As Bahnsen famously put it in debate, “the transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him, it is impossible to prove anything” . In other words, unless the Christian worldview is true, we fall into complete skepticism and incoherence. This is often summarized as arguing “from the impossibility of the contrary” . The apologist shows that every alternative to Christianity fails to provide a foundation for rational thought, and thus the truth of Christianity is demonstrated because only it can account for the intelligibility of human experience.

This approach turns the tables on the unbeliever. Rather than Christianity being on trial, it is the unbeliever’s worldview that is placed in the dock. The apologist presses the antithesis between belief and unbelief at every point. As Van Til emphasized, there is a “complete antithesis between the believer and the unbeliever at every point” . This antithesis is not to say the unbeliever knows nothing—rather, whatever truth he does know, he knows only by borrowing from the Christian framework (while denying the source). Proverbs 1:7 calls the person who rejects God’s wisdom a “fool,” and Psalm 14:1 likewise says “the fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” In 1 Corinthians 1:18–25, Scripture further teaches that from a worldly perspective the gospel message is “foolishness” to those who are perishing, yet this very message is “the power of God” to those being saved . God has “made foolish the wisdom of the world”, and “the foolishness of God is wiser than men” . The implication is profound: unbelievers will claim Christianity is irrational according to their own self-made standards of wisdom, but in reality it is God who exposes the folly of unbelieving thought. Christian apologetics, done presuppositionally, engages in this biblical truth confrontation. It does not cater to the unbeliever’s demand that God be proved on the unbeliever’s terms (as if God were merely probable or as if human reason were ultimate). Instead, it boldly proclaims that all reasoning already depends on God, and it calls the unbeliever to submit to the revelation he already possesses but suppresses. Far from being a mere academic sparring match, apologetics is spiritual warfare, demolishing arguments raised against the knowledge of God (2 Corinthians 10:4–5) and aiming to bring every thought captive to Christ. It recognizes that ultimately, conversion is the work of the Holy Spirit — no amount of argument can regenerate a heart — but we present a consistent witness that all truth is God’s truth and that the unbeliever’s heart problem leads to a mind problem. As Jesus said, men love darkness rather than light (John 3:19), so they flee from God’s truth until God changes their heart. Our role is to press the truth of God’s revelation so clearly that the unbeliever is left “without excuse” for his suppression (Rom 1:20) and sees the stark choice between the folly of unbelief and the wisdom of God.

Van Til and Bahnsen: The Faithful and Robust Expression of Biblical Apologetics

Cornelius Van Til pioneered this presuppositional approach, and Greg Bahnsen in the next generation rigorously defended and refined it as the most faithful application of Reformed theology to apologetics. Van Til was uncompromising in his commitment to the absolute authority of Scripture in every realm of thought. He believed that Christian apologists must never set aside their fundamental commitment to God’s truth, even for the sake of debate. Rather than appealing to the unbeliever as an autonomous judge, Van Til urged apologists to present Christianity as the precondition for intelligibility, and to do so “unapologetically” (so to speak) — boldly maintaining the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian presuppositions . This unwavering stance earned Van Til a reputation as a “defender of the Reformed faith” who would not dilute Christian truth to appease secular philosophy . He maintained that the Reformed (biblical) worldview, with its doctrines of the sovereign, triune God and the fallen, dependent nature of man, is the only worldview that makes sense of reality. Van Til even went so far as to say that no non-Christian (or inconsistently Christian) position can ever be rationally consistent. He unapologetically critiqued any system of thought not built on the biblical God, whether it was secular philosophy or non-Reformed theology. In Van Til’s own words, his goal was to be “utterly biblical in every area of thought”, applying the lordship of Christ without compromise . This rigorous standard set his approach apart from more traditional apologetic methods.

Greg Bahnsen, a student of Van Til, became the foremost champion of Van Til’s apologetic in both theory and practice. He affirmed Van Til’s conviction that “Christian theism is the only sound foundation for any reasoning”, and he worked to demonstrate this in practical debate settings. In his famous debate with the atheist Gordon Stein in 1985, Bahnsen employed the transcendental argument masterfully. He pressed Dr. Stein on how, in an atheistic worldview, one could account for the laws of logic, scientific induction, or objective moral values. Bahnsen argued that Stein’s atheism left him unable to justify even the process of rational debate, since “the atheist worldview cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality” . By contrast, the Christian worldview does provide those preconditions, because a rational, sovereign God created the world and our minds and has revealed truth to us. Bahnsen’s performance in that debate earned him the description “the man atheists fear most,” and it vividly illustrated the TAG in action. His apologetic approach never strayed from its theological roots: Bahnsen constantly referenced what Scripture says about the unbeliever (e.g. that the unbeliever is a “fool” in rebellion against God’s evident truth) and what Scripture says about God (that He is the source of all truth). In his scholarly work Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings & Analysis, Bahnsen further expounded the method, emphasizing that the apologist’s chief principle must be to presuppose God’s Word throughout the defense of the faith . He also clarified misunderstandings—showing, for example, that Van Til did not reject the use of evidence or logical argument, but insisted they be used in submission to Scripture, not as neutrally considered data . By framing every traditional proof within a presuppositional context, Bahnsen demonstrated how one can present evidence for Christianity without compromising the foundational commitment to God’s authority. The result is an apologetic that is both faithful to the Bible and ferociously logical. It does not ask the unbeliever to accept probabilities or mere possibilities about God — it presses the certainty of God’s reality, because nothing could be known or proven otherwise. This is why Van Til and Bahnsen viewed TAG not just as one argument among many, but as the overall approach to defending the faith. It is a philosophy of defense that permeates every argument the apologist uses. Any factual evidences or philosophical reasoning have a place only after the unbeliever’s presuppositions are challenged and the necessity of the biblical God is set forth. In short, Van Til’s and Bahnsen’s presuppositionalism is a robustly God-centered apologetic, treating every apologetic encounter as an opportunity to present the gospel’s truth and the foolishness of unbelief rather than a negotiation on “neutral” grounds.

It should be noted that this approach is thoroughly biblical in its theology: it starts with the Creator-creature distinction (God as sovereign, man as dependent) and the doctrine of total depravity (man’s reasoning is not morally neutral but is corrupted by sin when apart from God). It relies on the authority of Scripture’s analysis of human unbelief (e.g. Romans 1) and magnifies Christ as the Logos, the foundation of all knowledge (John 1:1–3, Col. 2:3). By remaining true to these doctrines, Van Til and Bahnsen believed they were bringing apologetics into alignment with Reformed theology and ultimately with Scripture itself. In their view, other approaches to apologetics (such as pure evidentialism or classical two-step arguments) inadvertently grant too much autonomy to human reason or implicitly deny the noetic effects of sin (sin’s impact on the mind). Those methods might present Christianity as probable or merely more reasonable than not, but presuppositional apologetics presents Christian truth as the necessary starting point for reason. This is why Van Til was willing to be “confrontational” in method —he was contending for the crown rights of King Jesus in the realm of thought, refusing to cede an inch of neutral ground to the unbeliever’s pretense.

Critiquing John Frame’s Modified Presuppositionalism

Dr. John Frame, a respected Reformed theologian and apologist, considers himself a student and advocate of Van Til. Frame’s approach to apologetics is presuppositional in nature and sympathetic to Van Til’s insights, yet it recasts and modifies certain aspects of Van Til’s method. While Frame upholds the importance of presuppositions and the lordship of Christ in reasoning, critics argue that his approach is not as rigorously consistent with Van Til’s principles as Bahnsen’s is. In fact, some have observed that Frame’s work “marks a decisive departure from Van Tilian presuppositionalism” .

One point of concern is Frame’s willingness to employ a variety of argument styles and his more irenic, or “genteel,” style of engagement . Frame emphasizes perspectivalism and seeks to find common ground with opponents whenever possible. He has suggested that Van Til’s approach can be translated into more traditional forms of argument and has even acknowledged value in some classical proofs, so long as one remembers the proper presuppositional context. This eclectic approach , while intended to make presuppositionalism more accessible, strikes some Van Tillians as a step backward into the very neutrality Van Til shunned. Mark Karlberg, for example, remarks that Van Til was the “uncompromising defender” of Reformed orthodoxy, whereas “Frame the genteel perspectivalist [has] an eclectic approach [that] embraces diverse and contrary formulations” . In other words, Frame’s method is seen as softer and more accommodating—potentially at the cost of Van Til’s all-or-nothing rigor. Frame himself has critiqued Van Til on certain points (e.g. Van Til’s wording about paradox and the extent of the unbeliever’s knowledge). In his book Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, Frame offers “sympathetic, yet critical” analysis and even friendly corrections of his mentor. While this shows thoughtful scholarship, Van Til’s staunch followers worry that Frame’s adjustments dilute the sharp antithesis that Van Til and Bahnsen maintained against non-Christian worldviews. Indeed, Karlberg concludes pointedly: “Frame’s work, in my judgment, marks a decisive departure from Van Tilian presuppositionalism” , even asking whether Frame can “be regarded as a faithful expositor and practitioner of Van Tilian apologetics”.

One example often cited is Frame’s treatment of the transcendental argument. Frame agrees that the Christian worldview alone makes knowledge possible, but he is open to formulating arguments in multiple ways (what he calls a “multiperspectival” approach). He might present a moral argument or design argument, for instance, but framed in such a way that it implicitly depends on the biblical God. Van Til and Bahnsen would not object to using various evidences, but they would insist that the force of any such argument must ultimately be transcendental — showing the impossibility of the contrary. Some feel Frame’s presentations at times risk sounding like standalone arguments (which the unbeliever might think he can evaluate piecemeal) rather than always explicitly driving the discussion to the level of presuppositions. In fairness, Frame states that he fully endorses presuppositional principles; however, his tone and method aim to be more dialogical and perhaps less confrontational than Van Til’s. He tends to stress that we can start where the unbeliever is and “explore” their worldview together, gently leading them to see inconsistency, whereas Bahnsen was more apt to directly attack the folly of the unbeliever’s position from the outset. This difference in style has led to a perception that Frame is less strict in practice. Critics accuse Frame of an inconsistency: on the one hand affirming that every argument must presuppose God, but on the other hand sometimes engaging the unbeliever on grounds that don’t immediately reveal that presupposition. In sum, while Frame is a presuppositionalist, his approach is viewed as more accommodating and less “all-in” than Van Til’s. As one reviewer put it, “the sharp disagreements between Frame and his predecessor… raise the question whether Frame himself can legitimately be regarded as a faithful practitioner of Van Tilian apologetics” .

To be clear, this critique of Frame is offered in a spirit of respect. Frame has made valuable contributions, and he shares the same ultimate goal of honoring Christ in apologetics. However, in the context of emphasizing TAG as the only biblically consistent method, it’s important to highlight that even small deviations can have large implications. Van Til believed that any concession to methods that assume human autonomy (even temporarily for the sake of argument) would compromise the biblical principle that God’s authority is absolute and man’s reason must bow to God’s revelation. Thus, Van Til did not hesitate to label even some well-meaning Christian approaches as compromised. He famously argued that Arminian apologetics (which exalts human free will and often uses more evidential approaches) was inconsistent, as was Roman Catholic apologetic methodology—since both, in his view, smuggle in elements of human autonomy or irrationalism. “Those who disagree” with Van Til’s approach, he asserted, inevitably incorporate “pagan, Roman Catholic, or Arminian” assumptions into their thinking . By this stringent standard, Frame’s softer presuppositionalism might be seen as a partial compromise (perhaps unconsciously) with a less confrontational, more traditional mindset. Bahnsen, who remained very close to Van Til’s positions, also gently questioned some of Frame’s recasting. In practice, Bahnsen’s debates and writings hew more tightly to Van Til’s original vision, whereas Frame’s tend to blend in a bit more of classical and evidential flavor (again, always under the banner of presuppositionalism, but in a modified form). For seminary students aiming to grasp pure Van Tilian apologetics, it is instructive to compare these approaches. Frame provides a nuanced take that some find easier to implement, but it may lack some of the punch and clarity of Van Til’s/Bahnsen’s style. In contrast, Van Til’s and Bahnsen’s approach might seem “hard-line”, but it has the virtue of being uncompromisingly biblical and internally consistent. It refuses to let the unbeliever think he can actually use reason or evidence rightly without first repenting of his sin and rebellion against God’s truth.

Conclusion: God-Centered Epistemology and the Impossibility of the Contrary

In summary, the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG) — the argument that without the Christian God we cannot make sense of anything — is not just one argument among many, but the cornerstone of a God-centered epistemology. It encapsulates the biblical teaching that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge” and that Christ himself is the foundation of all wisdom (Prov. 1:7; Col. 2:3). Van Til and Bahnsen understood that defending the faith is ultimately about defending the honor of God’s truth in a context where sinners are repressing that truth. They therefore crafted an apologetic method that takes seriously Romans 1: all people know the true God but suppress Him, and thus the apologist’s job is to expose that suppression and call the unbeliever to account. Rather than treating apologetics as a neutral quest where believer and unbeliever set aside their commitments, presuppositionalism treats it as an aspect of Christian witness, inseparable from evangelism and theological truth. It is confrontational only in the way that Elijah was confrontational with the prophets of Baal, or how Paul was confrontational with Greek philosophers at Mars Hill — not for the sake of belligerence, but to openly challenge false gods and false wisdom in the light of God’s revelation. Far from being anti-intellectual, this approach has a profound intellectual payoff: it places every fact and every logic under the lordship of Christ, providing a unified, consistent framework for understanding the world. It also takes human depravity seriously, explaining why unbelievers often appear very intelligent and yet miss the most important truth — because “professing to be wise, they became fools” when they “neither honored God nor gave Him thanks” . The clash between belief and unbelief is never about the data or evidence alone; it’s a moral and spiritual battle at the presuppositional level.

By emphasizing TAG as the only biblically consistent apologetic, we affirm that there is indeed only one true faith (the gospel of Jesus Christ), and it must be defended in a way consistent with its content. The message and the method must align. A gospel that calls sinners to surrender their autonomy to Christ cannot be defended by appealing to that very autonomy. A faith that rests on God’s revelation cannot be upheld by arguments that ignore or downplay that revelation. Van Til’s presuppositionalism, especially as expounded by Bahnsen, challenges us to conduct apologetics as “thinking God’s thoughts after Him” in the realm of argument. This is apologetics done soli Deo gloria — to the glory of God alone. It views a debate not as a contest of human cleverness but as an opportunity to magnify God’s truth and to show the unbeliever the bankruptcy of his sinful thinking.

While some within the Reformed camp (like Dr. Frame) advocate a gentler or more flexible presuppositionalism, we have argued that the most coherent and biblically faithful approach is to hold the line that Van Til drew: No neutrality, no apology for presupposing God, and no compromise with unbelieving principles. Such an approach will inevitably bring confrontation, as light always does to darkness, but it is a loving confrontation, aiming to lead the unbeliever to salvation. As 1 Corinthians 1:24 reminds us, to those who are called, what once seemed “foolish” — Christ crucified — is now recognized as “the power of God and the wisdom of God.” Our apologetic strives, by God’s grace, to be the tool that shatters the illusion of the world’s wisdom and puts on display the absolute necessity of the God who is there and who has spoken. In the final analysis, TAG underscores that the Christian faith is not merely one plausible worldview among others but is the priceless truth without which no other truth can be known at all . It is the task of faithful apologists to press that transcendental truth for the sake of the gospel and the honor of our Lord, “destroying arguments” and taking “every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Cor. 10:5) — for from Him, through Him, and to Him are all things.

Study Guide

Study Questions and Applications:

1. TAG and Biblical Consistency: What is the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG), and why do Van Til and Bahnsen insist that it is the only biblically consistent way to defend the Christian faith? How does TAG differ from other apologetic arguments in terms of its starting point and goal ?

2. Presupposing God’s Revelation: According to Romans 1:18–21, what knowledge of God do all people possess, and how do they respond to that knowledge? How does this biblical teaching inform the presuppositional method’s insistence that we must start by presupposing God’s existence and truth rather than treating the unbeliever as ignorant or neutral ? Consider also Proverbs 1:7 and Colossians 2:3 – what do these verses imply about the source of true knowledge and wisdom ? How should these Scriptures shape our approach to reasoning and argumentation in apologetics?

3. No Neutral Ground – Discussing Antithesis: Van Til taught that there is “no neutral ground” between Christian and non-Christian worldviews. In your own words, explain what this means. Why is the idea of neutrality considered a “myth” in presuppositional apologetics? Use an example or analogy to illustrate the concept of an unbeliever interpreting evidence according to his presuppositions. How would a presuppositional apologist challenge the claim of neutrality when, for instance, discussing a topic like the origin of the universe or the resurrection of Christ?

4. “Impossibility of the Contrary” – Understanding TAG’s Claim: Greg Bahnsen famously stated, “Without the Christian God, it is impossible to prove anything” . What does this mean? Break down the idea of “proving the impossibility of the contrary.” How would you respond to someone who says this claim is an overstatement? (For example, an unbeliever might ask, “Are you saying an atheist can’t know 2+2=4 or can’t do science?”) In your answer, distinguish between what an unbeliever can know/practice (due to God’s general revelation and common grace) versus what his worldview can account for rationally. Why is the distinction between ontological reality (the way the world actually is, sustained by God) and epistemological worldview (the philosophy people claim to believe) important here?

5. Moral Suppression vs. Intellectual Skepticism: Discuss the statement: “The rejection of God is ultimately a matter of moral suppression rather than mere intellectual skepticism.” How do Romans 1:18–21 and 1 Corinthians 1:18–25 support this claim ? In what ways might an apologist address the heart issue of unbelief (such as pride, love of sin, or unwillingness to submit to authority) even while engaged in an intellectual debate? Why is prayer and reliance on the Holy Spirit crucial in presuppositional apologetics, given this understanding of unbelief?

6. Comparing Apologetic Approaches: Contrast a Van Tilian presuppositional approach to apologetics with a more classical apologetic approach on a specific issue (for example, the existence of God or the problem of evil). How would a classical apologist likely frame the argument, and how would a presuppositionalist frame it differently? What strengths or weaknesses do you see in each? Specifically, how does the presuppositionalist’s refusal to grant neutral ground alter the conversation? (You might role-play a brief dialogue for each approach.)

7. Critique of John Frame’s Approach: Summarize the critique of Dr. John Frame’s apologetic approach as presented in the article. In what ways is Frame’s “perspectival” or modified presuppositional method seen as less rigorous or a “departure” from Van Til’s strict method ? Do you agree with this critique—why or why not? Consider Frame’s intention of being winsome and flexible: is it possible to incorporate those virtues without compromising presuppositional principles? How might a student of Van Til strive for both faithfulness to principle and gracious engagement in practice?

8. Worldview Analysis Exercise: Pick a non-Christian worldview (e.g., naturalistic atheism, Islam, Hinduism, or a modern secular ideology). Briefly identify that worldview’s core presuppositions. Then, as a presuppositional apologist, outline how you would perform an internal critique of that worldview. What internal inconsistencies or failures (with respect to providing the “preconditions of intelligibility”) would you aim to expose? How would you then present the Christian worldview as the solution or answer to those failures? (For instance, if critiquing naturalistic atheism, you might examine its inability to account for universal moral norms or the laws of logic, and contrast that with the Christian explanation.)

9. Scripture in Apologetics: Van Til’s approach is described as “utterly biblical in every area of thought.” How can a Christian apologist make sure that his defense of the faith is thoroughly scriptural in content and spirit? What are some practical ways to incorporate Scripture into apologetic conversations without merely proof-texting? Identify 2–3 Scripture passages (beyond those discussed in the article) that you think would be useful in apologetics, and explain how you would use them presuppositionally. (Some possibilities: Genesis 1:1 regarding ultimate beginnings, John 1:1–5 about Christ as the Light and Source of truth, Acts 17:24–31 as used by Paul in reasoning with philosophers, etc.)

10. Personal Application – Developing Conviction: Reflect on your own view of apologetics prior to this study. In what ways has learning about Van Tilian presuppositionalism challenged or changed your perspective on defending the faith? Do you find the TAG approach convincing? Why or why not? Write a brief personal plan for how you will strengthen your ability to defend the faith in a presuppositional manner. Consider incorporating: regular study of Scripture to deepen your biblical worldview, study of key presuppositional works (Van Til, Bahnsen, etc.), and practice conversations or debates on relevant topics. How will you guard against the temptation to slip into a neutral or evidence-only approach, and instead keep your apologetic encounters centered on the truth of God’s revelation and the gospel of Christ?