Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Greg Bahnsen’ Category

Greg Bahnsen sitting down

One of the apologists that has influenced me greatly is Greg Bahnsen, a protege of Dr. Cornelius Van Til.  Bahnsen has helped popularized and applied Presuppositional apologetics.  Unfortunately he went to the Lord rather suddenly but he was a good steward of the time God has given him on earth.

To celebrate and reflect on his life, on October 25-26th 2013 a Conference was commenced centered on Greg Bahnsen in Southeren California.

Four of the seven videos from the Bahnsen Conference are up online!  Thanks goes to Branch of Hope Church for hosting the conference and making the videos available.

As the other videos are made available, I’ll be loading them up on here as well.

Enjoy!

Read Full Post »

folly_auckland_small

More links on Presuppositional apologetics!  There’s quite a bit more links this time than usual, so enjoy!

What in the World is the World?: A Brief Contrast Between Materialist and Biblical Perspectives

The Bahnsen Conference – Lecture Two: Dr. Joel McDurmon

Biblical Apologetics: Audio Messages by R.C. Dozier

Apologetic Evangelism 101: Readying Ourselves to Engage the World

Is Nature the 67th Book of the Bible?

Never Always Winter by Scott Oliphint

Just a Little Persecution? by James Anderson

Good Grouping, Bad Shot

Read Full Post »

Three years ago I posted .

In light of the fact that Black Friday was yesterday I thought I add a few more books to that lists of books I recommend if you are looking for gifts for those who are curious about Presuppositional apologetics or getting more into it.  Of course, if it’s someone who is intensely into Van Til’s apologetics, it doesn’t hurt to ask whether or not they have it already.

Here are a few that I think I can recommend with links to my review:

1.) Christian Apologetics by Dr. Cornelius Van Til

Christian Apologetics

Note: For some reason I really enjoyed the format of this book more than Van Til’s Defending the Faith.

2.) Pushing the Antithesis

Pushing the Antithesis

Note: Found this helpful for apologetics discipleship with the format though not without concern (see comment section of the review).

3.) Persuasion

Persuasions A Dream of Reason Meeting Unbelief Wilson

Note: Good sketches of what apologetics and evangelism conversation with a Van Tillian bent looks like with different folks.

4.) 

Schaeffer on the Christian Life

Note: This spiritual biography is authored by a professor of apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary.  A good devotional and spiritual read for an apologist, to keep one’s life spiritually balance and not just “head knowledge.”

5.) 

Unfolding Mystery Edmund Clowney

Note: 25th Anniversary edition.  I think it’s important for Presuppositionalists to also really know their Scriptures and their Old Testament Messianic prophecies pointing towards Jesus Christ.  If one claims to be driven by Scripture in apologetics (where the Word sets the framework for apologetics) I think it’s also important to know how the Old Testament prophesied about Jesus as the Messiah.

Read Full Post »

Pushing the Antithesis

I must say that I am happy to see what seems to be an increase of books published on Presuppositional apologetics over the last few years, though one might ask which one among them would be the best introductory text.  In my opinion I believe this work serves as the best textbook if you are just getting your feet wet through Presuppositional apologetics or are involved in mentoring someone new to biblical worldview apologetics.  I also believe that this work is a lot more systematize than Greg Bahnsen’s more better known Always Ready.  The late Bahnsen was a student of Cornelius Van Til, the father of Presuppositional apologetics.  As with most of Greg Bahnsen’s apologetics work, this was put together after his death by his followers.  Gary DeMar based the book upon a series of lecture Bahnsen delivered to some college students.  DeMar does a good job in the book having great discussion questions after the end of each chapter that is helpful for discipleship.  I appreciate how the answers to the questions are also given in the end of the book.  For my apologetics’ discipleship program I find this feature helpful as a sort of “catechism” review after one is finish with the book.  It is not an easy task to teach Presuppositional apologetics or to think about worldviews for that manner and this book did a good job slowly building up to the Presuppositionalist’s argumentation.  Each chapter features also an exegetical observation section which I find to be important if we are saying our apologetics methodology does have some Scriptural support.  Each chapter also offer further resources for deeper study with some being books and others being articles available on the internet.  I appreciate the quotations of atheists, philosophers and nonbelievers throughout the book making the point that a consistent atheistic or unbelieving worldview often lead to despair and irrationality.  I know that some have faulted Greg Bahnsen for not emphasizing the Trinity in his presentation of Presuppositional apologetics such as in his incredible work, Van Til’s apologetics.  But here in this volume Bahnsen definitely developed more his presentation on the Trinity as the solution to the classic philosophical problem of the One and the Many.  If I have any major criticism of this book it would have to be Gary DeMar’s sources on several occasion comes from Wikipedia perhaps too often than I’m comfortable with.

Read Full Post »

GO TO PART 17

If The World Lost Oxygen For 5 Seconds presuppositional apologetics

Point: As we mentioned earlier, it’s not easy conveying the two crucial idea of Presuppositional apologetics that (1) a non-Christian worldview end up being self-refuting and (2) the non-Christian actually presupposes something entirely different than what the nonbelievers professes to be their worldview.  How do we illustrate the fact that a non-believer can only theoretically argue against God’s existance when in actuality he’s dependent upon God as the precondition for human experience and rationality?

Picture:  Unlike the rest of the apologetics’ illustrations in this series, this one is not entirely original; rather it’s an attempt to improve on a popular analogy.  Greg Bahnsen, in his great debate with atheist Gordon Stein said

Imagine a person who comes in here tonight and argues ‘no air exists’ but continues to breathe air while he argues. Now intellectually, atheists continue to breathe – they continue to use reason and draw scientific conclusions [which assumes an orderly universe], to make moral judgments [which assumes absolute values] – but the atheistic view of things would in theory make such ‘breathing’ impossible. They are breathing God’s air all the time they are arguing against him.”

Using that same line of reasoning, we make our illustration more specific to Oxygen.  We are dependent upon Oxygen, even if we deny its existence; matter of fact, oxygen must exists to sustain someone’s life and breath to even utter their denial of Oxygen’s existence.

So what would the world be like if there is no oxygen?  What would it be like if the world loses its oxygen for say, five seconds?

Here’s an entertaining and educational video by Buzz Feed:

Note the benefit of Oxygen.  At the end of the day, one ought to feel thankful for Oxygen.

This picture is rather ironic and yet fitting for our analogy:

Thank you Oxygen

POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR EMPLOYING THIS ILLUSTRATION DURING APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

<After employing Presuppositional apologetics in a conversation >

CHRISTIAN: Don’t you see my argument?

OPPONENT: I’m having a hard time following.

CHRISTIAN: I’m trying to show that what you claim in theory doesn’t match with reality: you can’t even deny the existence of God and attempt to make your case without presupposing things that require God’s existence.  I suppose it’s like arguing with someone who denies Oxygen exists but continues to breathe in oxygen while he argues.

<Insert illustration>

 

GO TO PART 19

Read Full Post »

h-armstrong-roberts-1960s-man-in-tree-sawing-off-the-branch-he-is-sitting-on

Here are some Presuppositional apologetics links from around the World Wide Web between August 8th-14th, 2013.   Are there other links you see that should be added on here?

1.) 

2.) –James Anderson’s latest writing for the Christian Research Journal.

3.)Brief Response to Paul Copan – Critique of Presuppositional Apologetics

4.) Response to a Clarkian Drive-By Comment

5.) Jon Kaus Debates and Audio

6.) Both Feet Firmly Planted in Midair

Read Full Post »

FLYING-HOUSES-08-L-CHEHERE-MC-DO-jpg_150534

This is a collection of Presuppositional apologetics links from around the web between August 1st through 7th, 2013.

1.) Circular Reasoning

2.) Reason for Your Hope: Scott Oliphint on a Fresh Approach

3.) A Very Brief Survey of the Laws of Logic in Scripture (Pt. 2)

4.) Dr. James White Interviews Dr. Oliphint on the Janet Mefferd Show

5.) Greg Bahnsen – Edward Tabash Debate Video Clips

Read Full Post »

religious neutrality

Religious Neutrality Defined: The idea that man can be without any beliefs or views that is for or against God, the Bible, etc.

Objective: We must realize that in regards to ‘facts’ and everywhere and everything that man approaches, he/she can not approach it without presuppositions or with a neutrality towards God.

CHRARACTERISTICS OF RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY

There are traits and attitudes that have come up in regards to defending religious neutrality that encompasses one or more of these points:

(A) People might ask, “Do you really have to bring up the Bible when we are dealing with Geography[1], Psychology[2], Mathematics[3], Economics[4] or man’s relationship to the Earth[5]?”

 (B) There are people who appear to be sincerely ‘neutral’ towards the surrounding issues concerning God. Doesn’t this show that one can be religiously neutral? (See Romans 1:18-22)

 (C) God is not relevant at all in the Sphere of X and/or Y. (See below on Creation)

 (D) I am not taking any sides for or against a religion.

  1. THE BIBLE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR IT
    1. CREATION
      1. Everything in this world belongs to God
      2. “If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, [a] you are there.” (Psalms 139:8)
      3. “The LORD has established his throne in heaven,
      4.        and his kingdom rules over all.” (Psalms 103:19)
      5. SEE ALSO Psalms 19:1-4 and 1 Chronicles 29:11
    2. GOD AND CHRIST THE SOURCE OF WISDOM & KNOWLEDGE
      1. Christ the source of Wisdom and Knowledge: “Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.  I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments.” (Col. 2:3-4)
      2. God the Source of Wisdom: “5If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him.” (James 1:5)
  2. THE EXCLUSIVENESS OF CHRISTIANITY
    1. “Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
    2. “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30)
  3. NEUTRALITY IS UNETHICAL IN A CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW
    1. MAN’S PURPOSE IS TO GLORIFY GOD IN EVERYTHING:
      1. “And whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.” (Col. 3:17)
      2. “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.” (1 Chorinthians 10:31)
    2. MAN MUST SUBMIT TO WHAT GOD SAYS
      1. If not, then he is in rebellion against God and not submitting to Him.  He is therefore not neutral.
  4. RELIGIOUS NEUTRALITY IS PHILOSOPHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE ITSELF
    1. MAN CAN NOT BE PRESUPPOSITION FREE
      1. Those Premises and Propositions acknowledge Christianity or not.
      2. Sometimes it can be beliefs that we are not always conscious of.
    2. NEUTRALITY IS ANTI-THEISTIC
      1. When someone say He is neutral towards God’s existence or Christianity, he himself has anti-theistic or non-Christian assumption. It is not neutral.
      2. ANALOGY: When someone says they are neutral towards the Holocaust and when some Runaway Jews beg you for cover, your ‘neutrality’ position towards the Holocaust and non-action is still a position and action against the runaway Jews.
    3. NEUTRALITY ITSELF IS NOT NEUTRAL
      1. To argue for neutrality, is to argue for a position, and the more evidence and arguments you marshal, the more it is evident that Neutrality itself is a position.
      2. Yet, the very point of neutrality is no longer neutral.  It is something that is now debated and to assume it would be begging the question.

[1] See the article “Impossible Neutrality: An Analogy from Humanistic Geography” in Reformed Perspective Magazine at http://thirdmill.org/articles/jim_li/jim_li.impossibleneutrality.html.

[2] I recommend any book on this topic by Jay Adams.

[3] Poythress, Vern. “A Biblical View of Mathematics” in Foundation of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Perspective. California: Ross House Books, 1979: Pages 159-188.

[4] North, Gary and DeMar, Gary.  Christian Reconstruction: What It is, What It Isn’t  Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991

[5] Schaeffer, Francis A. Pollution and the Death of Man: The Christian View of Ecology. Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1970

Read Full Post »

photo (5)

 

The great Christian apologist Greg Bahnsen died very early in life but did a lot during those 47 years.  He is buried at Rose Hill Cemetary in Southern California.

I could not get a clearer picture because it was in the middle of the day and this was the best picture I could get.  The sun was shining very bright.

Next to his grave is that of his father and mother.  His mother Virigina has been a source of some Bahnsen’s private collection.

Check out some of the resources we have on Greg Bahnsen here on Veritas Domain by clicking HERE.

Read Full Post »

car roof

These are links from around the web between July 8th-14th 2013.  Enjoy!

1.) The Bahnsen Conference 2013–Coming to Southern California!

2.)Do You Prioritize Apologetics Over Theology?

3.) Atheists Can’t Find Atheists to Support Atheism

4.)We Destroy Arguments: The Achilles’ Heel–Chapter 5 of Scott Oliphint’s new book!

5.) Theological and Apologetic Resources from K. Scott Oliphint located at Reformed Forum

6.) The Nature and Use of Apologetic Evidences

Read Full Post »

Dialogue Over the Bible and Homosexualtity

I heard this series of dialogue and radio debate many years ago when I was a younger Christian.  This is one of Bahnsen’s old apologetics in action.

For this month, Covenant Media Foundation is making this series available for free to those who would order it on their website!

You should also order other materials to show your support for Covenant Media Foundation, whom have made so much materials available of the late Greg Bahnsen.

Here are the three part MP3 audio order page:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

 

Read Full Post »

Worldview piece

These are links online from June 23-30th, 2013 for those who are interested in Presuppositional apologetics!

1.) Exercised to Discern’s thought of K Scott Oliphint on ‘Unbelievable’

2.) KeachFan Movie Review: How to Answer a Fool

3.) Notes from Greg Bahnsen: 

4.) Presuppositional vs Natural Theology

5.) 

6.) Some Thoughts on Material Location and the Law of Non-contradiction

7.) To TAG or Not To TAG?

8.) Cornelius Van Til on the Family

Read Full Post »

GO TO PART 13

Chelsea Clinton at Women Deliver Conference, May 2013

Chelsea Clinton at Women Deliver Conference, May 2013

Point: It’s not easy conveying the two crucial idea of Presuppositional apologetics that (1) a non-Christian worldview end up being self-refuting and (2) the non-Christian actually presupposes something entirely different than what the nonbelievers professes to be their operating worldview, but in their heart they are suppressing the truth they know of the Christian God and worldview.  While all analogies break down, I think the following illustration might help the Reformed Apologist illustrate his or her point.

Picture: Between May 27th-30th, 2013 Chelsea Clintion participated in a liberal “Women Deliver” Conference that took place in Malaysia.

Chelsea apparently made some interesting comment advocating for Planned Parenthood when she lamented of how she wished her great-grandparents would have had “Planned Parenthood Crucial Services” when her grandmother was born.

The relevant part of the video begins at 18:50=

http://new.livestream.com/WomenDeliver/conference2013/videos/19961888

Summary:

  • Notice how she said that she was already on the campaign trail when she was in her mother’s womb,  presupposing her personhood in the womb before birth.
  • Beginning at the twenty minutes mark, Clintion stated that the most influential person outside of her parents was her Grandmother, who “was born to two teenage parents who were not married, people who did not not have accesses to the services that Planned Parenthood so crucially provide…”
  • Clinton is not just simply arguing for the possibility of Planned Parenthood services as an option in the instance of her great-grandparents; it would not make sense that she’s talking about an option that they didn’t use in light of all the tragedy she laments about, but rather she’s implying that her great-grandparents themselves SHOULD HAVE USED those “services” so that the pain and hardship of her grandmother would never happened.

Clinton is too passionate and ideological about her belief in Planned Parenthood’s “services” to probably notice what she is saying.

Think about it.

  • Here she is saying how wonderful her Grandmother is.  She talks about how she wishes her great-Grandparents could have had the services of Planned Parenthood so that her own grandmother would have never lived.  That is, it’s better off not existing or being murdered than to experience the life she did have.  But if Chelsea had her wish, she wouldn’t have a wonderful grandmother who influenced her.
  • Chelsea presupposes that “Grandmother’s life < Grandmother’s misery.”  Therefore, her great grandparents should have made sure she didn’t existed or should have been been aborted.  Seeing that the misery is that of her grandmother, it seems that the Grandmother herself did not presuppose “Grandmother’s life < Grandmother’s misery;” or at least not for most of her life since she did not commit suicide but instead went on to have kids of her own, even living long enough to be a wonderful Grandmother to Chelsea.  For all the rhetoric of a woman’s right to choose, I wonder what place Chelsea has in her ideology for her own Grandmother’s choice to live.
  • We must not miss the greatest irony of Chelsea’s lament that her Grandparents should have access and use of Planned Parenthood “services”:   If she got her wish, Chelsea herself would not exist!  Chelsea is unknowingly making a death wish (though I don’t wish death upon her but a long life instead; and may I add, eternal life through Christ Jesus) .  Sometimes I like to call self-refuting arguments “suicidal arguments” and it is kind of awkward in this instance.
  • Which lead to our analogy of the Transcendental argument: For Chelsea to even articulate her arguments for Planned Parenthood services, it is foundational (presuppositional) that her great-grandparents didn’t use Planned Parenthood “services.”  Thus every time she speaks or utter any argument for Planned Parenthood “services” she actually presupposes otherwise since for her to even do so depends upon her Great-Grandparents not having such “services.”  Despite her public and passionate plea for Planned Parenthood, ironically not having and not utilizing Planned Parenthood “services” is the precondition for everything else in her life including the ability for her to engage in her life’s cause.

I suppose someone might ask, what does the application of this illustration looks like?

 POSSIBLE SCENARIO FOR EMPLOYING THIS ILLUSTRATION DURING APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

<After employing Presuppositional apologetics in a conversation >

OPPONENT: I don’t get what you are trying to do.  What’s your point.

CHRISTIAN: I’m trying to show how your worldview is self-refuting and how you need to presuppose the Christian worldview to even justify the tools and argument that you are trying to use against it.  I suppose an illustration would be appropriate.  Did you hear about what Chelsea Clinton recently said in a forum discussion?

OPPONENT: No.

<Give illustration >

CHRISTIAN: What do you think if Clinton got her wish?

OPPONENT: (Laughs) She wouldn’t be here!

CHRISTIAN: True!  If I might add, every time she speaks or utter any argument for Planned Parenthood “services” she actually presupposes otherwise since for her to even do so depends upon her Great-Grandparents not having such “services.”  Despite her public and passionate plea for Planned Parenthood, ironically not having and not utilizing Planned Parenthood “services” is the precondition for everything else in her life including the ability for her to engage in her life’s cause.  In the same way, when you deny God as the ultimate source of your life it doesn’t add up when your ability, action and argument against Him require Him as the foundation for all of it to be intelligible, meaningful and significant.

GO TO PART 15

Read Full Post »

design_thinking_lights on

Round up from June 15th-21st.

1.) Real Reality: A Problem for Atheism

2.) Critical Thinking 101 With Robert Batly

3.) Bruggencate, Sye Ten – How To Answer The Fool:A Presuppositional Defense of the Faith

4.) Atheist Monument

5.) Gene Cook Audios: Presuppositional apologetics series based on Bahnsen’s Always Ready

6.) Review: How to Answer the Fool

7.) The Entire Creation Testifies of God

8.) The Nature of Reason

9.) Covenant Apologetics Proposal

10.) Relativists and Universal Human Rights

Read Full Post »

(NOTE: This is a Guest post by Ben R., a young man growing in the areas of apologetics and has written for Mike Robinson’s blog, THE LORD GOD EXISTS and elsewhere.  He asked if he could write a guest post for us and we asked if he could write this guest review of Sye Ten Bruggencate’s new DVD produced with Crown Rights and American Vision.)

How to answer a fool DVD

After watching Sye TenBruggencate’s DVD How to Answer the Fool I was very pleased about how simple and straight forward he was. He didn’t use a high degree of vocabulary. He has always spoken on a simple level where everybody could understand him. That is what I enjoy the most about Sye’s way of teaching. After listening to him repeatedly from his website I’ve taught myself how to be more direct and simple with others.

His DVD covers basically everything you need to know about defending your faith properly and biblically. He points out the dangers of using evidence to put God on trial, and how we need to stick to biblical authority when dealing with unbelievers. We simply need to believe the Bible when it says the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge and that everybody knows God exists (Proverbs 1:7, Romans 1:18-21).

I thought Sye did a wonderful job explaining this apologetic through conversations with other people, including proclaimed Christians. Along with partly giving lecture to a class. In my personal opinion around the last 20 minutes was the best demonstration of this apologetic. Sye simply kept asking for a foundation for truth when the people couldn’t present it. Most people would try just move on without addressing the epistemology or standard of truth but Sye stayed on the issue before any further discussion and of course nothing followed. He definitely uses scripture as well for his points.

Regardless if your new to the TAG or have been using it for awhile, this DVD is a great demonstration of how to defend your faith and teaching yourself how to speak on a simple level.

You can order your copy of the DVD by clickin HERE

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 591 other followers