RC Sproul Debates Greg Bahnsen on Apologetics

http://facebook.com/BainAndrew

http://Godnoliar.com/Sproul_vs_Bahnsen.htm

BAHNSEN SHOWS THAT SPROUL IS AN AGNOSTIC.

Bahnsen said: If you have only probability -- if you have only probability that the Bible is the Word of God, or that God exists or all the rest -- that must mean at least this -- that while there are many reasons to think that the Bible is the Word of God, there are some to think that it's not. As, if there were no reasons to think that the Bible's not the Word of God, it wouldn't be probability it would be certainty. And so when RC [Sproul] or any old Princeton Apologist says, "That very probably the Bible is the Word of God," he is also saying there's a slight probability that it's not -- slight. You may think the probability that it is, is greater than the other -- although, I dare say, nobody knows how to rate probability, when it comes to those kind of arguments. So saying one is more than the other doesn't get anywhere -- everybody's lost in a sea of skepticism -- if it's only probability. But even if you could say that there's a greater probability that the Bible is the Word of God, than it's not, you're still saying that there's some reason to think that it's not.

QUESTION TO SPROUL FROM STUDENT

Angus Gillespie -- of the South Carolina Gillespies. You can know nothing for certain -- empirically or inductively, correct? That's what your saying? Then, you [RC Sproul] can't know anything at all, for certain, right? It seems to me, though, that the Scripture -- and here it get back to the same argument I suppose -- that Scripture does say you can know certainly. That, over and over again, the Scripture writers say, "These things are written, so that you can know certainly." And that are...we are...

You state that men know certainly that God exists. But you can't know for certain, that men know certainly God exists. You seem to end up in the same Skepticism that Gordon Clark does. I was wondering what your thoughts on that would be?

SPROUL ADMITS HE IS AGNOSTIC

Sproul response: Again, let me repeat the difference between how the word "certainty" is used. The Bible speaks of having assurance. I have a blessed assurance. But my knowledge of what the Bible is, and what the Bible says, is fallible, 'cause I'm less than omniscient [all knowing].

When I'm talking about certainty, I'm talking about philosophical certainty, in a very technically defined manner. And in that sense I don't have certainty about anything, even that I'm right here. Deduction -- I think, can give us far more certainty than Greg [Bahnsen] allows, in terms of the relationship of propositions, and the laws of immediate inference and that sort of thing. But, I grant, that that's even then, only if rationality is valid. And the only way you can have rationality valid -- I've already yielded, is that ultimately that God exists. But I cannot know for certainty -- you know, that God exists. I can have full assurance of heart -- when the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit comes, you see -- I look at the evidence, and I know the evidence is overwhelming -- the Holy Spirit tells me, "Hey, that evidence is for true, that's for real," -- you know? Cool. How do I know for sure, that the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit isn't indigestion? I'm playing the Devil's Advocate now. I have to deal with pagans every day, and not just Christians. And, I'm not going to go up to them and say, "Because I say so." And that's what you're left with. And that gives you precious little certainty. 'Cause then in the final analysis all I have is the autonomy of your presupposition about the boldest assertion the world has ever heard -- the existence of God. And I want to know -- How you escape subjectivism -- I want to know -- How you escape fideism -- I haven't heard it yet. I keep hearing denials about fideism. Fideism historically means the rejection of natural theology, by definition. You know, historically going all the way back to Cusanus, right up through the history of philosophy, the term fideism has meant, that any knowledge of God must come -- not through natural theology but through faith -- I've heard all night, that we don't come through natural theology, we do come through faith, but where not fideists. I'm absolutely bewildered at that point.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• debate
• rc
• sproul
• greg
• bahnsen
• presuppositional
• apologetics
• cornelius
• van
• til
• ligonier

[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!

[xhemexx]

Andrew you're a false prophet and teacher

[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?

[goldfidelitydotcom]

boring

[xhemexx]

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