The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Bahnsen vs Sproul Debate

I just listened to the debate between RC Sproul and Greg Bahnsen. I took some notes based on my understanding of what were the main arguments. I only listened to the debate once and because of that, I probably missed a few points from both sides. However, I tried to give an accurate description of what I think they were trying to say, while not adding my own thoughts.
RC Sproul’s main argument for Classical Apologetics
He is a Classical Apologist because he believes the Presuppostional approach is a Neo-Orthodox form of Reformed theology. He believes it is a divorce of faith and science. He believes the Classical form is the apologetic held by Calvin himself (quoting Calvin himself a few times). He believes both general and special revelation are the means that point directly to God Himself. Natural revelation is ineffective when it comes to salvation, but it leaves them without excuse. It however, with all its science etc… is enough to shut the mouth of even the staunchest atheist. He believes that the presuppostional approach gives the atheist a reason to not to believe, by using a circular reasoning. He believes it is subjectivism, not true reason.

Greg Bahsen’s arguments for Presuppostional Apologetics
Apologetics is not mere persuasion. We can know with certainty our faith in respect to God’s Word. Science etc.. does not talk about certainty, it may talk about probability. God’s Word on the other hand is not like that, it speaks of certainty. The unbeliever and the believer have two different world views, therefore the unbeliever suppresses anything that has to do with God, because he wants to hold onto his autonomy. An apologist must not start with a neutral position, which is actually what Classical Apologetics seek to do in order to move them to special revelation. We must start with God, rather than his creation. God is the reason anyone can have reason in the first place and when the non Christian uses true reason they are actually borrowing from the Christian world view. Eve’s sin was really believing the serpent’s subtle lie and questioning God’s authority and acting on it.
Both Apologetic systems believe that non-Christians suppress truth in unrighteousness. Yet they come at apologetics differently. Mainly that what are the preconditions of all knowledge? How do you argue with the unbeliever to reach the ultimate goal? One argues from probability, one argues from certainty.

RC Sproul believes we should be able to move someone from the probable to the certainty. Bahnsen believes you always lead with the certainty, rather than the probable. Saying while if we are good arguers we might be able to show them they have their facts wrong. However, someone more knowledgable may come along and blow your argument away. Whereas, the argument starting from a certainty position, that keeps to the certainty position, does not have that problem.