This is an accessible introduction to defending the Christian faith from a presuppositional point of view. Very strong argument for why the Christian must never "set aside" their convictions when defending the Christianity. Our goal is two-fold:
1. To demonstrate the unreasonableness of anti-Christianity
2. To demonstrate the certainty of truth found in God's word

While there is a lot of good stuff in this book, my main complaints would be:
1. Repetitive, often belaboring the same point in different places.
2. Focused mainly for discussing Christianity with an atheist, and tends to be philosophically minded. In many apologetic encounters, the reasoning might go over the person's head.
3. A bit too dogmatic about requiring presuppositionalism as our method of argument instead of highlighting the importance of being presuppositional in our heart convictions. While we must reject neutrality and stand firmly on God's authority, making use of the arguments of other apologetic methods during our discourses is entirely appropriate. ( )

Make sure you have a good grasp of philosophy and have a dictionary on hand. This isn't pleasure reading. However, the content is enriching, educational and enjoyable. ( )

A very fine entry point into Presuppositional Apologetics, and one I would recommend to any Christian. Cornelius Van Til, who was most instrumental in restoring this approach to the church, is not the easiest man the read. English was his second language, and his prose is very dense. Bahnsen, a student of Van Til, is faithful to his mentor's understanding of biblical apologetics, but is much more accessible to the average reader.

This approach, at its core, is the recognition that everyone is bringing a set of presuppositions or worldview to a debate. However, most people are very inconsistent with their arguments and worldview. For example, an atheist will speak of atrocities happening around the world, but the atheist really has no foundation on which to base any sort of moral standard except that he likes one moral code over another. In a purely materialistic framework, there is no rational explanation of a standard moral code. In fact, the very mechanisms of evolution (survival of the fittest, etc) argue against moral declarations. The consistent atheist can say that he disagrees with Hitler, but he cannot say that Hitler was wrong.

Since only one worldview can be right, Bahnsen’s assertion is that only one will actually work. Therefore Bahnsen, when in conversation with an unbeliever, will cut through the other issues and try to challenge the worldview of the person with him.

The problem with other forms of apologetics, according to Bahnsen, is that it assumes the unbeliever capable of reasoning his way to God from a worldly starting point. They will make the world the authority over the Bible by seeking to prove the Bible by way of false and contradictory worldviews. Bahnsen will correct us here and remind us that God is our authority, and we may not put something above him. When we make the foundation of our apologetic the reason of the unbeliever and use that as a launching point, that is what we are doing.

That is not to say that presuppositionalists will not engage in reason. Bahnsen will say we using reason more consistently than others. It is also not to say that we would not use evidences and proofs. The question here is one of foundation. What is our assumption going into a conversation? Is it that the unbeliever is basically right and just needs a nudge here or there, or is it that the unbeliever needs correction at the very core of his worldview? ( )

A concise introduction to presuppositional apologetics. There are some philosophical vagaries here, but nonetheless a helpful book. ( )