The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Bahnsen vs Sproul Debate

As I said in another thread, one of the things I hope to do is listen to the Greg Bahnsen vs RC Sproul debate.
During my google search for that debate, I came upon someone's evaluation of that debate. Although I have yet to watch the debate, I thought the evaluation and the comment section was interesting.
Thought others might be interested in looking at it.
http://godorabsurdity.blogspot.ca/2014/04/bahnsen-vs-sproul-debate.html

Tom

I am still not quite sure why we cannot use historical havts and truths to support the various faith claims of jesus and the Bible, as both were rooted directly into the contex of being part of hostorical events?

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.

The sinner will not be persuaded by no amount of historical facts to accept jesus, but the Lord will use that to bring him to that place of receiving Jesus as Lord.

What in the world are you talking about??? The natural man is at enmity with God and is not subject to the law of God, indeed he CANNOT be. Natural law only demonstrates the natural man's hatred of God and God's wrath and judgment upon him for taking what is demonstrable of God's existence and Godhead, both in the creation and the inward testimony that God Himself has given him.

Secondly, you have consistently avoided answering any of my questions directly but reply with nothing but a recitation of your "views". And, you have not provided biblical support for them. Don't you know that repetition of the same mantra doesn't change anything other than producing consternation in those who read them? Why don't you make an effort to deal with people here in an adult manner and defend your views and use Scripture to support them rather than simply stating your personal opinions on everything? Doubtless, that would be far more beneficial for everyone.

Pilgrim
Thankyou

The message of the Gospel is that in historical time God incarnated, in history he lived and died on a Cross, and in history he rose again, correct?
We can appeal to the scriptures and also use those historical truths, its really not either/or!