Tactics In Defending The Faith Part 1 17053.mp3
Tactics In Defending The Faith Part 2 17054.mp3
-
FEEDJIT
Sitemeter
WTS bookstore
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Top Posts
- Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein Mp3
- E-Books
- Some more May 2013 Van Tillian Links
- Blowing down the House? Part V: Can Presuppositional Apologetics account for Christian diagreements?
- Kermit Gosnell and the irony of the coat hanger back alley argument
- Media
- Commentaries
- Greg Koukl Mp3 (Defending the Faith)
- R.C. Sproul’s Crucial Questions eBooks Now Free Forever
- Dr. Barrick's Sunday School Lessons on all of Psalms!
Meta
Archives
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
Pages
Absolutely P-H-E-N-O-M-E-N-A-L!!!
Tactics in defending the faith is an absolute MUST for anyone who has ever felt badgered while witnessing.
I am a 10 veteran of the El Paso, Tx Fire Dept and have found the Holy Spirit directing me to witness to some of the raunchiest men you can imagine over the last 3 years.
The questions are sometimes sincere and often antagonistic. Many times the questions start off sincere and when I give an answer the guys don’t like, it gets ugly.
I have been badgered mentally and emotionally the equivalent of 15 rounds with Mike Tyson in his 20′s. It’s been absulutely brutal and in most cases, it becomes a dog pile with EVERYBODY getting in on the act with at least one steamroller in full throttle every time (many times there are 2 or 3 at once).
I had been using a few of the tactics already (without knowing it) as I listen to Ravi Zacharias as often as possible and learned from him, Hank Hannegraff and the late Dr Walter Martin to ALWAYS define terms with everybody.
Greg, however, has shown me how to take witnessing to a whole new level and all I can say is thank you so much for having his program.
This program allows us to witness boldly and respectfully while gently forcing the person challenging us to come to grips why HE believes what he believes as a result of taking those beiliefs to their ultimate, logical conclusions.
Again, thank you for having this on your website, thank you, Greg, for allowing it (in case you get to read this) and may the Lord bless and keep each and every one of you.
yours in Christ,
paul bianchi
El Paso, Tx
Paul
Praise God that Koukl’s teaching have been a blessing for you
By the way, have you heard of, or are you familiar with Presuppositional Apologetics?
SLIMJIM,
To answer your question, I’ve heard of
it, but, as of yet, have not investigated it. Now that you bring it up, I will.
I feel the Holy Spirit has been moving me over these last three years to learn as much as possible about Christ and His work, the demonstratable reliability of the Word of God and how to effectively, respespectably and lovingly relate it to people from every walk of life and every religion known to man.
As a result I am studying EVERY religion whether worldly or “Christian” (LDS, JW, etc) as I have discovered that you really can’t witness to anyone if you are in the dark about THEIR beliefs. I’ve also noticed that in most cases I know more about their religion than they do and I can show them verification of the topics we are discussing (which always seems to surprise them and leaves them rather flabbergasted, causing them to at least trust me enough to investigate what I say).
Praise, glory and thank you to the Lord for bestowing this interest in me and giving me the tools and desire to execute it by following His lead.
paul bianchi
Paul,
Please listen to these debates (especially Bahnsen vs Stein). It is very helpful to put the unbeliever on the defense rather than the believer.
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2006/12/05/greg-bahnsen-vs-gordon-stein-the-great-debate/
Andy,
Will do, thanks.
I will start with your implied suggestion for Bahnsen vs Stein and let you know in a day or two (working two jobs plus married with 3 boys). I’m curious to see if these debates are anything like Dr Martin’s or Dr Zacharias’.
SLIMJIM,
I looked into Presuppositional Apologetics and the actual study of it looks to be one of the key elements I am searching for (I guess I have already been introduced to it without realizing it with the men mentioned above).
I found an introductory course by John M. Frame and want to know if you know anything about his credibility with regards to the subject or who you would recommend.
Any help or advice given is greatly longed for and appreciated. Thank you so much gentlemen.
paul
Brother Paul,
I would recommend JOhn Frame’s introductory work or any of his writing in general for that Manner.
Let me know how it goes!
got it. thank you.
looks as though I may have a few new resources.
Andy,
I listened to Bahnsen vs Stein but I had to track down the trasnscript as I think I may have missed some crucial aspects.
I see what you mean by shifting the burden of proof. Both men were using the same technique.
The problem is that no questions seemed to be answered by either party throughout the debate.
All I kept hearing during the rebuttals was, “as you can see, Mr so and so cannot answer this question as the “theist/atheistic” world view HAS no answer.
I kept hearing a rehashing of questions along with a new one or point or two hear and there without either party really focussing on ANY of them. In the end, we had a thousand questions and no answers.
I did LEARN the technique you guys were talking about AND I learned that if you and the person you are witnessing to BOTH use it, the conversation stalls.
I am going to listen to it again with the transcript to study the technique better as well as listening to the other debates.
paul
p.s. — I also noticed Mr Bahnsen trying to prove the existence of a being that Mr Stein considers to be illogical and irrational by definition by using logical arguments to come to that “illogical and irrational” conclusion.
I don’t see how we can use logical arguments to come to what the atheist sees as an illogical conclusion. I feel we CAN, however, feel we can use logic and rational to come to logical conclusions WITHIN a subject the atheist considers to be illogical as just because a subject is thought to be illogical in it’s entirety doesn’t mean it can’t have logical arguments within it. But I believe you have to establish a predetermined conclusion both parties can agree to as “logical”, THEN proceed with the direction of the discussion. Again, terms must be defined.
Paul,
The atheist must be challenged on their presuppositions. How do they account for laws of logic, morality, etc. Since they are justified to use the same law to critique the Christian position.
Did you notice that Stein did not answer Bahnsen’s argument instead he went on to challenge all other arguments of Christianity (none of which Bahnsen uses).
What Bahnsen was employing is the Transcendental Argument.
Always remember that YHWH is on the Judge’s seat questioning the un-believer who is on the criminal bench. And not the other way around.
This article might be helpful to you for practical evangelism and apologetics,
http://veritasdomain.wordpress.com/2007/12/01/the-atheist-challenge/
Hey there Brother Paul,
THe point of Bahnsen’s argument is about the foundation for debate itself: which Bahnsen argue, that any debate or reasoning for that manner, can only make sense in a Christian worldview.
Paul,
I hope we can talk some more as time goes on brother, I will be having alot of school work the next two weeks,
But a short summary of the Transcedental argument can be found here: http://www.carm.org/atheism/transcendental_outline.htm
In addition, let me know about Frame’s lectures….is it the Introduction to Apologetics Lectures that you have downloaded???
SLIMJIM,
In regards to the downloads, I have both parts of “AN INTRODUCTION” and one that appears to be the follow up course plainly titled “Presuppositional Apologetics” by John Frame.
Andy,
Yes, I did notice. I also noticed he kept talking about a “consensus” as the atheistic application to the establishment of morality. I guess he forgot that culture to culture and generation to generation, the “consensus” always changes which means there is no baseline.
I mean, look at what acceptable by the FCC on tv and radio now compared to just 50 years ago and that’s only here in the US.
Brothers,
I appreciate the explanation of Mr Bahnsen’s argument. To make sure I understand his point, it wasn’t necessarily to answer point for point,
but to point out that Mr Stein had to continuously look for other options to attack as he knew he could not answer Mr Bahnsen’s argument to a satisfactory conclusion based on the very criteria he himself was placing on Mr Bahnsen.
Thanx for the websites. I am going to look them up.
Paul,
I hope we can keep in touch brother.
You are right on with your observation of that debate going on our blog right now, with the guy’s problem in appealing to social consensus. I have been collecting notes and quotes that I am going to write a short paper on, concerning the realibility of social consensus for our ethics and norms.
With the intent of the Transcendental argument established in regards to the Bahnsen vs Stein debate, at what point to we balance maintaining the atheists inability to answer THAT question with being willing to move point by point through the rest of the discussion as well as questioning THEM point by point?
It doesn’t seem we can get very far if we hold fast SOLEY to the Transcendental argument.
Gentlemen,
For the record, the reason for my style of questioning is that due to the events described in my first post, I have learned to play “devil’s advocate” with my own witnessing.
As I am researching on a daily basis, I find myself looking for any and all directions a person can potentially take me and how to respond (as long as the questions are sincere, “Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.”)
Now for my other point, I read the summary of the Transcendental argument and it would seem, from an initial reading to be designed to take the foundation of an atheistic point of view out from under the athiest (similiar in nature to bypassing a doctrinal dicsussion with an LDS member by verifyably demonstrating Joseph Smith as a false prophet, thus rendering the doctrinal discussion a moot point).
If that is the case, it explains why Mr Bahnsen stayed on it. My only problem is that I have ADD and dyslexia, and the Transcendental argument is playing havoc on me. Can you guys help me sort it out and apply it to the existence of God.
I want to close by saying thank you for your time and willingness to help me the way you have. It has been very much appreciated.
YIC,
paul
Brother Paul,
I have been rather busy with school.
“I read the summary of the Transcendental argument and it would seem, from an initial reading to be designed to take the foundation of an atheistic point of view out from under the athiest (similiar in nature to bypassing a doctrinal dicsussion with an LDS member by verifyably demonstrating Joseph Smith as a false prophet, thus rendering the doctrinal discussion a moot point)”
In essence, you hit the nail on its head.
The transcedental argument (hereafter, TAG) in essence, reveals that the emperor has no clothes. Or to borrow from Greg Koukl book title on relativism, we are demonstrating that if atheism is true, the atheist has no foundation for essential human experience (reasoning, reliability of our senses, casuality, etc) and that the atheist’s feet is planted firmly in mid-air.
Yet those essential human experience are things that the atheist would have a hard time denying. In fact, sometimes these thing are presupposed as true (ex: logic, when the atheist try to rationally debate you), but atheism as a foundation undermine these experiences.
“Can you guys help me sort it out and apply it to the existence of God.”
TAG is not just a negative critique of atheism. If those essential human experience are intelligble and meaningful, then atheism can not be true. The only foundation for these experience is the Christian God. All other religious alternative also fail (we rule them out with an internal critique of their worldview; but we also know the answer as Christians because of what God has revealed in HIs words about the origin of false religion and the irrational nature of those who reject him.
I’ll be doing alot of paper and studying but I will drop by wordpress from time to time this week and next.
SLIMJIM,
you got it. thanx.
When I leave posts, please do not feel rushed. I write when the question hits so it’s at least out there. Whenever you guys get to it, you get to it.
appreciate all the help so far.
[...] To find more information from the source here [...]
[...] Source Link [...]