RC Sproul Debates Greg Bahnsen on Apologetics

[mitya51]

this whole enterprise seems a little off base to me. What makes us think that we can prove God's existence or that the Bible is His word? That's not how it works. People know Jesus by revelation, not by working up to intellectual certitude. This doesn't deny that there is a very important rational aspect to faith, but I see an assumed necessity for rational certitude, and I think that is very misguided.

[mrhybrantvegeta]

What the heck. The title should be changed to, "My interpretations of Sproul's and Bahnsen's works."

[cda76er]

I've heard both Bahnsen and Sproul affirm that all men know God no matter what (Romans 1:18). So Apologetics is not really about getting unbelievers to come to know God, but to destroy their intellectual/moral excuses for not acknowledging Him (which is the emphasis of the Presuppositional approach) or to overcome the widespread and effective lie that Christianity is not rational (which is the emphasis of the Evidentialist approach). Either approach can be effective depending on the subject.

[milkydud]

John 1:1 the word translated in English "the Word" is "logos".

From the Greek logos comes current English terms meaning reason or logic.

His classical apologetic perspective that is VERY deep routed in philosophy is at times hard to keep up with. If I heard the full debate, tryin to get in each presenters shoes, comprehending their p.o.v., we would know what happened and make our own conclusions on their presentations.

[RomansGalatians]

That's just like the abortion argument: if the baby is inside of the woman, then it is just a "choice." As if the spacial location of the baby changes it from an objective reality to a "volitional thought."

[RomansGalatians]

BTW, as far as that goes, indigestion and stomach acids OBJECTIVELY EXIST. You EMPIRICALLY experience it, and your pain sensors sense it.

Is he saying that indigestion is just a "way of thinking," and that it doesn't really exist objectively, just because it happens spacially inside of our body?

[RomansGalatians]

If I have a golf ball in my stomach, that golf ball isn't "subjective" in existence! The Holy Spirit is an OBJECTIVE reality that we EXPERIENCE inside of us.

Experience of the Holy Spirit is on the same basic level as empirical knowledge.

I remember when I first experienced the Holy Spirit, I thought to myself: "Hey, this ISN'T ME. I am NOT doing this. This is something distinct from me."

Just because the Holy Spirit is spacially inside of us doesn't mean He is a "subjective thought"!

[sp759]

This seems like a weird argument...

Christians, of course, must presuppose the validity of the Bible and reality of God as their logical foundation for everything. But when discussing God as the root of reality with a non-Christian, Christians have to use our presupposed understanding of God to argue the philosophical and evidential merits of God with something more understandable by the non-Christian than: "The Bible's true because it says it is."

What about that implies agnosticism?

[xhemexx]

Andrew you're a false prophet and teacher

[goldfidelitydotcom]

boring

[xhemexx]

Andrew would you piss off already. I'm tired of your bullshit videos.

[aburocko]

I'm having a hard time with the way some of you guys are commenting. You call this Christ-like? I would not be able to sit & have dialog with this for more then 2 minuets.

[yedrow]

Hmm, first: What Bahnsen did (5:57 in vid) was as correct as it could be. Without a transcendent truth logic cannot exist, meaning--we posses no logic in the form of truth ( as opposed to circuitry) without a god, i.e. it is okay to kill your neighbor if you can do so without being harmed for it.

Second, by your definition a man who is deaf and blind is doomed, and worse all who are condemned to eternal punishment are falsely done so by virtue of not having the law written on their hearts.

[whiteboyrabalac]

Proof being outside of scripture is not wrong. If I have no scripture, are you then saying that I have no proof.

[Entropy56]

How do you know you are saved? Because I believe in Christ. How do you know your faith is genuine? Because it is revealed by my good works. (James) How do you know your works are good enough? Because I am sincere. How do you know you are really sincere? Because I have faith in God. How do you know you have faith in God? Because it is revealed by my good works. Around and around it goes.

[opnoubleau]

I was hoping to see the video debate, but I only hear and read non sense.

[widdonvalley]

Ephesians: 2vs8 For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of god.

Romans: 6vs23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 5 vs 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only. John3vs31 He that cometh from above is above all, he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: He that cometh from heaven is above all.

[widdonvalley]

Ephesians: 2vs8 For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of god.

Romans: 6vs23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 5 vs 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only. John3vs31 He that cometh from above is above all, he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: He that cometh from heaven is above all.

[widdonvalley]

The Lords grace bless you andrew. Good to know theirs true bible believing christians out their. Romans: 6vs23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. John 5 vs 44 How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only. John3vs31 He that cometh from above is above all, he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: He that cometh from heaven is above all.

[ManchuDan22]

The bible is simply history, yet you say you CAN'T prove god via history, which is what the bible is.

You CAN"T prove the bible, BY the bible, that is childishly circular. AND there is so much evidence that shows the bible is very poor, biased history. Just camp fire tales trying to explain things we didn't understand back then, we have much better sources today.

[yedrow]

I'm curious, assuming you are still watching this post, how do you account for the virtuous pagan?

[MarkHarrellJr]

@yedrow Romans 2

[thesamsin]

The allegations you make toward both Sproul and Bahnsen are somewhat ridiculous. Claiming that they believe that the bible is not sufficient to know God? Where did you come up with that? The only reason they use extrabiblical material to prove God is because in apologetics, your opponent almost never understands the bible to be the word of God. So simply quoting scripture at them is useless.

[tannerpittman]

Very interesting, Andrew. I confess to not having adequately even begun to consider the questions you (very intelligently) discuss here.

Please tell me: what can we say of Paul's own argument that creation is evidence of God from Romans 1:18-20?

[tannerpittman]

Very interesting, Andrew. I confess to not having adequately even begun to consider the questions you (very intelligently) discuss here.

Please tell me: what can we say of Paul's own argument that creation is evidence of God from Romans 1:18-20?

[yoly328]

I don't even think yoy know what you are taking about. I know both Spraul & Bahnsen and both their aguments very well. An you are taking them both out of contex. Even though I would take the argument for the existence of God from Reason & Logic like Sprou. But you are misquoting both.

[ClumsyRoot]

LOL! Theological masturbation.

[ObjectiveBob]

@ClumsyRoot

sigh...hello, ClumsyRoot. I believe we've debated before.

[ClumsyRoot]

@ObjectiveBob

Have we? How'd it go? :)

[perfecthold]

The Sproul mistake in asking why it isn't possible that we are living in a world of leaky buckets could be reposed like this: "Isn't it logically possible that the world isn't logical?"

[polopowers1]

The life I live now I live,I live by the faith of the Son of God.!It is not me believing .God cannot be proven.God keeps His faith in me when I'm faithless He is faithful. Intellectualism takes away the basic concept of man's powerlessness. God by the Holy Spirit and scripture is believed.That is why the simple are great in faith.

[ProtoSteward]

Andy does not understand Bahnsen. Therefore, his critique is idiotic and off the mark.

[born2inform]

What is childish is not being honest and wanting to do things our own way with0ut a standard of moral consiousness.

[movieklump]

God is disproved by the argument. It's been going on "too damn long".

An argument that has no conclusion has no validity.

At present there is no god because there is no conclusion to the argument.

Something can't be said to exist until there is consensus to its existence.

Until there is a bona-fide conclusion to the argument the natural state of the argument is god does not exist until PROVEN otherwise.

After all this time why doesn't god get off his ass and prove him/herself.

[born2inform]

He already did through Jesus Christ, its just that some people chose to not believe. God proved himself one time and does not need to prove himself over and over.

He is and now there is only to sides "believers" and "non-believers". The non-believer is stilling looking for a reason to believe or attempting to disqualify the "certainty" of the believer.

[movieklump]

Saying people choose not to believe is childish and unintellectual. Many view the evidence and using reason say they can't believe because of that evidence.

If the bible had a chapter on quantum theory I might be interested, not that bronzed aged, partly immoral, jewish rubbish that's on offer. You really must love the Jews to take their religion lock stock and barrel. Virtually the whole of China and India "choose" not to believe for different reasons don't they.

[born2inform]

What is childish is not being honest with ourselves knowing we are going to die and that this life is not the end.

[movieklump]

The only way I could become a christian is to suspend reasoned logic.

How do you suggest I do that? Do I just start believing?  Just start having faith? How did you start to believe in virgin births, Noahs Arks and raped Midianite virgins. I'm find that very hard I think. Yes very hard.

[born2inform]

Well you are making progress ..."suspend logic" I guess you do know the way. You see we must think out of the box of the known and start asking questions about the unknown.....then you will find something interesting about the a spiritual life and then you will under-stand (spiritually) why all the fuss...

[movieklump]

How would one go about suspending logic? I guess the first step would be stop using the fruits of logic. Electricity would be a good place to start. You obliviously wouldn't use electricity because it comes from reasoned logic. It would be hypocritical to use the benefits of reasoned logic and yet advocate the suspension of it. Thus to really believe the bible one should live completely without technology. But the bible uses printing presses which is a problem, the offshoot of logic.

[born2inform]

Your logic is sound...no question with that however, what about those things that happen on a day 2 day basis that R not"logical"those things that R accomplished because people use "hope" "faith" (definition:being certain of the things I can not see) All great leaders use these unseen"feelings" other wise they would not have accomplished anything IF they first where waiting 4 "logical evidence"my point is that faith comes first then evidence...waking up in the morning requires faith the night b4

[posttenebraslux100]

"After all this time why doesn't god get off his ass and prove him/herself."

If we don't believe in God because we can't see Him, then oughtn't we also stop believing in reason since no man has ever seen reason?

I accept that reason is real becaues it is evident to me both internally, as I employ this ordered system of thought, and externally as I see it's affects. Similarly, I know that God is real because it is evident both internally and externally.

[trounds2]

@posttenebraslux100 once you see someone is an idiot, then you are simply wasting your time with explanations. Save explanations for someone who shows they are more worthy of your time, and shows the capacity to follow reasoning. Movieklump is a waste of time.

[posttenebraslux100]

God's existence is evident in the order of the universe, the nature of man, the structure of all reality(both material and abstract), and the veracity of the Bible as it is seen to speak accurately of the above mentioned areas, in addition to fulfilled prophesies. If you would say that such things don't count as proof or even evidence of God's existence, then it seems to me that the reality of Logic and Reason, and maybe even Mathematics, can be be similarly denied. What do you think?

[movieklump]

Let me give you my definition of Christianity. You have a god that exhibits traits of rape, slavery, infanticide, jealousy, torture, murder, fear and more but you have to love this god and if you dont you will suffer eternal torture.

The only way the bible can be tolerated is with cherry picking. Pluck out the nice bits and recoil at the horrible bits. Science creates stuff for the benefit and sometimes detriment of mankind, dogma doesnt so its not science. The rest is speculation.

[posttenebraslux100]

I hope that my satements do not appear arrogant, because I do not intend them to. Yet if one is going to make the kind of satements that you do I think it fair to expect you to live up to them.

It looks as though what you are saying is that Christianity is false because you don't like the God that you believe it presents you with. I would like to hear you use reason to address the point I made in my first two messages rather than applying pure emotion to an issue that I said nothing about.

[posttenebraslux100]

Part of the trouble with the statement that you have just made about the God of the Bible is that you presume to make absolute moral judgments about the God of the Bible when, if you assume atheism, no absolute moral standards exist.

Let's say for the sake of argument that God is indeed what modern man would call immoral. So what! If there is no God then moral standards are subjective. In another fifty years man may come to think that all those things you accuse God of are Ok. What then?

[posttenebraslux100]

So the reality that we face is this: If atheism is correct, then moral standards are matters of opinion and all claims of immorality against God are effectively rendered meaningless, and if there is a God and He is what you and I would call immoral then that is simply the reality in which we live and whether we like it or not has no bearing on whether or not it is true.

[posttenebraslux100]

With that said, I certainly don't hold that God is in any way unrighteous, yet the explanation, should you be interested, requires more space than a 500 character message allows. I would be happy to continue this discussion, if you are interested, by using the personal message system rather than this public one as there is no character limit and there is much to be discussed.

[movieklump]

It has been said "I'm sorry I wrote such a long letter I didn't have time to write a short one"

If you wan't to discuss something here I will usually reply.

I think youtube has offered a perfect amount of letters here to discuss anything. Still got 250 left!

[Pdrum2]

Belief in God is not the same as belief that God exist, were talking about epistemological, philosophy.

[Buho0017]

You've got some great points here (thanks!), but I think you got off track when Sproul was doing the "devil's advocate." He doesn't personally hold those thinigs, he's teasing out some technical items held by Bahnsen.

[jaggedlittlebill]

Fault in claiming the imposs. of the contrary? GB's just being logician first. He rightly assumes that we have foundation for reason and love because that's the way we live our lives. It's not complicated. Logic is the start of wisdom not the end. Don't get 'stuck arguing' over the necessity of scripture or we'll never get away from the dock. Be right from yourself to God first. That can take a lifetime.

[jaggedlittlebill]

The history of philosophy has been a search for God.

[Redfingers]

See the atomists (Bahnsen has a lecture series dealing with them), sophists, Socrates, Epicuris, Bertrand Russell, David Hume, and Friedrich Nietzsche....

[Redfingers]

But that's okay, because I've got an option for you: since God is true ONLY to you because you've received personal intervention, stay in your mosques and your churches and monasteries and NEVER COME OUT. Never proselytize. When I'm contacted by the holy spirit, I'll apparently know. Until then, quit flailing your arms around and screaming about hellfire. And quit having debates. You can't debate subjective truth, it's the antithesis of logical discussion.

[Redfingers]

God, what trash.

Sproul asks "I want to know how you escape subjectivism."

And then you proceed to show us scripture and then reaffirm your belief that your PERSONAL REVELATION is absolute proof. Absolute proof to YOU, asshole, he asked how you escape SUBJECTIVISM. Subjectivism is a logical fallacy. "I believe x is true, therefore x is true." Does not follow.

All it is is true to you. You cannot objectively demonstrate that....you've made the concession already.

[MrEpictetus]

the Bible Is objective truth. It exists whether you do or not. Tell me, when did you first hear of the Hittites at Karkamesh? Tell me, what did Josephus say to his kinsmen as the Roman armies surrounded Jerusalems walls? Is my belief in King Shashanks destruction of Judea in the 10th century bc as recorded in the Book of The Kings and on the walls of the Pharaohs subjective? or are you a silly goose? yes youare! yes you are... (in my baby voice)

[Redfingers]

The Bible is a list of claims entirely independent of the truth. No Biblical truth can be verified using only the Bible...you require archaeological evidence to verify the claims.

Additionally, the claims are not true by proxy.

You can't prove all the claims by demonstrating that one of them is true.

My point about subjectivism was primarily dealing with personal revelation.

The Bible is historical (not archaeological or scientific) evidence that these events occurred...doesn't mean they did

[Redfingers]

Objective truth and objective evidence are entirely separate matters.

The objective truth is established primarily on archaeological evidence....not on a book of ancient claims dated to near that time period.

[albybabeee]

.. philosophically scrutinized because it won't stand up to analysis. Rather, the Bible communicates to us in a fallen world where our knowledge is always accompanied by the circular and question begging fallacies.

It leads me to believe in the doctrine of election, God's utter sovereignty to communicate to His elect, and that the Bible is an act of grace given to us in a fallen world.

Philosophy has it's merits but it cannot penetrate into the metaphysical realm completely, if at all.

- aL

[albybabeee]

Philosophy is great but it's the most useful tool to demonstrate that our knowledge is circular and question begging without the God Who gave us our very minds to begin with.

Though those basic problems exists, it doesn't mean that there isn't a God and that He can't communicate to us. It will show up as circular in our truth tables but that

s the problem of a fallen world. God isn't here in our midst to make everything certain.

Lastly, nowadays, I don't believe that the Bible can be...

[albybabeee]

Greg Bahnsen looks like Will Ferrell there. lol

[AllSaintsReformed]

Scripture proof on this point does not come to us in the form of an explicit declaration, and much less in the form of a logical argument. In that sense the Bible does not prove the existence of God...[The Bible] presupposes the existence of God in its very opening statement "In the beginning God..."--Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, Chapter I, section B.

[AllSaintsReformed]

faith, this faith is based on reliable information. While Reformed theology regards the existence of God as an entirely reasonable assumption, it does not claim the ability to demonstrate this by rational argumentation...The Christian accepts the truth of the existence of God by faith. But this faith is not a blind faith, but a faith that is based on evidence, and the evidence is found primarily in Scripture as the inspired Word of God, and secondarily in God's revelation in nature...

[AllSaintsReformed]

"For us the existence of God is the great presupposition of theology. There is no sense in speaking of the knowledge of God, unless it may be assumed that God exists...the question may be raised, whether this is a reasonable assumption, and this question may be answered in the affirmative. This does not mean, however, that the existence of God is capable of a logical demonstration that leaves no room whatever for doubt; but it does mean that, while the truth of God's existence is accepted by...

[8675965]

wheres the debate? thats not the debate you liar! its your own interpretation. How dare you slander your own christian brothers! Greg Bahnsen is one of the greatest apologists who ever lived! He deserves your respect not your slander!

[berettaNZ]

Commenting on this is like attacking the Hyrda: Which head should be chopped off first?

[Theo4Trinity]

Where's the debate?

[WhatGodExpects]

Youre misunderstanding Greg Bahnsen. He is saying that in addition to the testimony of the Holy Spirit there is other evidence that can be advanced in favor of God. You dont have a quote of him saying, This proves God. And even if you did, philosophers use the term proof in a loose sense to mean a case for. You have completely misunderstood Greg Bahnsen.

[bobplane777]

Bahsen argues that there are only 2 options-irrationalism or rationalism. If you reject a Biblical God we are left only w/ irrationalism-but one can't account for IR w/o betrayal to the tenets of IR. HW, if you claim rationalism you must have some foundation on which it rests. Bahnsens argues that only a personal Christian God can account for & thus obligate us to the universal & invariant laws of logic since they are only a reflection of God's nature- otherwise logic would be greater than God.

[fiercegallantry]

More Bahnsen, less Bain.

Please, spare us the ignorance of an ignorant 2-year-old ignoramus.

[MonkeeSage]

I think you're confused about what Presuppositional Apologetics (and hence Bahnsen) is trying to do. Van Til, Frame and Bahnsen have all said in numerous places that the Holy Spirit working through the word is the reason for our certainty. What PA and TAG does is not to show why WE are certain, but to show why THEY have no right to doubt. I can show how a belief can't be denied based on the WCF; but I believe it because it's biblical, not because it's in the WCF. See the difference?

[MonkeeSage]

The very nature of an ultimate presupposition is that it is held with certainty. [...] And since, in one sense...all knowledge can be seen as an application of our presupposition, it is possible to say that all of our knowledge is certain. [...] Christians...have a right to be certain. Scripture encourages Christians to be certain, and every Christian, merely by virtue of his faith, has achieved certainty in some measure. (John Frame, _The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God_ [P&R: 1987], 135-136)

[MonkeeSage]

"I can show how a belief can't be denied based on the WCF..."

I didn't word that very clearly, let me try again:

I can show that one has no basis for denying that a belief is found in the WCF...

[MadAtSkully]

I love your response, Andrew. But, at the end of the day, isn't the nature of apologetics about the defense of the faith (not the proclamation of the Gospel)? The "casting down of every thought, and every imagination that attempts to exalt itself against the knowledge of God" is that work! Its pre-evangelism at its most winsome. Particularly in an age where subjective declarations make shipwreck of the faith.

[qstephe]

Isn't it necessary for the scriptures to be translated. Romans 1 gives the groundwork to the idea that God has given basic logic to all men so that they are able to properly translate scripture. Are you saying that scripture alone converts nonbelievers? What is the work of the holy spirit in conversion? Oh, and I really like your posts. They are very well thought out.

[jbrack95]

Andrew c bain is a heretic

[MRKetter81]

The Bible says dont answer a fool according to his own folly.

but then it also says.

Answer a fool to his own folly... yes you can appeal to the fact only the fool says in his heart "there is no God".

Stop treating the Bible like a peace of wood you either get in or get out of.

[Philos2006]

MrKetter81: start treating the bible for what it is: a concoction a fables with no real meaning. Peace !!

[MRKetter81]

18For(AJ) the wrath of God(AK) is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be(AL) known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature,(AM) have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.

[MRKetter81]

You went and tried to explain what Bahnsen was saying inaccurately I might add.

"From the impossiblity of the contrary" is an arguement submited in scripture through out all of Romans Chapter 1.

[jclark2008521]

Mr. Bain, in all respect I consider you a prime example of Luke 16: 29-31, we love you as does God, I see you have an excellent gift in debate and thinking but are blind to the truth of this moment, i will pray for you daily

[UnusVerum]

It seems to me that you are creating a problem that does not necessarily exist and impugning these men (Sproul in particular) on grounds that are not intellectually solid. Have you studied the subjects of philosophy or apologetics at the level that these men have?

[UnusVerum]

The argument is regarding the human sphere and perspective of things- that which is human and transpires within the human. Even more particular- the pagan experience is in focus. This is the whole issue of apologetics- how to lead the pagan to a place of confrontation with the truth and the Spirit. But the process of salvation is a sovereign act of God as I assume you as well as these men would agree.

[UnusVerum]

While functions of the human mind, will, and heart are involved, they are not decisive, causative, or original. They are strictly responsive. If anyone believes the Gospel it is because of the work of God, not because they have come to correctly understand the epistemology of revelation. Thus, a man can defend his belief validly through evidences from natural revelation and he could, in the hands of God, lead another to faith starting from this ling of argument.

[UnusVerum]

The insights of preuppositionalism, while perhaps theoretically valuable, do not elevate those who subscribe to the understanding or method to higher moral ground or purer standing, nor do they necessarily aid in the practical exercise of apologetics.

[xxsolafidaxx]

lol you crack me up on your false teaching. Why don't we hear the debate rather than your annoying uneducated voice? Do you even attend a Seminary?

[AndrewcBain]

"Why don't we hear the debate rather than your annoying uneducated voice?"

Sorry - the original debate audio is copyrighted.

[xxsolafidaxx]

So answer me this, why do you misrepresent everything you post like an ignorant human? Do you attend a Seminary?

You remind me of my Mormon background in how they read far INTO the text and not reading it FULLY in context. Anyone can take portions from ANYTHING, including the Bible and misrepresent it and having people believe its horrible.

Let's try not to bear false witness eh?

[Philos2006]

xxsolafidaxx:"having people believe its horrible" "Horrible" is not the exact word, sir. But it`s pretty descriptive for a book with little historical, no scientific and scant literary value. It`s fantasy from A to Z. It`s the main reason I lost my faith. Peace

[xxsolafidaxx]

LOL I won't even start with you...oh and by the way I am a female and not a dude or sir!

[negelet]

If you are of Him, you will not loose your faith, if you loose your faith it is because you never had it to begin with. Peace.

[aburocko]

@xxsolafidaxx Judging by your screen name I'm assuming your a believer in Christ. Judging by how you are speaking to the person who posted this video, you are very arrogant & disrespectful. 2 characteristics that should not encompass a person trying to be Christ-like.

[Philos2006]

JesseMorell: You forgot to refute my argument.

[UnusVerum]

Please, allow me: An omniscient, all-loving God, is very unlike you and I. He has very different thoughts and very different objectives. Do you really presume to be in a position do judge the efficiency of His acts. Trust me, He will be successful in His endeavors. Besides, stories, metaphors, and apparent contradictions are always in human communication. You just have to figure it out! Who knows maybe our effort to comprehend His message is evidence we are meant to receive it. Have you tried?

[Philos2006]

Now use some common sense folks, instead of all this technical bla bla bla. Why would an omniscient,all-loving god, inspire or write an instruction book(essential to reach eternal life) in parables,methaphors,apparent contradictions, so that every verse has to be interpreted by fallible humans.Didn`t he foresee it would give rise to 35.000 different christian denominations ?Any logic ?

[Klaratu]

i want to hear the debate not your pathetic monologue! you dork!

[spicenut]

Klaratu: Are you Christian? In any case, is it really necessary for you to insult somebody like this? I actually found the video quite thought-provoking.

[yoly328]

@spicenut There is nothing in this video that I this thought out. I know both Sproul and Behsen, points on appologetics and this viedeo mislead both of there positions. I know Bhsen is a presupositionalis and Sproul takes the argument thought the basic laws of knowlege which I agree with Sproul but to mislead on what these to Apologists conclusions are shouldn't be tolerated and this video is misleading.

[Klaratu]

Andrewcbain get a life! and stop trying to refute Cornelius Van Til and Dr Bahnsen! they'd kick your ass in debate! and you know it!

[Psalm130]

I came here to hear a debate, not this stupid monologue.

[pbcinla]

AndrewcBain, when will you contribute something to society rather than attacking people?

[picassoui]

In order to pursue a course of natural theology you must pressupose the existence of a god.

Therefore doesn't that make natural theology obsolete ?

[willwa21]

The problem isn't the gospel, the problem is that you like your sin and don't want to repent.

[Cmey2k]

what they are arguing about is really about predetermination. Bahnsen in his Calvinism says that the only way someone can get saved is for God to have chosen them to be so. Man has nothing to do with it. So if this is true, and the total depravity of our souls is so true, than tell me, is double predestination true? if they don't think so than that is truly faulty logic. we might as well sit back and watch the show b/c apparently we have nothing to do with it.

[rhedrich5]

God chooses to save some from their sins. The rest are left to themselves and judged according to their actions. If you consider that double predestination, swell.

You DO realize RC Sproul is a Calvinist too, right?

[Cmey2k]

believe what you want, even if it doesn't line up with God's attributes

[rhedrich5]

Haha, hilarious. Go read 1 John 5:1 and John 1:13, then tell me God doesn't choose us unconditionally before we choose Him.

[Colinnnnnnn]

I am an agnostic and this is why. Atheists and thr religious guy are both believers in certainty

but agnostics can live with uncertainty.

[jaminhubner]

"Both say we can know God apart from the Scripture."

Apparently you've never read any of Bahnsen's work.

[OntoLogos]

You should focus on false gods and anti-theism.

onto

[OntoLogos]

To deny reason a place in epistemology and theology doesn't imply that it is the necessary and sufficient ground for knowledge and knowledge about God.

To deny reason a place in apologetics, requires you to employ reason in that denial.

Plus you must employ reason in your declaration of Sola Scriptura or in quoting anything in scripture one must utilize reason in one's reception, affirmation and declaration therein.

Reason was also a tool in translation from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.

[OntoLogos]

From observing your site, you seem to be running for the King of Take a Quote out of context.

Wow.

And if one who speaks 10,000 times, one can fall into misspeak on dozens of occasion and speak without clarity.

[DyingSoliloquy]

Isn't Christianity then just as plausible as Islam or Buddhism or atheism or even Greek Mythology? Why does a Christian bias prevail here?

[NeoConvert]

You're an idiot. Stop propounding positions you don't know how to defend. You don't answer emails. You don't answer very clear critiques. You don't study philosophy. You're an idiot. Stop.

[NarrowPathPilgrim]

Thank God for Bahnsen!

[HannaBarbaric]

agreed...

[anastasisariel]

The point that Andrew is trying to make is that he really doesn't have a point. He is spreading misinformation about a consistent spiritual leader, namely, R.C. Sproul. I'm not sure what his intentions are, but he, apparently, is extremely divisive, and ought to be taken only with a grain of salt (if even that). Why don't you spread the Gospel, Andrew, instead of spreading misinformation and lies? Apparently, you really don't have any gospel (good news) to offer anyone.

[felixayala05]

very nice video. God bless

[coviepresb1647]

About what was this debate regarding the Bible? Sola Scriptura or some other point?

[CAndiron]

It's about apologetic approach. Sproul uses the 'classical'/Aquinas approach: natural law, cosmological argument, etc. Bahnsen uses the 'presuppositional' approach- arguing that even in the act of reasoning or believing in morality, you are presupposing the Christian God exists.

[HannaBarbaric]

This is a debate about proving the existance of God outside of scripture... the natural revelation.

Bahnsen's method is revolutionary in my opinion, well van til's lol.

Bahnsen shows him apart from feelings that God exists. that apart from his internal convictions there is external proofs. The fact that Sproul even has internal feelings shows the existance of God.

Apologetics: T.A.G

[kentkim23]

Awesome video!