Greg Bahnsen was a Powerful Minister and Apologist

 Bahnsen: A Very Powerful Figure

by Mike Robinson

Greg Bahnsen was an influential minister and apologist

We must not be satisfied to present Christianity as the most reliable position to hold among the competing options available. Rather, the Christian faith is the only reasonable outlook available to men (Greg L. Bahnsen).

 

God either rules as sovereign in interpretation over all areas of life or none (Bahnsen).

The Biblical faith is not indifferent to God's acts in history, nor is it pessimistic about evidences. The dead bones of Jesus will never be found, and the believer need never fear investigation into the facts. All facts are created facts which can be properly understood only when given the interpretation the Creator intends; as such, all facts demonstrate the truth of Christianity. So any and all relevant evidence pertaining to Jesus Christ's resurrection in history will be significant for the believer. And such evidence can have a role in his apologetical efforts (Bahnsen).

You can argue, if you see it this way, that you detect in Bahnsen’s apologetic a vein of biblical truth-loving argumentation. Maybe you suspect, or at least hope, that after two decades since Bahnsen’s death—gaining countless adherents, debates galore—Bahnsen followers want to apply his last scholastic energies to defeating false worldviews, and advance the truth and impact Christianity.

You can argue that Bahnsen was the kind of powerful figure who gave apologetics a jolt—maybe he embodies more power than modern apologetic systems can endure, maybe his ideas fry all the circuits, but maybe his work will force a constructive reset of the apologetics grid.

You can say of Bahnsen, as many of his followers do, that selected elements in Christian apologetics are weak and unbiblical and his thought is the medicine defenders of the faith need. Bahnsen helped reform the broken apologetic semi-consensus. 

You can argue that Bahnsen was frozen by revelation and wholly beholden to scripture, but now, in retrospect, new thinking on apologetic epistemology, ontology and worldviews is ascendant. You can argue that Vantilians, just by showing up, have begun to expose the weaknesses of non-Christian worldviews as they seek to break the domination of ungodly philosophy. 

Presuppositions matter. 

Worldviews matter. 

Epistemological foundations matter.

You can say, as many evidentialists, not known as presuppositionalists, that presuppositions are an important part of making a case for God, if even by design. Selected classical apologists are employing the use of presuppositions, but they add: “It will all end in weeping.”

You can begin a case, an argument, in the area that best suits the one your engaging!

But you can’t say that presuppositionalism is the only biblical apologetic, because it might be, yet you sound frantic and philosophically illiterate when you insist it is!

Stop trying to ignore evidence and proof!!

Defend the faith!!!

Nonetheless, for us rigid Vantilians, evidentialism and classical apologetics have the cooties.

They do not honor God as God.

An unbeliever is not simply an unbeliever at separate points; his antagonism is rooted in an overall philosophy (Col. 2.8) which is according to the world’s tradition; thus is an enemy of God in his mind (Col. 1.21; Jam. 4.4) and uses his mind to nullify or obviate God’s word (Bahnsen).

Check out my new book a Biography of Greg Bahnsen: The Man Atheists Feared the Most HERE on Amazon

---------------------------------------------------

Note

1.   Rational pre-commitments assist in directing one’s investigation and analysis of the data (as well as its interpretation and communication). This admission is often difficult to get from some atheistic inquirers to acknowledge. What worldview can furnish the a priori necessities and rational tools for science, analysis, research and proof? Christian theism delivers the epistemic ground for the a priori immutable universals utilized in rational enquiry and proof; in principle, materialistic atheism cannot furnish the aforementioned ground. What is obligatory to account for analysis and proof is a first principle that has the ontological endowment to not only ground it, but to account for proof and its preconditions—all the universal operational features of knowledge. The loss of the immovable point of reference, in principle, leaves the ungodly bereft of a resource necessary to construct the analytical enterprise required to prove anything. Without God, one cannot hoist the necessary a priori operation features of the intellectual examination of evidence and proof. The Christian worldview supplies the fixed ontic platform as the sufficient truth condition that can justify induction, immutable universals, attributes, identity, and the uniformity of the physical world. But materialistic atheism lacks such a fixed ontic platform. Consequently, it fails to provide the sufficient ground required to justify enquiry, research, evidence, and proof. 

Greg Bahnsen new biography.