Greg Bahnsen -- disciple of Cornelius Van Til at Westminster Theological Seminary -- said unbelievers believe in Predestination and the Trinity. Hear word for word quotes from one of the most famous leaders of "Presuppositional Apologetics"
-- Response to Jonathan Stout -- I've received a lot of criticism of my criticism of Greg Bahnsen / Cornelius Van Til / Westminster Theological Seminary "Doctrine" - so I've decided to answer 7 objections brought against my position.
Objection #1: " Is there not a difference between believing unto salvation and believing in the sense that you know that God exists but suppress that knowledge (Romans 1)? Do not the devils believe and tremble (James 2)?"
My response -- Jonathan -- your point about the Devils actually supports what I'm saying. They tremble and cannot forget about the fact that God's Word condemns them to hell. This has to do with the nature of truth. When you know something is true, it's impossible to believe otherwise, no matter how inconvenient the truth is. For example, try to believe the light is off when it is on.
The devils show they do really believe God is going to condemn them to hell.
But now consider unbelievers. They have no idea what's in store for them! For example, if an unbeliever tries to reform himself, and make himself more moral, he is manifesting his IGNORANCE of God. Anyone who understands the perfect holiness of God will GIVE UP and know NOTHING they do will be good enough for him (this was exactly Paul's experience Phil 3:6-9).
But the fact that almost all religious people think that some stupid religious ceremonies will make God love them shows their ignorance of God. Their gods are just men, gods that reward or punish according to man's efforts. Just like humans work. And they even require pathetic babblings - either in chanting, speaking in tongues etc. - and this shows the TOTAL ignorance of these people of what God requires.
They don't understand his law at all, do they? Read about how the moment Paul was "slain" by God's Law he gave up all his self-righteous attempts. In other words, prior to understanding What Christ Did, Paul did not understand What God Requires.
If Paul admits he did not understand God's Law until he was converted, how ignorant are all unbelievers? If Paul didn't understand the Law when he was unregnerate, how can any unbeliever today?
Listen to Paul admitting that when he was Saul he had a wrong conception about the Law...
8 But sin taking occasion through the commandment worked every lust in me; for apart from Law, sin is dead.
9 And I was alive apart from Law once, but the commandment came, and sin came alive, and I died.
10 And the commandment which was to life, this was found to be death to me;
11 for sin taking occasion through the commandment deceived me, and through it killed me.
Clearly, it was not until Paul understood the PERFECT requirement of the Law that he knew what God Required. And can someone know God, without understand what God requires? Of course not. So Paul before did NOT understand what God Requires until he was converted -- and thus did not know God -- so it must be with all men.
Now...
Objection #2: "Also self deception is well documented within psychology so we have both foundations within scripture and empirical evidence."
My response: We need to define terms. What is "self-deception"? I think Bahnsen gives a clear description of it...
"Now, the natural tendency is to model self-deception on other deception. Deceiving oneself is thought of as a version of deceiving someone else. A problem here of course, is that in other deception the roles of deceiver and deceived are incompatible. Yet, in self-deception a person is thought to play both of these incompatible roles himself. ... Let us stop an analyse the situation. In a case of other deception, Jones is aware that some proposition is false. But Jones intends to make Smith believe that it is true. And he succeeds. Now, if we take Smith out of the picture altogether and substitute in Jones everywhere we mentioned Smith just a moment ago, so as to gain self-deception -- we end up saying -- Jones aware that p is false intends to make himself believe that p is true and succeeds in making himself believe that p is true. Such a statement is surely puzzling for it suggests that somebody could try to make and succeed in making himself believe something which x-hypotheses at the same time he believes not to be true. It would be easy to conclude then self-deception is an incoherent enterprise which cannot be fulfilled. And so we're forced to ask whether there actually is such a thing as perpetrating a deception on oneself. How could it occur in practice? How could it be described without contradiction? How could someone, after all, believe p as deceived yet disbelieve p as deceiver? It now appears that self-deception despite the familiarity of the notion is about as difficult as presiding at one's own funeral."
Can anyone here solve the paradox?
How can someone deep down know God exists, and then LIE to themselves that he doesn't? It's impossible! This is like saying someone can know the light is on, but then deceive themselves into believing it's off!
Jonathan - Do you think unbelievers intentionally deceive themselves into believing that God does not exist?
That is absurd. By definition, when someone is deceived they do NOT know they are being deceived. IF they know they are being deceived, then they are NOT BEING DECEIVED. It's simple.
On the other hand - if you say they do NOT know they are deceiving themselves, then you also have a problem. By definition when you are deceiving, you need to know you are lying, otherwise it's not an act of deception. It's only an act of misinforming if they do NOT know they are doing an act of deception. So if the unbeliever
1) Knows he is deceiving himself, he can't be. Because the moment you know you are being deceiving the deception falls to pieces
or if the unbeliever...
2) is unaware they are being deceived, then it must be someone else deceiving them! Because if they were deceiving themselves, they would know they are, right? You can't perpetuate an act of deception unaware it's an act of deception. Otherwise, if you don't know it's deception it's merely the act of misinforming.
So would you say they are aware they are deceiving themselves? lol. Which is like saying they are NOT deceived (since the moment you know you are under deception, the deception loses it's power)?
Next...
Objection #3: "It may be difficult to understand how someone can do this but the fact is it is observed. We can use the example that Bahnsen Gives? if we come in contact with a mother that who's son is constantly getting in trouble at school and the boy's teachers tell her repeatedly of the issue and she refuses to believe it and claims they have it out for her son and may even move because of this believe. Though she demonstrates she believes in the innocence of her son she is also seen as holding her purse closer when he is around and never leaving it alone with him."
My response: OK - Jonathan, thanks for raising the mother-son analogy.
The most logical explanation is that the woman is committing hypocrisy. She knows the boy is a thief but denies it publicly. We do this everyday - people know they have lied, but deny they said such-and-such-a-thing. People know one thing is true but say another. Lying is common - we often deceive OTHERS. But lying is obviously not the same as self-deception. You don't simply think she is lying, though, do you? You seem to be taking a different approach. Are you implying that woman believes both that the son is innocent - and at the same time believes he is guilty of theft? In that case she is simply uncertain and doesn't know who to believe. Again, this is a common experience we all have and there is no self-deception involved. We are simply not sure who to believe.
So, there are two possible scenarios
1) The woman knows the son is guilty but is too embarrassed to publicly confess. In this case she is simply lying and is committing hypocrisy. Is she deceiving herself in this case? No. She's deceiving OTHERS into making them believe the son is innocent.
or 2) The woman suspects the son is guilty but is not totally convinced yet. And there's nothing wrong with this! Indeed - remember - his teachers are fallible so they could be lying or mistaken. We always have legitimate reasons to doubt what men say because "all men are liars".
Anyways - can you give me a single example of someone deceiving themselves in the Bible?
There are 100s of examples of one person deceiving another in the Scripture. And there are countless instances of people believing falsehoods - that is, being deceived by others.
But where is there any instances of self-deception? I want an example like -- "And King David knew in his heart the Philistines would attack after a messenger told him so, but he decided to make himself believe that the Philistines would not attack".
Or something like -- "And Moses left Egypt, but then decided to make himself believe that he still lived in Egypt."
Or how about -- "and the walls of Jericho fell, but Joshua decided that in his mind he would now believe they were still up".
Sound ridiculous? My request is no more ridiculous than asking for a verse that says,
"And the unbeliever knew that God was true deep down, but decided to deceive himself into believing it was false."
Objection #5: :Romans 1:18-23 clearly presenting it? Also there are many cases other than the lady and her son even though I could not say it is hypocrisy because she clearly holds both beliefs from observations this would also answer the claim that she can't decide since both of these beliefs are held simultaneously. This seems to go into the subconsciene. Also I can systematically see that all the unbelievers in the Bible were self decieved based on Romans 1."
My response: Romans 1:18-23 says unbelievers know God - agreed. However, it doesn't say HOW they know Him.
A lot of people appeal to the KJV verse 19, that God was "manifested IN them". But as Young's Literal Translation has it, "Because that which is known of God is manifest AMONG them, for God did manifest [it] to them". The Greek word for in - "en" - is the same word used when Christ said "the Kingdom of God is [en] you" to the Jews. Now did Christ tell the Jews that the Kingdom was IN them? Of course not. He's saying the Kingdom was AMONG them.
Moreover, verse 19 says "God SHOWED IT to them". Why did God have to reveal himself to them, if they already knew him "deep down". Clearly, they didn't know God "deep down" and thus God had to "show" Himself - that is, with words. More here: http://Godnoliar.com/rom1.htm
Anyways, it's by faith a man understands God created the words (Heb 11:3). So Romans 1:18-23 can only mean that all nations have HEARD about Jehovah. That is the ONLY LOGICAL POSSIBLILITY otherwise you MUST SAY Scripture contradicts itself.
#1 By faith we understand God created the worlds (Heb 11:3)
#2 By nature we understand God created the worlds
Position #2 must be false.
I suppose you think Hebrews 11:3 should say "by nature we understand God created the worlds"? Oops. I guess the apostle to the Hebrews made a mistake?
"for revealed is the wrath of God from heaven" (Rom 1:18)
Clearly the wrath has to be REVEALED from heaven (that is, from the heavens by God's Word), because man doesn't know about it.
Do you think it's saying - "the wrath of God is being revealed in all men's hearts"?
The fact that it's "clearly SEEN" implies that the revelation is OUTSIDE the unbelievers. "Being understood from the things that are made [poiEma]". PoiEMa means doing or works. So God is CLEARLY manifested in his doings!
The whole language of Romans 1:18-23 is describing revelation OUTSIDE the unbeliever. "From heaven" and "being seen".
You would have it read "the fact of God's existence suddenly springs up in all men's souls at birth". What a ridiculous idea! That some idea just magically pops into the heads of everyone born into the world. hahaha. I suppose the words "God exists" are engrained on everyone's hearts? That would be redundant, unless God was clearly defined as to who he is. That would take a couple of pages, really. You can't even describe a person in a page sufficiently to distinguish person X from everyone else. So surely it would take a couple of pages to adequately define God.
Are you suggesting that everyone is born with a couple of pages of notes about God engrained in their minds? If not, just a couple of sentences?
Or are you suggesting we can have non-propositional ideas in our minds WITHOUT WORDS?
Objection #7: "There is also a distinction between knowing and accepting a proposition. Unbelievers know the true God exists but do not understand it because of their depraved nature so your syllogism falls short."
My comment: But does the unbeliever possess knowledge of the fact that "the worlds were framed by Christ"? You agree the unbeliever does not assent to that proposition. So he does NOT know the proposition is true. And if he does not know the proposition is true, then does he possess knowledge of it?
So does God imprint the words "God exists" on their heart? Or a few sentences? Or a page? By what means does the unbeliever know in him that Jehovah is? Just a "feeling" or an "inkling"? That's not knowledge haha. How about the words "God exists". Unless the words are clearly defined the are meaningless. So would you be so kind as to explain HOW God communicates this knowledge to them?
Extra -- Here's an comment from a ex-Van Tillian called Adam... He wrote me, "Let me say that your latest YouTube critique of Dr. Greg Bahnsen was music to my ears. As a former Van Tillian, I have for some time now been seeking to convince my Bahnsenite brethren in Christ to acknowledge the obvious errors implied by saying that 'the ontological Trinity is the ultimate precondition of intelligibility.' Far from limiting the scope of autonomous natural reason, the Van Tillian perspective has now opened the door to the notion that the unchurched pagan ALREADY KNOWS THE CHRISTIAN WORLDVIEW, which (according to your Bahnsen excerpts) includes an understanding of God's Triunity and various facts about redemption, such as predestination unto life.
Over the past year, I have gotten several reluctant Van Tillians to admit to these things, attempting to show them how their position ultimately leads to a denial of the classical reformed understanding of the insufficiency and limited scope of natural revelation. Nevertheless, to hear such implications being openly taught and embraced 'straight from the mouth of Bahnsen,' as it were, forces all of us to take a step back and recognize the significant theological chasm that exists between classical reformed (i.e. biblical) theology - which I would argue has generally maintained a presuppositional flavor - and the destructively innovative presuppositionalism of Van Til and Bahnsen, which destroys the unique relationship between general and special revelation."
Loading...
2:10:44Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein: The Great Debate...by ArginGerigorian5,125 views
I answered 7 objections to my position in the video description. Hope it helps.
AndrewcBain 4 years ago
First, you are completely over-simplifying the issue of deception. And you wanted a single example of self-deception. It took me 20 seconds on Bible Works to find God commanding us not to deceive ourselves: Jeremiah 37:9 "Thus saith the LORD; Deceive not yourselves, saying, The Chaldeans shall surely depart from us: for they shall not depart." If it's not possible to deceive yourself then I guess God was wasting his breath.
heathac 4 years ago
G'day Heathac! You're certainly right about one thing. Unbelievers are often involved in their own deception. They buy the stupid books and seek after falsehood. In that sense, they deceive themselves -- without realising it of course. They are about to fall into a pit and they don't even know it. If they knew the pit was coming, they'd change course. The fact they continue on course shows they don't know the pit is on its way. They simply cannot be aware they are deceiving themselves.
AndrewcBain 4 years ago
The moment you realise you are being deceived, you are no longer decieved, are you? You've detected the falsehood and are free from its power.
Thus to say someone can know Atheism is false, but convince himself to believe it is absurd. It's like saying someone can convince himself he's in the dark when he's sitting under a bright light.
AndrewcBain 4 years ago
Can you believe that you know what you are talking about and not know what you are talking about? Bahnsen's point is therefore established.
And secondly, as someone who has studied Van Til, I don't think anyone could ever rationally and hosestly say that the Bible did not play a pre-eminent role in his apologetics. In fact, it plays a much higher role in his than in the classical model.
heathac 4 years ago
Thanks for the feedback guys!
I've answered 7 objections to my position -- and pasted it in the video description. Just scroll up to the top right part of this page and click "more" to read my responses. Thanks!
AndrewcBain 4 years ago