Sproul is my mentor and i love him to the max but I lean towards presuppositional apologetics now. We bless God for these faithful ministers. May we also be faithful in our generation. God have mercy on me.
Sproul's classical approach brought me out of atheism. I hadn't heard of Bahnsen at the time, but the presuppositional argument is also a great approach for its strength and simplicity. Both are powerful weapons in the apologist arsenal.
@@jesuscorona3562 Quite the contrary. I am mostly using the - very elementary - Greek categorization *PHYSIS* = original- = non- manmade Information-source *PSYCHE* = the imaginary = information = property = truth = opinion *LOGOI* = secondary- = manmade Information-source = assertion = object-IZATION = FAKING = not caused by the imaginary (see above) Did you know that this categorization is re-enacted in- (superposable with-) - the "Semiotic Triangle" - the 3 "worlds" by Sire KR Popper? Research this for yourself.
@@kleenex3000 so you're saying that their words in debate dont mean anything or is your original comment supposed to be funny and i was too stupid to get it?
@@jesuscorona3562 An assertion per se = as such "IS" neither this nor that everyone has their own brain! Someone will DEEM an assertion TO BE meaningful someone else will DEEM the (very same) assertion TO BE meaningless. didn't you, at least once in your lifetime, read the assertion "property (of the being observed) is *ONLY IN* the eye of the observer?
Yes I think it is some how a combo of both. We all have our presumptions, how we see and perceive the world, and these of course effect, or even dictate, how we evaluate data and arguments. However, by studying data and arguments can change our presumptions. Because we can “entertain” different presumptions without accepting them for sake of analyzing.
Dude, I really appreciate the way you phrased that, and I'm going to adopt that perspective. I've been wrestling with these two perspectives and finally got around to listening to this debate. I agree with both, and I fail to see how the nuances between them matter, and at the end of the day presuppositionalists haven't convinced me that their way is the way we *must* approach apologetics. Edit: How the nuances between them matter if we're both fighting the good fight for the Gospel of Christ, that is.
I think a lot depends on the question being asked. Many questions are just symptoms of an errant presuppositional understanding and a classical apologetic answer won't address the root problem. However, many times the presuppositional apologetic answer will go right over the head of the person asking the question and it will feel like the question wasn't answered. I utilize both as seems appropriate. Still, I find myself more often using classical apologetics.
Watching this in 2022, having been too interested in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles to be aware of Reformed apologetics in 1995, I took this as a debate meant to inform rather than a real tussle between the two different kinds of apologetics.
The way I see it is that presuppositionalism is foundational to the classical and evidential arguments. If both sides share the presuppositions that make the argument work, by all means use the argument. But when the presuppositions conflict, or they reject the argument despite their claims to holding to the required presuppositions, presuppositional arguments tease out where they miss the boat.
I wish we could see the actual debate. At 13:04, RC uses the chalkboard (as he normally does) to provide his outline. That would have been nice to see as well as watch their (RC & Greg's) subtle nonverbal responses. Although I strictly adhere to the biblical worldview (which supports a presuppositional approach to apologetics), I admire and respect both brothers immensely!
Both can apply, it depends on your opponent. Is your opponent arrogant and touting knowledge with flippancy toward your position? Presup it up. Is your opponent interested in hearing a Christian perspective, seeking truth while still Atheistic in general? Use classic.
“Is your opponent arrogant . . . with flippancy” That’s the meat of presuppositionalism. It’s designed to reify the felt certitude of believers. That’s all.
I'm a Catholic, but surprisingly find myself persuaded that Bahnsen's presupp is the better approach even tho Sproul's tends to "borrow" more from certain Catholic tradition. Ultimately I think it is best to be all things to all people. Some may find evidentialism convincing, others will need a deeper conversion of their founding beliefs. Some will say one is superior to the other but I say only in the context of the soul you are approaching. That said, presuppositonalism has gone to the wayside somewhat since this debate, I'd say it should be given a greater place in the toolbox. Imho.
isn't catholicism just organised crime dressed up in gold drag? has the pope stopped apologising for all the abuse? i have to say it's great that the pope has finally pointed out god's error about homosexuality and okayed gay marriage, nice to see religion finally catching up with real morality, and good of the religists to admit god was wrong. maybe in a few years it'll l be so watered down religion will be invisible. what did they do with the space left by limbo being abolished? ballroom? casino?
While I love the deep intellectual thought and mechanical detail and I completely agree with presuppositionalism, the bottom line comes down to faith. With faith these things can be accepted but without faith they cannot. Faith is a gift of God to God's children. The unbeliever has no saving faith from the Holy Spirit. This is why they're lost. So, we can apologetically speak to the unbeliever but we are either sowing or watering. We can never cause the seed to grow. Growth or belief is solely a function of God's predetermined plan. We can show the foolishness of unbelief to the unbeliever but they'll never believe based on argumentation alone. They'll only believe based on God's metanoia.
I completely agree with you but think of Paul on Mars Hill and how he reasoned with them. It’s always the regeneration of the Holy Spirit who quickens us but I can see that the Lord uses methods of communication to share the truth that a relatable to the audience.
@@danielwarton5343 Of course the Lord uses the foolishness of preaching to reach people but the foolishness of preaching is the sowing or watering. If God has not determined they should grow, they will be like the seed falling on the rocky soil.
@@danielwarton5343 It is a biblical term (1 Cor 1) that means the world will consider the Word being preached is foolish but then God turns around and says, "Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world."
Evidence must be evaluated by presuppositions. To put the evidential approach over against presupp is to 1. misunderstand the distinction. 2. To put logic & science as independent of God (bad idea). 3. leaves with probability only, where presupp leaves apodictic certainty. 4. (etc...) Sproul should have learned presuppositional apologetics from Bahnsen and utilized it.
yea i agree. When i was trying to find the truth i was looking up debates all the time. I used to look up all the great evidence apolegetics (even rc debates) and i was always intrigued but the skeptic side of me always had a major 60/40 doubt one way or the other. It wasnt until i found presup that actually answered most of my doubts. Its definitely the way to do it in my opinion.
I was discussing the two methods with a philosophy/religion examiner a few weeks ago who isn’t saved. As much as I can appreciate presuppositionalism it doesn’t communicate well. I explained to the guy I was talking to with and likened Sproul’s approach as like showing your workings out. As an examiner would take in to account the appreciation of how the person came to correct answer, so the opposer in the debate can see how you reason to your point in terms they can understand. I’m on RC’s side for this.
Pre-Sup is at first hard to understand. But when one grasps it's Spine. It is the most devastating form of apologetics, because it pulls the rug from under the opposition.
@@fortysevenfortyniner it’s funny you say that phrase. A friend of mine at church said the same thing. I liken the two approaches to a sledgehammer and a chisel. One is very destructive whereas the other chips away. Maybe they are both good approaches in different settings.
@@danielwarton5343 I don't think so. One view (R.C.'s), starting point is man's wisdom to prove the existence of God. And the other, (Bahnsen's view) explains it with God as his starting point......"in the begining God...(Gen. 1:1)
Not quite. That's a misrepresentation. Was there one point from Bahnsen which you would say summarised his position, which I might share some imput on?
@@nickjones5435 yeah, presuppositionalism never actually defends its claims, its focus is only on what the non-believer can't do, and desperately tries to keep any dissenter on the defensive. It's a disingenuous manipulation tactic. It doesn't concern itself with convincing anyone of anything, hence it's essentially malicious.
One method is supported biblically and the other isn’t. Nothing else really matters if one method is clearly warned against in the words of scripture. Philosophy and rationalism and science are fantastic and beautiful, but they can only be enjoyed to their fullness by those who have accepted that God is the foundation and creator of not only these things, but our own ability to even use brains to do anything rational in the first place.
I like the background to this video: Sproul holds 1 book - the Bible, and Bahnsen is sitting in front of a bookcase full of books. It is kind of irroneous reversal considering their apologetic methodologies.
At 1:33:17 Sproul says maybe the world doesn’t make sense… my question would be then how can he expect others to make sense of his statement.? He means for his statement to make sense, but what must already be true in order for him to even make that statement? It’s a self refuting statement.
@@nickjones5435 its not circular and it does have evidence of God because of the impossibility of the contrary. Good try though. Nobody is neutral. Your not coming from a neutral point of view either. Everyone comes into the debate with a presupposition
@mattverville9227 Errr yeah it certainly is circular and so can be dismissed out of hand .....and laughed at. But since you claim the impossibility of the contrary, please present credible evidence that it's impossible, for your god to not exist rather than a baseless assertion.
It is in you as a person that the nature of God is revealed, for a scriptural episode is not a record of an historical event, but a parabolic revelation of truth. To see Jesus or David as an historical character is to see truth tempered to the weakness of your soul. You must see what the characters represent, rather than the characters themselves. This is true for every story in scripture, for every episode will unfold within you.
I used to think so as well and have pondered that statement for about a year. I’m writing a paper on the possibility of certainty right now, actually. To ask the question, “are we in a leaky bucket?” Presupposes that we are not in a leaky bucket because it’s a question seeking an answer. The answer is either true or not true, and truth is absolute, which means it is certain. To question it is to imply what is being argued against.
@@Marco3131-i am beginning to wonder if “are you certain of your uncertainty,” can be answered with an logically consistent “Yes” if it’s specified “about what.” For example- sitting in a train right next to another train and one of them begins to slowly move- it’s impossible to tell which of the trains are being to move. Are you certain about your uncertainty…. About which train is moving? YES! Now can I be certain of my uncertainty that I am not a brain in a vat being stimulated to experience reality like the Matrix? Yes!! I am certain of this uncertainty because it is very difficult to prove incorrect; I could be living in the literal matrix and still identify as a presuppositionalist.
Interesting. 1:39:00 Bahnsen points out that classical or philosophical apologetics violates Sola Scriptura. Therefore presuppositional apologetics is the only appropriate method for a Christian to utilize.
Re Sproul: Definition of Fideism - a view of religious belief that holds that faith must be held without the use of reason or even against reason. Faith does not need reason. Faith creates its own justification.
thats unfortunate. To most atheist its the opposite. Your not going to go to the college professor and tell him the evidence you have for the resurrection and have him become a christian. Hes going to listen, go home and research the other point of view and listen to the counter point. He will be left with 50/50 probability at best. classic approach leaves the unbeliever with probability and presup allows the unbeliever to realize he cant make sense of the world with out borrowing from the christians world view
Does anyone have an answer to Dr. Sproul's criticism of the impossibility of the contrary at 1:49:41? Why couldn't we be, as he says, in "one big leaky bucket"?
The answer is in the question. As soon as you ask the question you reveal that you cannot be in the leaky bucket or else the question makes no sense. In other words, it is impossible that you are in the proverbial bucket if you ask about being in the bucket. There's an old joke where a student of philosophy asks his professor, "How can I even be sure I exist?" The professor responds, "Who should I say is asking?" If you say, "Well we may very well be in a leaky bucket in regards to knowledge," then that statement either means something or means nothing. As soon as you say it means something, you are now recognizing that you aren't in a leaky bucket because you are conveying information, which means you hold that information can be known, that there is some shared reality between us in which we can exchange information, and we can know what I've another are saying. This means you have accepted some form of epistemology that allows information to be shared and known, now you must examine that system and determine whether it is sound. If, on the contrary, you argue that you don't know that the statement has any real meaning, you are a liar and a fool (morally foolish, you are denying what you know to be true purely to be spiteful or contrary). In other words, we know we are not in the leaky bucket that Sproul asked about because of the impossibility of the contrary. It is impossible that the statement means nothing, and therefore it must be possible that we have access to knowledge or else we would not even be able to communicate our lack of certainty. I hope that makes some sense.
I wish we had heard him answer about the Quran. One of my big questions about the presup approach is what to do with other purported revelation from God
As I see it, the Quran is incoherent, contradicting known facts, and contradicting the Bible, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ far outshines Mohammed ... The other religions are also incoherent or ineffective in providing a holistic answer to life. Christianity fits real life. Buddhism eg does not.
Bahnsen actually has teachings on all the other religions. He doesnt really use the same method. He basically just points out the flaws in other religions and they dont make sense. Cant remember what his case against islam was but his classes are on apologia studios website under bahnsen university
Pressups usually (unintentionally) abandon pressup method, when it comes to others faiths. They usually point out shady origin of Quran or questionable laws in it, or perhaps use internal critic to decrease validity of such book. Which is strange to me, because if you can judge Quran by evidence and reasons alon, why you can't do the same for Bible?
This is something I've been struggling with for a while... I call it the "leaky bucket" problem of presuppositionalism, as described by RC here in this debate (starting around 1:48:47). Presup does a superb job of demonstrating the absurdity of a worldview without a transcendental anchor - however, I don't know how to escape the notion that we COULD in fact all be in "one big leaky bucket". Or, on the other hand, how can we say with certainty that the anchor is NOT something other than the God of scripture? To be clear - I believe in the triune God of scripture, I believe in Christ and his atoning death on the cross, I recognize my own inability to do anything good or come to Him apart from His calling and regenerating my soul - I agree with reformed doctrine. But I don't know how to reconcile this particular issue. I'd love clarification on this, if anyone who happens to read this comment might shed some light.
Clarification... When I ask "how can we say with certainty that the anchor is NOT something other than the God of scripture?", let me hopefully clarify the question... During this debate, and in other discussions, Dr. Greg Bahnsen (whom I have a the utmost respect for) claims that God must be the transcendental anchor for rational intelligibility due to the "impossibility of the contrary". He then gives proofs for why this epistemological system is wrong, and why that one is wrong - but I don't hear a conclusive proof to negate all other possible options. Why can't the anchor be, for example, some form of deistic god that we have no access to by revelation? Occasionally, he'll give a proof that refutes particular subsections of thought or religion (polytheism comes to mind), but I haven't personally heard a proof that would merit the claim "impossibility of the contrary".
@@glasspreacher8436 I've not read his book, but I have started listening to lessons he has taught via Bahnsen U and other random things I find on RU-vid. I've also looked at resources from Voddie Baucham (Expository Apologetics), and to be fair, I've also been listening to R.C.'s course on apologetics from a classical perspective. Thank you for your response, and I will look into that book.
While I don’t know how to answer your question fully or even well, I will attempt none the less. I may totally fail as well but I want to try haha. I’m not sure you can actually have naturalistic (in your thoughts and mind) certainty that there isn’t another better transcendental anchor then God. But I do know that his word which was graciously revealed to us is a perfect explanation and revelation of that very anchor. I do think faith and the Holy Spirit has to come in to play in our walk with him. If it was a purely rational belief then we would not need to rely on Christ as much as we should, we would have all the answers and would not need to submit to certain things that are higher than our human minds can comprehend. It sounds like a cheap cop out, but I don’t think so. There are many stories of people who came to Christ , full of faith, even though there may have been some other way for them to be healed, and yet they knew that Christ was their only option, their only hope, to receive forgiveness and healing. We can think hard and wish for absolute certainty that there isn’t another anchor, but we have in our hands the sacred words of the anchor and those words not only reveal his nature but reveal ours too, and when we start from this word, this presupposition, all of our experiences, thoughts, feelings, fears, science, philosophies etc start to make sense and start to be seen through the light of gods revealed truth. I think your question is the EXACT reason why the presup approach is not only correct but Biblical; we cannot have absolute certainty based on any non-revealed truth like logic or reason that God is the one and only anchor, therefore we SUBMIT to his word and believe he is who he says he is, and then go forth and get to bask in logic and reason and science knowing who gave us these things in the first place.
@@brandonl.underwood6264 I have read Voddie as well. I have listened to countless hours of RC Sproul, who incidentally, is one of Voddie's heroes in the faith, as he is one of mine. I tend to lean towards a presuppositional apologetic, however, i do not exclude all other approaches. I think Paul's example was a synthesis of the two, in my opinion.
Ok, so here’s the thing about what Bahnsen is saying. He uses skepticism to undermine reason and logic without God. He says he has proven God through the impossibility of the contrary. Is it not possible that reason and logic are just non-existent? I think what RC said about reasonable doubt makes sense. Skepticism is always an option, imo, but that doesn’t make it a reasonable option. One could accept the TAG, reject God, and therefore reject everything that follows from the TAG. Now, you could say this requires that they not argue their case to Christians, which would be true, but I don’t think even this would establish the kind of absolute certainty he seems to want to hold RC to. One could, in theory, also say that the TAG relies on induction. The fact we haven’t discovered other foundations for reason, logic, morality, etc doesn’t certainly establish no other foundation exists. It just establishes it beyond any reasonable doubt.
_"Is it not possible that reason and logic are just non-existent?"_ I'd like to see the argument for that, one that presumably doesn't require reason and logic to prove reason and logic don't exist. The thing some people miss is that Presuppositionalism isn't a completely different thing to evidentialism, rather it is more foundational. Where two people share presuppositions about how evidences and facts are acquired and utilized, it's fine in presuppositional apologetics to argue evidence based on those shared presuppositions. But what happens when they don't share the same presuppositions? That's why Bahnsen is taking a skeptics approach, to point out that there needs to be an apologetic that can address the skeptic as Presuppositionalism proports to. _"One could accept the TAG, reject God, and therefore reject everything that follows from the TAG."_ I'm not sure what this looks like beyond a bare sentence that is expressible in English. Is this really possible? How? It seems to me that one would immediately run into glaring contradictions once they tried realizing this claim that are non-trivial to work out. Not the least of which is that you are accepting the Transcendental Argument _for God_ (TAG) and then immediately rejecting God. If you mean non-Christians can argue transcendentally, sure. Can they do so consistently without running into internal contradictions, I'm not so sure. _"One could, in theory, also say that the TAG relies on induction. The fact we haven’t discovered other foundations for reason, logic, morality, etc doesn’t certainly establish no other foundation exists. It just establishes it beyond any reasonable doubt."_ I agree that this particular claim of Bahnsen's seems more inductive rather than deductive, but I don't think that TAG has to rely on this particular claim. Still, to his point, it's hard to imagine a non-Christian worldview that accounts for and comports with our human experience and reality without just being Christianity with different labels.
Not how I saw it at all. I guess in a way it’s hard to prepare for an opponent that openly admits to using circular logic and expects you to go with it 🤷.
@@fndrr42 The point in mentioning Kant is that Kant showed transcendental reasoning is necessarily circular. The fact you would say presup says Kant is good and Aquinas is bad just shows you haven't read or understood any presup at all.
@@BRNRDNCK I’ve read enough Van Til to understand he criticizes Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics as being “man’s philosophy” while openly embracing Kantian metaphysic. I also have not met a SINGLE Pressup that can provide even a basic explanation of the first 2 of Thomas’s 5 ways as this would highlight the fundamental error in Van Til’s understanding of Aquinas at a very basic level. When I try to discuss, without fail the response that I get is that I probably haven’t even read Van Til - isn’t true but even if it was, why would I need to have an in depth understanding of his philosophy in order to point out that his critique of Aquinas does not hold water and just makes it abundantly clear he is criticizing what he does not know? That’s all anyone is saying, I’m sure Van Til was a smart guy and clearly has influenced many with his writings. I have no problem with anyone using Van Til - my problem is that his followers seem to think this somehow means they are now not only capable of vocally opposing classical Theism but also speaking out against those that embrace it. Even writing entire books with embarrassing levels of scholarship that would get a senior in high school expelled for turning in. Please explain why I have to “understand” Van Til before anyone will respond to the very specific critique and rebuke of errors in his scholarship? I don’t even hear Atheists suggest I just don’t understand Richard Dawkins when I critique him for the EXACT same errors in The God Delusion. It’s such a complete and total shame that plenty of great brothers are so vulnerable to blindly follow a single teacher off a doctrinal cliff. It’s a cult of personality “following Apollos” or “following Paul” . Nobody is even listening to the critiques enough to even realize that this has nothing yo do with Aquinas, every classical theist I know has no issue criticizing him often where it’s warranted.
@@steevineer Not true. I held to the presuppositional method for over ten years. It has not failed me yet. I use what Scripture tells me to expose the unbeliever’s presuppositions and hatred of God. Trust what the Bible tells you, whether you’re talking to a believer or unbeliever.
Not REALLY. You fail SPECTACULARLY with classical appologetics but when you try presuppositionalism you demonstrate you're dishonest, morally bankrupt, you accept you havnt got any credible evidence and you have sacrificed all reason to be considered a human being!
@@nickjones5435 how does believing in the bible make you "morally bankrupt" ? Presuppositional apologetics simply assert that you can't even appeal to reason or logic without some concept of God even if you deny his existence. Thus, you appeal to logic because you believe it's consistent. Fair enough but where does consistency comes from ? Why are the laws of logic and reasoning consistent? Without God, epistemology itself falls apart. So it's not as if the presuppositionist is denying logic or reasoning but logic and reasoning are valid, sound and consistent because the living God has given us a world view that meets all these criteria despite the unbeliever willfully suppressing this truth by claiming God doesn't exist.
@@georgeakoto6589 @George Akoto @George Akoto Who said it did? What makes you morally bankrupt is following christian doctrine and christian methodology. Denigrating DECENT people like homosexuals for making love how they choose in the privicy of their own home, claiming none are good, denigrating EVERYONE by claiming we're all sinners when you cant even show theres any such thing as a sin, indoctrinating innocent children into joining your evil cult, claim8ng they're born sinners deserving of torture in a hell you cant demonstrate unless they become a sycophant to your imaginary friend, condoning killing innocent babies, even worshiping the killer and making PITIFUL laughable pathetic excuses to try to justify it! I could go on and on. Yep i know what B.S. claim presupp laughably makes. How does that help your case in any way? You're still in exactly the same position of claiming a god EXISTS without a single scrap of credible evidence arnt you? You ask where consistency comes from. Are you unaware of what a DESCRIPTIVE LAW is? And even if i couldn't answer, how does that help your case in any way? I dont deny ANY god. Show me a god that im denying! I predict you'll run like a child from the question because you can't support your own childish claims. Yep i know your methodology claims you need a god. Please present credible evidence that your god EXISTS or under your own system you cant justify logic and reason whilst i can!
@@nickjones5435 Those are harsh and uncalled for words against presuppositionless. To say they are morally bankrupt, along with your other comments, tells much more about you than it does about the debaters.
I'm curious as to why someone would gravitate toward presuppositionalism. It's not convincing, but but also Bahnsen says only the holy Spirit can convince anyone. So why even use it as an argument? It's just a set of assertions.
because evidence only gets you to the point of probability. Evidence only takes you so far because they will always have a counter point to make. It will never be enough. Presup allows you to show the non believer that he cant even make sense of the world without God. He cant have science, morals, logic, or reasoning. Presup leaves the atheist as a fool and its also biblical way of handling it. Evidentuary leaves God out of the equation
@@mattverville9227I can make sense of all of those things matt. In contrast I don't think you Christians can. You certainly can't justify your asinine claims of Christian morality can you?
Bahnsen made it clear in this debate that presup is strong when it comes to arguing for God, but weak when it comes to arguing for the Bible/Christianity, since it is at that point that he turns to an internal critique of *each* alternative, rather than of all of them at once. This leaves the possibility that he's missed one, which scuppers the claim of certainty, which is the whole appeal of presup. I would prefer if we all could get along and use all of the arguments at our disposal, but unfortunately a main feature of presuppositionalism is the insistence that it's the only correct method.
thats because theres no amount of evidence that can change an atheist mind because no matter what, theres someone out there that has an opposite claim. It boils down to the fact that we cant prove christ rose from the dead because we werent there. No amount of evidence will be good enough to change their minds but if you make them realize that they are fools and that they cant make sense of the world without borrowing from the christian world view, thats powerful. You are just playing into their hand and wasting time arguing about evidence. You said you would prefer we “ get along”. I dont think debating is exactly going to war with each other and its rather dramatic to pretend theres some kind of battle between sides.
@@mattverville9227You claim no amount of evidence can change an atheists mind. That's just patently wrong isn't it? I will GLADLY change my mind with ONE TINY SCRAP of credible evidence. Isn't the problem the obvious fact that you can't even do THAT trivial task?
What a grifter this Bahnsen was. At least the other guy was sort of honest. Almost like a foreshadowing of current day emotional based self-entitled "the louder the truer" identity ways.
I think both methods can be effective. However, one of them reduces the skeptic to absurdity every time with little effort, whereas the other often leaves them feeling prideful in their deceit, no matter how brilliant the apologist. Presuppositionalism is a pocket sized powerhouse if understood and utilized correctly.
I consider any Apologetics for deceptive if not even blasphemic: You assert proof, where you cannot prove. I deem PSA to be the worst in this respect, it asserts absurdity from/about the unbeliever. The Saecular-Humanist, on the other hand asserts, that absurdity is but in the eye of the beholder. Absurdity is as imaginary as are logic, laws, knowledge, reasoning, GodZ.
When living under the myth of Neutrality as the Church did during Sprouls lifetime I could understand why Sproul held this position. If Sproul was brought up in this generation I think he would see why his concerns were only valid in his immediate context. In 2024/2025 we can now all see Presuppositional approach is necessary and superior when handled appropriately but not necessarily in isolation. Negative World demands a Presup response. Modern Atheists are also anti-intellectual so they too must be addressed with Pre-sup.
If you can't be neutral then you're clearly not being HONEST. I agree that Christians now NEED this dishonest rhetoric because you recognise you can't provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence.
A key issue with pressup apologetics has to do with what some man asked Bahsen at 1:16:22. He asked Greg how is that an ARGUMENT and notice the silence that follows. Greg got stuck. And that’s precisely where the main difference lies.
I would disagree. The pause wasnt cause Bahnsen was stumped. He seemed to be turning to Aristotle there. The Transcendental argument is an indirect argument. It isnt the normal way people conceive how an argument is articulated.
@@benb412 I agree. Some questions that seem to demand a direct answer have unfortunate assumptions or other baggage that need to be unpacked before addressing them.
I don't get how Bahnsen is "stumped" because he took a few seconds to collect his thoughts before answering the question. I get the pause, it's so obvious that it is an argument that you really have to wonder where the person is coming from that they don't seem to know what an argument is in the first place, like after demonstrating why Einstein's equations for the speed of light work only for someone to ask, "but how do you know 1 + 1 == 2?". It's hard to come up with a clear answer to an abstract concept for someone who doesn't get the fundamentals and to do so respectfully and in a way that benefits everyone in the audience. Bahnsen gave a fairly neutral and easy to grasp example from history to illustrate how it's been used in the past that ought to show anyone who knows what an argument is why presuppositionalism is indeed an argument.
Thanks for the debate: Sproul is much more full of Calvin, Bahnsen is much more full of the Scripture .. Sproul seems to be more gracious and gentle ...
One can't believe in God/Jesus and not believe in his word (the bible). They are one. Jesus is the living word. That's how everything came into being, by his word. When one truly believes in the death, burial and resurrection of Christ Jesus (the living word) then they worship God/Jesus in spirit and truth. Jesus is the King of Glory. No one will see the truth, know the truth or know life (spiritual life) except through faith in Christ Jesus and the work he did on the cross. Jesus died to pardon us of our guilty sinful condition. One must see that, believe that in order to be saved (given eternal life). The only other option is unbelief. Jesus the Christ (our creator) says those who do not believe are condemned already "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
17:29 a literal reading of the Special Revelation of The Bible leads an honest person to believe things that contradict a literal reading of the General Revelation.
51:30 if before eating the fruit of the tree Eve lacked knowledge of Good and Evil ( i.e. had no knowledge of the Nature of God ), she apparently had no basis to decide. She was like a 4 year old child.
I hesitate to disagree with Dr. Bahnsen on Natural Revelation being immediate (only), but feel compelled to do so anyway. The Romans 1 knowledge all men have of God is BOTH mediate AND immediate. Via revelation THROUGH nature OUTSIDE of the individual, our knowledge of God is mediate, the medium of revelation being nature. Because of this man must use both reason and logic and sense perception to know this knowledge of God. However, man himself is part of nature. Therefore, with regard to the natural revelation of God which comes through the individual himself as part of nature, the medium of revelation and the recipient of revelation are identical. Because the medium and recipient of internal Natural Revelation are one and the same, this type of revelation is effectively immediate. It is this immediate knowledge of God which gives everyone, both saint and sinner, the certain knowledge that reason using the laws of logic and sense perception are both reliable means of knowledge when used lawfully. It's just that the "unbeliever" can't explain HOW he knows reason and logic, and sense perception are reliable without using these unverified means of knowledge to prove the reliability of these means of knowledge (i.e., vicious circularity). From internal NR we immediately know the laws of logic are true because we know they are analogous to how God, the Creator of everything created, thinks. From internal NR we immediately know our Creator is truth personified and can trust the general reliability of our senses created by Him. Thus, this immediate internal NR verifies both reason and logic, and sense perception, as legitimate means of knowledge. Because this knowledge is immediate we don't need to use either reason and logic or our sense perception to know this species of knowledge of God, and that reason and logic, and sense perception, are valid means of knowing when used lawfully. We just know it. This is why Romans 1 speaks of the ingratitude of the truth suppresser. We take the gift of knowledge of God and the gift of two means of knowledge from God while suppressing our knowledge of their Giver. Talk about ingratitude! As a consequence of committing this sin against God, God denies the ingrate any knowledge of anything at all. Thus, the natural man can only fail to adequately explain HOW he knows what he knows. And if he cannot explain how he knows what he knows - he doesn't really know it. Thus, denying God reduces men to complete ignoramuses. TL/DR
Only the divine can have “immediate” knowledge of anything. Anyone claiming they have immediate knowledge has historically been classified as a mystic.
@@fndrr42 So you deny that internal NR can only be immediate? How could it be mediate when the "medium" and the recipient are identical? Name-calling is not an argument.
@@arthur6157 - as limited by being a creature and not God, our knowledge is mediate.. Only God has “immediate” knowledge of anything. Our knowledge is limited by our senses, if yours is not - what is keeping you from insisting the universe was made from the same essence as the tooth fairy with the exact same metaphysical argumentation? What happens when someone has “immediate” knowledge of a modalistic Trinity or any other rank heresy? How can this type of thing be corrected apart from reading scripture with your human eyes that was written by human hands. Scripture is divinely inspired - not immediately zapped into our brains by the holy spirit. What would even be the need for scripture if knowledge was not mediate? As RC points out numerous times in the debate - historically that is heretical and he hasn’t heard a defense other than the insistence that this view is not fideistic.
@@fndrr42 Doh! I see your problem. Our knowledge is immediate with regard to NATURE being the medium INTERNALLY. OF COURSE we get the revelation FROM God, both internally and externally. It's just that internally WE are the medium because WE are also part of nature through which God reveals Himself to us. Since WE are also the recipient, we can simplify the equation by removing the medium altogether - hence internal NR is functionally or practically (however you want to phrase it) "immediate". If you are the medium of internal NR and its recipient, you can just remove you as the medium. Therefore, internal NR is functionally DIRECT revelation. Since it is functionally direct, you don't have to use either sense perception or reason to know and understand what is being revealed.
@@fndrr42 If they received NR that God is a modalistic trinity then that revelation is false and they couldn't know logic/reason and sense perception are valid means of knowledge. What you are describing is simply Romans 1 God-knowledge suppression - which makes all other knowledge impossible. The only way we can know reason/logic & SP are reliable means of knowledge is by GENUINE IMMEDIATE (so that we don't have to use reason/logic & SP in a circular fashion to know R/L & SP are valid means of knowledge) NR.
Thank you for pointing the auditory to your observation. "Sola Scriptura" ist the summary of an assertion that certain manmade assertions (LOGOI=SYMBOLS="world"3) are sufficient (id est other assertions are obsolete). Regardless whether this assertion is questionable or not, it is a deceptive rhetorical manoeuver in that it does not even mention the big elefant in the room, which is the universe (PHYSIS=REFERENT="world"1) per se = as such, it-self, on its own, in its own right, in its very essence. 🐹
I admit Christians have presuppositions, the question we have to ask is when comparing our biases with others is which is the most reasonable. Bahnsen would argue the foundations of the Christian faith like Sola Scriptura, is backed by evidence.
@@joshdavidian I would make the argument that SS is not the most reasonable and has a host of problems and not backed by much evidence. it ends in circularity (of a secondary cause, not the foundational presupp).
Sproul: "But the only argument I hear so far in the presuppositionalist’s apologetics is “I start with the assertion of the existence of God” which assertion is precisely the issue under dispute! And I offer no evidence! I just say that’s the way it is! "..........."In the begining God..(Gen. 1:1) Also, the prophets and the apostles never started by explaining to the people who God is they just started with this is what God has said... Bahnsen totally blew Sproul out of the water!
If presuppositionalism is a closed system, why doesn't the bible consist of one verse reading 'Unless YHWH exists, you wouldn't be able to even ask if YHWH exists'.
@@nathancurtis9779 i understand presup. Its rather sad and PITIFUL isnt it? Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting 'la la la la la.....im RIGHT youre wrong..... la la la la la la la la la im not LISTENING!!!! IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG....LA LA LA LA LA LA!!! Childish Christians who know they cant provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence of your god and so have to just CLAIM it EXISTS regardless!
the source of all intelligibility is actually the quantum field, i cannot be wrong about this as the quantum field doesn't have a mind and therefore cannot deceive me, it permeates the universe, so information goes direct to my brain via the wave function of the universe, and you are misinterpreting this as god as you are an irrational theist, you know i'm right, and you are suppressing the truth cos all you want is the comfort of heaven. presup is childish "i have god on my side i can;t be wrong cos god told me so and god can't lie" it always sounds tome like presup want to bring back the inquisition cos they haven't the guts to be outright psychopaths who burn folks alive.
Both sides agree on the prerequisites of knowledge. That's the important thing, but I don't think a Christian is sinning by arguing in a classical sense once that prerequisite is established.
I'm as Reformed as any. Bahnsen, Calvin, Gottschalk , whoever, but I marvel at how afraid these two are to claim internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. 147:30 Bahnsen if you'll listen speaks of rationalism and quite well I think, but goes too far as do most , violating his own presuppositions. If we don't have the testimony of The Spirit of Christ we have no Truth.153 a question arises that gets to what Our God has given to us for certainty. The Holy Spirit through His revelation. John 6 tells us we (the elect) will all be taught of God. This is why you cannot persuade someone into the kingdom. They must be born again. Granted faith and repentance. We preach the truth, God does the rest. Romans 1 and the natural revelation they are speaking of only makes the reprobate without excuse. Thier nature is enslaved to sin and they are unable to come to Christ.
Bahnsen loses when is states the bible is the word of God because of the impossibility of the contrary....that proves nothing......it's just another way of saying "because it has to be"
What view is right? Happy to show you the only view that is right. Here it is! This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off-.... Acts 2 :21 The opposite, Anti-Christ Gospel is called the 5 Points of Calvinism! Or Reformed Theology! Or Doctrines of Grace! There is not one false religion (Cult) that is more dangerous than these. Its the most dangerous, because the Calvinists really think they are Christians, defending God! But it is the opposite, they have become an enemy of God and His Love for mankind. Yet some do wake up and turn to Christ. If they didn't, I wouldn't waste my time doing what I do and receiving the abuse! TRUTH IN LOVE
@@joelwoody517 Ah so you know a bit of history! Good. Actually Calvin ripped off Augustine the Catholic Saint. Augustine help establish the Roman Catholic Church, the works. ( He lived in a life of fornication most of his life with a live in woman) Augustine wrote volumes of material that Calvin just picked and re edited. Calvin in his own words says "By the authority of Augustine" 1000 times he uses his material. Did you know that Calvin was asked why he didn't go to the Church Fathers. (The men trained up by the Apostles themselves) He said they ALL made no sense and were confusing! Imagine that the Church Fathers trained by the Apostles didn't know what the were talking about!! The reason it made no sense is that he was trying to start his own competitive Catholic like Church, with himself as the Pope of it! They made no sense because he followed the heretic Augustine! There is one more place, its in the Bible where Calvinism first raised its ugly head and that was in Genesis. Let me quote from the father of all lies. Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” GENESIS 3: 3 "DID GOD REALLY SAY?" Satan speaks through Calvinists the same way today! "DID GOD REALLY SAY?" For God so loved THE world that he gave his one and only Son, that WHOEVER believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 "DID GOD REALLY SAY?" This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants ALL people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for ALL people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 "DID GOD REALLY SAY?" For I take no pleasure in ANYONE'S death, declares the Lord GOD. So repent and live! Ezekiel 18:32 "DID GOD REALLY SAY?" Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. Isaiah 45:22 I say this to satan and all his children of the anti-Gospel of Reformed Calvinism. YES! YES! YES! YES! HE DID! YOUR FOOLISHNESS BASED ON MANS WISDOM WILL NOT STAND AGAINST IT! REPENT and be BAPTIZED for the forgiveness of your sins and you will be saved. Calvinism has no salvation in it, for it is just another cult pretending to be a branch of Christianity. TRUTH IN LOVE PS : This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. 1 Timothy 2 : 3-6 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. John 3:16 And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’ 38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 This promise belongs to you and your children and to all who are far off-.... Acts 2 :21
@@joelwoody517 Actually its hate more than anger! When these Reformed Calvinists blame God for planning and forcing people to sin for His glory, I get mad. They are anti christians. Withholding Gods love and salvation for whoever wills! I am nothing compared to what John The Baptist or Peter would say to these false teachers. Truth In Love
Choosing the name “Truth” displays a telling degree of narcissism, it seems unlikely that there is much hope to have a logical or rational debate with such a person. Saying “Truth in Love” after writing paragraphs of irrational and petty arguments that are both hateful and arrogant is dishonest and simply and untrue assertion. Though you may not agree with Calvinistic doctrines, to ignore the Scriptural Witness for Reformed theology and cite out of context verses, for which there has been mountains of exegetical work done showing the Calvinist position, shows that you merely want to win an argument and not actually consider the other side. No Orthodox Reformed individual claims God forces people to sin or that God is the author of evil. Such a claim again displays your ignorance of the Reformed position. I do not believe that Arminians are heretics. I do believe that have a man centered view of the Gospel which is not consistent and can led to bad theology. But I still call my Arminian friends Brothers in Christ. The fact that you are so hateful to a theology that places God above everything and firmly devoted to treating God as the utmost sovereign is troubling. Is your heart so unwilling to surrender to God that you would attempt to demonize those who preach God’s sovereign power? I would encourage you to not lash out at the Reformed doctrines. Instead study them from a place of real vulnerability and curiosity. Even if you still do not come to affirm them, you will have a better understanding and can clear up some of your false understandings. Men like Sproul, Bahnsen, MacArthur, Calvin, Spurgeon, Luther etc. have led the church through its darkest hours. It is so prideful to claim they are members of a cult, when in fact they have done more to preserve the Bible and Christianity than almost any other historical figures. And on the Roman Catholic issue and Augustine: 1) Augustine led. A sinful life before coming to Christ. That does not disqualify his scholarship. Paul murdered countless Christians before becoming arguably the greatest defender of the faith. 2) The Catholic Church did not even exist at the time of Augustine. Augustine stood firmly against salvation by works and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Though the Roman church has adopted some of Augustine’s views, that does not disqualify Augustine as a good theologian. The Catholic Church also affirms the teachings of Jesus and Paul. The folly of Rome should be used against Augustine. 3) Arminian teaching is derived, in part, from the work of the Catholic monk Molina, who wrote volumes on the free will of man in an attempt to destroy the teachings of Reformation Preachers. 4) The first historical figure to write a lengthy treaty on Free Will was Pelagius, who created the heretical theology of Pelagianism that is about salvation entirely through good works. Augustine stood against him. Arminian teaching is not a cult, and I do believe there a many godly people in that school of thought. But don’t ignorantly demonize Reformed theology when it is Arminianism that is founded on the work of heretics. Arminianism lifts up man. Calvinism lifts up God. I will always choose the theology that lifts up God.
