In this four-part series, Greg L. Bahnsen offers a sustained and careful response to John M. Frame’s critique of Cornelius Van Til, focusing especially on the alleged proximity between presuppositional and traditional apologetic methods. Delivered in an academic lecture setting with live interaction and questions, these lectures move from a detailed analysis of the philosophical and methodological differences between classical and presuppositional approaches to a direct engagement with Frame’s arguments concerning transcendental reasoning, probability, certainty, and method. Bahnsen argues that the differences between Van Til and the traditional approach are not merely matters of tone or emphasis, but reflect deep epistemological and theological divergences. He clarifies where he believes Frame’s concerns are helpful, where they fall short, and how a consistently Reformed apologetic must challenge unbelieving autonomy at its roots.

01 — Profound Differences between the Traditional and Presuppositional Methods, Part 1 (1 of 4)

02 — Profound Differences between the Traditional and Presuppositional Methods, Part 2 (2 of 4)

03 — Reply to Frame’s Criticisms of Van Til, Part 1 (3 of 4)

04 — Reply to Frame’s Criticisms of Van Til, Part 2 (4 of 4)