# RC Sproul/ Greg Bahnsen debate



## bigheavyq

has anyone heard the sproul/ bahnsen debate on apologetic methodology?
Bahnsen really blew Sproul away.


----------



## king of fools

Where can one get a copy of a tape of this, or where can one download it?


----------



## RamistThomist

Both of them did an excellent job, although I think Bahnsen won. I don't think it was a blow-out. Rather than, "who won?," I saw it as a more informational debate.


----------



## RamistThomist

www.cmfnow.com


----------



## alwaysreforming

What timing. 
I was talking to a gentleman in church yesterday who started talking about RC Sproul on apologetics. He claimed that RC really destroyed the presuppositional approach, and finally set this man free from what he said others had heaped upon him. I too would like to get this tape and hear for myself. 
I personally no take hard stand on any apologetic approach, but I can certainly respect those who do. But this man was telling me how divisive apologetic methodology has been in his church experience. It seems a shame to me that something that is designed to draw non-believers into the Christian family, at the same time will divide those already in the family. 
I really appreciate the approach of you all on this Board, that all is done with gentleness and respect. (I really love this Board! You guys are great Christian fellowship, and I appreciate it!)


----------



## Ivan

<<has anyone heard the sproul/ bahnsen debate on apologetic methodology? Bahnsen really blew Sproul away.>>

I guess I'm confused. I don't know anything about the debate between the two gentlemen. I know RC and respect him. I have heard of Bahnsen but really know nothing about him other than he is a Reformed brother in Christ.

Why the debate? Why is there a need to blow away a brother in Christ?


----------



## Ivan

<<It was a debate over apologetic method. The Roman catholic/Arminan method of classical apologetics vs the Reformed method of Revelational epsitemology.>>

I see...and one playing the "devil's advocate" role? I can't either of them believing the first method you mention.

<<If you listen to it you will see that they were very cordial towards eachother.>>

Is there a link?

<<Bahnsen was Sproul's friend.>>

Was?

[Edited on 12-6-2004 by Ivan]


[Edited on 12-6-2004 by Paul manata]


----------



## crhoades

> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> <<I know Bahnsen was Sprould friend.>>
> 
> "Was"?
> 
> [Edited on 12-6-2004 by Ivan]



Bahnsen went on to be with the Lord in 1995.


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Ivan_
> <<I know Bahnsen was Sprould friend.>>
> 
> "Was"?
> 
> [Edited on 12-6-2004 by Ivan]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bahnsen went on to be with the Lord in 1995.
Click to expand...


Excuse my ignorance.


----------



## Ivan

<<I'm sure Sprould would disagree but that's way we debate method.>>

 

<<You need to purchase it from www.cmfnow.com Go to the bahnsen audio tapes and locate it in the apologetics section. >>

Thanks!


----------



## bigheavyq

Yes, he blew sproul away. 
their were questions that sproul had trouble even answering, He didn't prove his statement that presuppositionalist is the same as fideism.
Bahnsen was on a roll when it ended. I wish they could have had a follow up.
Sproul's problem was like everyone who debates bahnsen. They underestimate him.


----------



## cornelius vantil

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> Yes, he blew sproul away.
> their were questions that sproul had trouble even answering, He didn't prove his statement that presuppositionalist is the same as fideism.
> Bahnsen was on a roll when it ended. I wish they could have had a follow up.
> Sproul's problem was like everyone who debates bahnsen. They underestimate him.



i agree. the debate was won by bahnsen hands down. i just enjoyed the way he refuted sproul's notion of probability. it was classic bahnsen.....another series to get is his tapes on theonomy and its critics..he does an excellent job on critiquing kline (just a side note) 

Herminio


----------



## SmokingFlax

I haven't yet heard this debate but I have a difficult time seeing how the pre-sup (Van Til's or anyone's) approach was not *inevitable* considering the course of unbelieving thought since Kant and especially in the 20th century.

It seems to me that the unbeliever is at least just as guilty (actually moreso) than the believer of "fideism" considering that they don't believe in absolutes.


----------



## bigheavyq

what do you mean that presups don't believe in absolutes?
that is preposterous.
Presuppositional Apologetics is taking Sola Scriptura and applying it to the Defense of the Gospel.


----------



## RamistThomist

Perhaps he means to say that presupps do not believe in _objective_ with respect to human thought absolutes. I do not hold to objective interpretations without reference to God.


----------



## SmokingFlax

No...The UNbeliever (usually) doesn't believe in absolutes -sorry for the lack of clarity.

How could any believer worth his salt NOT believe in absolutes?


----------



## bigheavyq

But, the unbeliever does believe in absolutes. he knows God exists, but he supresses it in unrighteousness. Ask even the most ardent atheist. if someone murders one of his family members, he will want justice. if someone steals from him, he won't just shrug it off. He has a sense of absolutes. Its just that he doesn't want to have to pay for the sins he commits. He wants to do what he wants to whomever he wants whenever he wants. If he holds to anything other than Biblical Christianity is views are firmly planted in mid-air


----------



## RamistThomist

BTW, I do believe in absolutes, just not objective interpretations of facts.


----------



## SmokingFlax

BigHeavy,

I fully agree.

But when they are pressed they like to equivocate and evade by hiding in a make believe world of theoretical postulations.

Case in point: 

Shortly after 9/11 there were a couple of professors (I forget their discipline) on public radio and the interviwer asked them point blank..."does this now mean that you have to reconsider the existence of evil in the world?" (paraphrase)...they never even answered the question but went on some tangent about cultural relativism...blah, blah, blah. 

to admit to evil would have been to acknowledge an absolute and that their post-modern worldview was wrong...I guess that was too big of a price to pay on national radio.

I know what you're saying but I don't think it's such an easy thing to get THEM to admit to it. You can win an argument but still not persuade someone.

In this sense the unbeliever is acting in faith upon his/her belief system since they can't account for their position even in the face of plain reason and/or logic. That is what my first comments here were getting at.

[Edited on 23-12-2004 by SmokingFlax]


----------



## SmokingFlax

Jacob,

I'm assuming that by "objective interpretations of facts" you mean using autonomous reason...no?


----------



## RamistThomist

Correct, or at least, I deny neutrality.


----------



## bigheavyq

"NEUTRALITY-a myth" R J Rushdoony (whoever he is)


----------



## SmokingFlax

Ok...

I'm still hashing out all of this pre-sup stuff...sometimes I think I've got a good handle on it...and then some quiz tells me I'm a classical apologist in the mold of Peter Kreeft...whoever that is???


----------



## RamistThomist

Peter Kreeft is a pure Thomist. He did a quite detailed book on Aquinas: The Summa of the Summa. It means you live and die by the syllogism in the aristotelian form, whereas the presupp would argue transcendentally.

[Edited on 12--23-04 by Draught Horse]


----------



## RamistThomist

My favorite Kreeft argument:

1)There is the music of J.S. Bach;
therefore,
2)there must be a God.

You either get this or you don't


----------



## SmokingFlax

Dang!

I don't think I get it (???). 

I think I smoked too much dope when I was younger or something.

Is he saying that because Bach's music is so "divine" that there must be a God???

If I am a Thomist it's a total accident.


----------



## bigheavyq

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> My favorite Kreeft argument:
> 
> 1)There is the music of J.S. Bach;
> therefore,
> 2)there must be a God.
> 
> You either get this or you don't



or 

1) There is the music of Marilyn Mansion
therefore,
2) There is no God.


----------



## bigheavyq

"If I am a Thomist it's a total accident."


There are no accidents only providencial events.


----------



## RamistThomist

<sigh>
This is the argument from aesthetic experience as shown by Kreeft:

1) there is an objective standard of beauty.

2) The music of Bach can not be deemed beautiful unless this standard exists.

therefore...

{This is Kreeft's argument, notmine}

[Edited on 12--23-04 by Draught Horse]


----------



## bigheavyq

Is there an objective standard of beauty? An objective standard of ugly, of which I fit in, maybe. By the way not all music is beautiful, some, like above is from the pit of hell.


----------



## Apologus

I have just been reading through this section and find it amazing how presuppositionalists presuppose that their presup. hero won the debate. And I also find it humorous how people cannot see past the realm of possibility. It is not an eldricht approach to see data as probability or even possibility. After all, you experience mere probabilities every day. Anyway, these posts have made day.


----------



## ARStager

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> My favorite Kreeft argument:
> 
> 1)There is the music of J.S. Bach;
> therefore,
> 2)there must be a God.
> 
> You either get this or you don't



I've always liked...

"Beer. Proof God loves us and wants us to be happy."


----------



## RamistThomist

Wow, I have read that several times in the past and get something out of it each times, also Bahnsen shines on subjects that he is really passionate about. 

Paul,
What would you say is the best defense of classical apologetics out there?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> But(!), since they seperate apologetics from philosophy /theology/evangelism, etc, maybe they don't mind Craig's Arminianism.



Great point.


----------

