# True Apologetics = Love for Christ



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2005)

I know not many are Greg Bahnsen fans, but for those who do like presuppositionalism, check out this online tribute to Dr Bahnsen. I got choked up on a few parts: 

Thoughts on Greg Bahnsen

Twenty Years Ago Note how love for Christ and presenting the gospel is seen as more important than winning.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 2, 2005)

While I'm certainly a Greg Bahnsen fan, I'm equally and certainly _not_ a David Bahnsen fan. Even so, those tributes look like good material - thanks.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 2, 2005)

I can understand. David B. has said some things doctrinally that I don't agree with. Nevertheless, he has given a fine summary of his dad's life that I find indispensable.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jun 3, 2005)

How could anyone _not_ like him?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2005)

A central admirable point is illustrated well by what a friend of Dr. Bahnsen (Greg) said shortly after the debate with Dr. Stein: "He did so much more tonight than philosophically defend God´s existence. He proclaimed the gospel. I had to hold back tears."



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> How could anyone _not_ like him?


----------



## Robin (Jun 3, 2005)

Hey....I like Greg Bahnsen a whole lot!!! His heart and intentions are true and straight for the Gospel. You reminded me....

Thirty years ago, Dr. Walter Martin taught that it is never OK to "win the argument over that of losing the soul". 

Here are some of his lectures:

http://www.waltermartin.org/realaudio.html

Yes, Jacob....we've come a long way --- for the worse, I fear...they say: "no one cares about how much you know unless they can see how much you care." I find the current apologetics movement lacking in Christian charity and confidence in the Gospel. Btw, where IS the Gospel in the modern apologetics enterprise?

muttering.....

R.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> I find the current apologetics movement lacking in Christian charity and confidence in the Gospel.



All too true, unfortunately. That is actually one of the many criticisms I have of both Classical and Evidential apologetics: namely, neither of them in their own nature contain a presentation of the Gospel. One can certainly present the Gospel after arguing, but it is nowhere a part of the apologetic itself, much less a necessary part.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Btw, where IS the Gospel in the modern apologetics enterprise?



In the presuppositional apologetic, a key and inevitable step in the defense is a presentation of the Christian worldview as a whole - which, of course, is impossible without a presentation of the Gospel and believers' natural love for Christ.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 3, 2005)

> I find the current apologetics movement lacking in Christian charity and confidence in the Gospel. Btw, where IS the Gospel in the modern apologetics enterprise?



I think one of the most brilliant examples is in Cornelius Van Til's Why I Believe In God as well as My Credo. This has been something that I've been convicted about lately as well. The call on the unbeliever has to show him that in fact they do believe in God and has an axe to grind. You also have to show them that they are at enmity with God not only ethically but also epistemologically. Also work in that those without the Spirit cannot understand the things that are of the Spirit. Press that unless God in his Sovereign mercy reaches down to regenerate them that they are hopeless. (Think Van Til meets Edwards)... All the while exalting that in Christ are hidden all the riches of wisdom and knowledge and he stands calling to repent. Also that while we were still sinners, he died for us.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 3, 2005)

Also I think that William Edgar and Scott Oliphant's works seek to press the gospel as well as the antithesis..


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Btw, where IS the Gospel in the modern apologetics enterprise?
> 
> muttering.....
> ...



I will try not to be partisan on this one but presuppositionalism attempts to directly incorporate evangelism into apologetics. This is one of its distinctives. In other words, the presupp cannot imagine apologetics divorced from evangelism. If there is no evangelism and no pressing the claims of Christ upon the covenant-breaker, then we are not doing our job.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 3, 2005)

I love Schaeffer and his writings...but he clearly taught that apologetics was pre-evangelism thus separating the two.


----------



## Robin (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I love Schaeffer and his writings...but he clearly taught that apologetics was pre-evangelism thus separating the two.



I agree -- and love Schaeffer for this very reason....but something more subtle is at work...

In Scripture, apologetics is defense of the Gospel. Period. It is not defense of God's existence/creation; it is not defense of God's laws; it is not defense of the unborn or other righteous causes. It is the defense of the knowledge of the Christ; the cross; the resurrection.

My hat's off to Bahnsen for having the guts to defend The Gospel...eventhough, I think he veered off-track (as we all can/do.)

I've been in classes where major apologetics teachers deny the necessity of studying theology, too. (Talk about feeling like you're on wrong bus....)

I've also had Jehovah Witnesses come to the door using Norman Geisler materials. Seriously! (For their "apologetics.")

I humbly disagree that the (let's call them) "popular" apologetics heros present the Gospel well. And most times, they don't present it at all!



The Apostle Paul did not defend establishing God's law in the civil arena; he did not defend Creation or God's existence, Etc. He defended the Gospel -- alone -- and took no prisoners! (Acts 17.)

(See....I'm getting wound-up, now. Somebody help me.)



R.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> In Scripture, apologetics is defense of the Gospel. Period. It is not defense of God's existence/creation; it is not defense of God's laws; it is not defense of the unborn or other righteous causes. It is the defense of the knowledge of the Christ; the cross; the resurrection.



But a _defense_ of the Gospel cannot happen without a defense of God's existence and His law, because of course it presupposes those things. If I tell someone they need to be saved by Christ, they could ask any number of questions: Saved from what? Sin? What is sin? Violation of God's law? What is God's law? Furthermore, why do you even believe this God exists (since that belief is most necessary to believe the Gospel you are presenting to me)?



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> The Apostle Paul did not defend establishing God's law in the civil arena; he did not defend Creation or God's existence, Etc. He defended the Gospel -- alone -- and took no prisoners! (Acts 17.)



What we are to defend - the Christian worldview - never changes, but will always be the same. What does change with time, however, is which parts of it will be particularly challenged. In Paul's day, God's creation and existence were not challenged, but were already accepted and presupposed by the Jews of the day and their mindset (mind you, they of course ultimately did not believe in the God of the Old Testament since they rejected the Gospel, but they nonetheless intellectually believed that He existed and had created the world). Thus, the fact that God's existence and creation were not questioned by the Jews of Paul's time is the reason he did not need to make an explicit defense of those things. But when such things _are_ questioned by the believer's audience - such as in our time - no _defense_ of the Gospel can consistently be made without a defense of them at the same time.

Conversely, a true defense of, say, God's existence and creation, cannot really be made either without a presentation of the _nature_ of that God, His existence and His creation, and such a presentation must include the Gospel and the believer's love for Christ, as this thread rightly pointed out from the start.


----------



## Myshkin (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I love Schaeffer and his writings...but he clearly taught that apologetics was pre-evangelism thus separating the two.




Did he separate them or did he distinguish them? Isn't this better than confusing them?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2005)

> I agree -- and love Schaeffer for this very reason....but something more subtle is at work...
> 
> In Scripture, apologetics is defense of the Gospel. Period. It is not defense of God's existence/creation; it is not defense of God's laws; it is not defense of the unborn or other righteous causes. It is the defense of the knowledge of the Christ; the cross; the resurrection.



And I think most presupps would agree. That was the topic of almost every link on that page.



> I've been in classes where major apologetics teachers deny the necessity of studying theology, too. (Talk about feeling like you're on wrong bus....)



Bahnsen taught about several hundred lectures on Reformed/Systematic theology. Plus in Van Til's _Intro to Systematic Theology[/quote], he said that a good apologete must be a good systematician, and vice-versa.




I've also had Jehovah Witnesses come to the door using Norman Geisler materials. Seriously! (For their "apologetics.")

Click to expand...


They could not do that with Bahnsen/Frame/Van Til--for all three stressed the self-revelation of God in Christ.




I humbly disagree that the (let's call them) "popular" apologetics heros present the Gospel well. And most times, they don't present it at all!

Click to expand...


No argument here. I agree.

[Edited on 6--3-05 by Draught Horse]_


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2005)

Robin,
You are confusing covenantal apologetics with other kinds of apologetics.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> I think one of the most brilliant examples is in Cornelius Van Til's Why I Believe In God


----------



## crhoades (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Evangelism And Apologetics- Greg Bahnsen



and


> From Article:
> Apologetics is evangelistic in nature. The apologist deals with people who have darkened minds, running from the light of God, refusing to submit to the Lord. The apologist must not demonstrate the same mind-set by striving for a neutrality which in effect puts him in the same quagmire. He must aim for the conversion of the unbelieving antagonist, and thus he must discourage autonomy and encourage submissive faith. The apologist must evidence, even in his method of argumentation, that he is a new man in Christ; he uses presuppositions which are at variance with the world. He makes the word of God his starting point, knowing that it alone gives him the assured knowledge which the unbeliever cannot have while in rebellion against Christ. The non-Christian's thinking has no firm foundation, but the Christian declares the authoritative word from God. If he did not, he could not evangelize at all: he could only pool his ignorance and speculation with the unbeliever. In doing so the Christian would be robbed of all the treasure of wisdom and knowledge which is deposited in Christ alone. Besides this, the apologist who attempts to show his intellectual self-sufficiency by moving to a position of neutrality in order that he might "prove" certain isolated truths in the Christian system forgets that grace alone has made him the Christian that he is; he should, instead, continue to think and behave in the same manner in which he received Christ (by faith, submitting to the Lordship of Christ).
> 
> Therefore, in light of the character of evangelism, the nature of the unbeliever, the nature of the regenerated apologist, the nature of conversion, the nature of genuine knowledge and salvation, the Christian apologist ought to use a presuppositional approach in his defense of the faith. The evangelistic character of apologetics demands nothing less "But set apart Christ as lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to every one who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and respect," (1 Pet. 3:15); "we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses, destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God - we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. 10:4-5).



Talking about being brought low in one's own estimation only to be taken to soaring heights by God's grace!


----------



## crhoades (Jun 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pa089.htm
For a discussion on Schaeffer and anti-thesis. Definitely check out the link Paul provided on Evangelism and Apologism.

We could get caught up in semantics and words here, but I would see Bahnsen/Van Til distinguishing and combining the two a whereas Dr. Schaeffer distinguished and separated the two (not as far apart as other methodologies but a separation nonetheless...)

Just want to reiterate, I deeply respect Schaeffer - have all of his books, watched the videos and think he has done amazing work at L'Abri. Wish I were a fraction of the stature that he was intellectually and spiritually. The stones that i'm throwing are small.


----------



## Robin (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Robin,
> You are confusing covenantal apologetics with other kinds of apologetics.



I don't mean to...I'm just personally affected by those in my vicinity (Biola)....like all of us, perhaps. 

To Chris, the only point I'm hoping to make is -- even Bahnsen got side-tracked (I think) with the over-emphasis of theonomy. Yes, of course, we must defend the Christian world-view. But more important is the Doctrine of God. If we neglect that, everything else falls. Bahnsen is popular because of the huge derailment in the apologetic movement towards open theism (thank you Dr. Pinnnock, very much) and Arminian theology---all of which have a flawed view of the DoG. Bahnsen is an admirable figure, too. And our need is real (defense of righteousness.) But, at the end of it all, I think we must agree that nobody is regenerated by the Law - which is Bahnsen's predominant emphasis.

I don't think we hear many apologists having the guts (or faithfulness) to point to a "dead guy coming back to life" as proof that God is the Creator and demands man repent of his treason. THIS is the Gospel. It is foolishness to the world.

Plus, the other apologists you mentioned, I can't adhere to....some are in the "ditch" more or less...doesn't anybody think about adopting the same mistakes these teachers embrace. Yikes! Scripture does not emphasize focus on apologetics; it emphasizes "making disciples." (I know, that's not as "exciting"!)



r.


----------



## Preach (Jun 4, 2005)

Robin, did I read you correctly? I must have missed something brother. Did you write that Bahnsen's focus was that a person could come to Christ by law keeping? I missed something I know.
"In Christ",
Bobby


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Preach_
> Robin, did I read you correctly? I must have missed something brother. Did you write that Bahnsen's focus was that a person could come to Christ by law keeping? I missed something I know.
> "In Christ",
> Bobby



Ditto, Bahnsen wrote a chapter in theonomy and Christian ethics powerfully affirming the imputation of Christ's righteousness and justification by faith alone.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 4, 2005)

Bobby, Jacob and Paul, if I'm reading him correctly, Robin was not at all claiming that Bahnsen taught justification by Law, but was simply saying that in light of the fact that no one is justified by the Law, Bahnsen's primary emphasis on the Law (albeit in the Christian life) sidetracked him from the rightful primary emphasis being the Gospel. Am I reading you correctly, Robin? If so, I still disagree that the Law was Bahnsen's _primary_ emphasis, as he presented and emphasized the Gospel so many times, including in his most famous debate of all. Furthermore, when a particular doctrine is one of the doctrines most under attack or most neglected in Christendom at a given time, it calls for some extra emphasis, even though the Gospel and the doctrine of God are always primary. And I believe Bahnsen kept those two things primary in his teaching and ministry, while also putting a significant emphasis on the third use of the Law and the often-attacked place of the judicial laws in that use.



> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Scripture does not emphasize focus on apologetics; it emphasizes "making disciples." (I know, that's not as "exciting"!)



And what this thread is pointing out is that the process of making disciples, through presentation of the Gospel and illustration of love for Christ, is a necessary and integral part of biblical apologetics according to presuppositionalism.


----------



## crhoades (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Bahnsen is an admirable figure, too. And our need is real (defense of righteousness.) But, at the end of it all, I think we must agree that *nobody is regenerated by the Law - which is Bahnsen's predominant emphasis.*
> r.



Just to clarify things: (I would rather not have others who haven't read Dr. Bahnsen for themselves to take Robin's statement uncontested. I would also like to see the above statement substantiated. 

Just a cursory scan through his standard work. There were more passages as well as more references in his other works such as By This Standard.

Theonomy in Christian Ethics "“ Greg Bahnsen
italics in the original - bold and underlining mine.
Pg. 137
The modern view, however, which says that the letter of the law inadequately expresses the contents of righteousness would be completely alien to Paul. He declares that the law is _holy_ (Rom. 7:12) but that we who are sinners by nature fall under the law´s curse. Christ took that curse upon Himself, and the Spirit works through us to _obey_ that holy law. This is the forensic religion of divine revelation. Paul is careful not to give the impression that the law itself is evil or inglorious (see 2 Cor. 3:7 f.) He refutes his antinomian opponents who would make him as a minister of the new covenant a despiser of grace. But since the law came from God, Paul appropriately states that it came in glory. *Nevertheless, the law is not to be exalted at the expense of the gospel. The gospel far excels in glory because it has renewing power.* Although Moses´ glory faded, the glory of the good news in the face of Jesus Christ does not (2 Cor. 4:6)
Therefore, whether we turn to Acts 15, Galatians, Hebrews, or Romans, *those who have been saved by God´s grace should see the 
Pg. 138 grave impropriety of stressing legal obligation in such a way that the good news of God´s merciful forgiveness and monergistic regeneration is assigned to the periphery of their attention.* A proper reading of _the law´s abiding validity does not obviate its crucial inadequacies:_ as a mere ethical stipulation it cannot empower us to obey it, and thus it cannot serve to justify us before God. Consequently we _glory in the gospel_l of Christ and His Spirit as accomplishing what the law could not; that is, we magnify the gospel as the _power of God unto salvation_ unto all who believe, for therein is revealed the _righteousness of God unto our justification_ (Rom. 1:16f)

Pg. 233-34
Because the believer is renewed in the image of His Creator (Col. 3:10) by God´s redemptive grace (Titus 3:5), he must strive to reproduce his Creator´s attributes on a creaturely level (cf. Jer. 9:24; John 17:26; Titus 2:10; 1 Peter 2:9). The moral attributes of God and creaturely reflection of God´s righteousness are revealed in the law of God (see discussion above). *The object of regeneration is obedience to God´s law*: "œAnd I shall put a new heart within them...that they may walk in My statutes and keep My ordinances, and do them" (Ezek. 11:19 f; cf. 36:26 f.). In his chapter on "œThe Life of the Christian Man" in the Institutes, Calvin says right at the start,



> The object of regeneration"¦is to manifest in the life of believers a harmony and agreement between God´s righteouness and their obedience, and thus to confirm the adoption that they have received as sons (Galatians 4:5; cf. 2 Peter 1:10). The law of God contains in itself that newness by which his image can be restored in us. (Book III, chap. VI, section 1, p. 684 Battles)



The Heidelberg Catechism appropriately states that genuine repentance and conversion will effect obedience to God´s law:



> Question 88: In how many things does true repentance or conversion consist? (Answer) In two things: the dying of the old man, and the quickening of the new.
> 
> Question 89: What is the dying of the old man? (Answer) Heartfelt sorrow for sin; causing us to hate and turn from it always more and more.
> 
> ...



Although awareness that the habitual practice of sin leads to spiritual death (1 John 3) promotes obedience in the Christian´s life, his strongest motives for keeping the law are (1) _grateful love_ to the Author of the law for His gracious salvation and (2) the subsequent desire to _glorify_ His name. *The man who has experienced God´s gracious regeneration, who has been renewed in his Creator´s image, who has responded to God´s grace with genuine repentance, will have an overwhelming desire to please his Lord by meticulous observance of the law. Herein man glorifies God and enjoys Him forever.*

Pg. 473
The declaration of Christ in Matthew 5:17 f. is that He confirms every jot and tittle of the Older Testamental law; the criterion, then, of standing within the kingdom is the doing and teaching of that law. However, the legalism of the Pharisees is in reality antinomian; they misuse and distort the law of God so that they have no affinity with the kingdom of God. *The law is abused when man tries to justify himself thereby; the law simply does not have the ability to enable the obedience it demands. Consequently, before a man´s regeneration the law is a dead letter of condemnation written on exterior tablets of stone.*


----------



## Me Died Blue (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > Bobby, Jacob and Paul, if I'm reading *him* correctly, Robin was not at all claiming that Bahnsen taught justification by Law,
> ...



Sorry, I got confused.



> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Also, her quote seemed to imply this, as Chris Rhoads illustraits about with the highlighted portion.



I took that to essentially mean, "Nobody is regenerated by the Law - and the Law is Bahnsen's predominant emphasis." But I guess we'll find out...


----------



## Robin (Jun 4, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Bahnsen did not teach that, Robin. Also, why bring up theonomy? This is poisoning the well. His apologetic was Van Til's, Van Til was no theonomist. Also, how did Bahsen's apologetic get "side-tracked?" He debated many atheists, muslims, jews, etc. He wrote books, thousands of tapes, how was he "sidetracked." Also, since you're telling us about apologetics I'd like to know what you would say to someone who says that God doesn't exist and so don't bother evangelizing him?



Forgive me, there's a misunderstanding, guys. No - of course, I'm not saying Bahnsen thinks the Law saves. I mean, Bahnsen (I think) overemphasizes Law and ethics.

Plus -- I agree -- let's not get off on yet another, Theonomy odyssey. (Gilligan's Island theme playing)

I AM saying 2 things, though. 1. apologetics in the bible is about the Gospel (not ethics.) 2. the historic record for the defenders of the faith cannot be reduced to "methods". Most emphatically, I'm saying, dare Christians neglect the clear and substantial examples in the Word of God (which IS sufficient) in favor of employing "methods" of even the best, well-meaning scholars? We'd all agree that God doesn't need scholars to defend Himself.

If I had somebody say "don't bother evangelizing..." I'd respect the request. (But, pre-evangelizing is so subtle, they don't know it's taking place, though.) What would I say to the atheist? That would depend upon our relationship. It might be, I say nothing religious at all...for a while...& share a beer...sincerely befriending him as a fellow-Fallen, human-being, bearing the imago Dei. (Common Grace.) My first care is to model Christ. Then IF the time appeared (and depending on God alone for that is tough -- as Calvin's views of inappropriate zeal attests) I may at that point, either do a "Jesus" approach or an "Apostle Paul" approach.

Thank you, Paul for the re-focus...I did not mean to veer off into Bahnsen-land...but meant to express that there are those who don't use "methods" in apologetics for important reasons.

Out here we have lots of "inappropriately zealous" apologists that would much rather win the argument than compassionately endure the unbelief of those perishing, while patiently teaching them the knowledge of Christ.

Finally, I do more "damage control" in discussions with professing atheists that have been (rightfully) turned-off and wounded by apologetics. It is heart-breaking and a shame to Christ's honor. If I'm able to re-lay the connection, I progressively begin to lay the same categories outlined in the 3 Forms: (creation;sin; death; attributes; redemption -- an organic, lengthy process = discipleship.)

This is the foundation I've come to use....after years of sinful, self-aggrandizing "methods" -- of which I repent; being continually in God's debt for the grace given to me.



r.



[Edited on 6-5-2005 by Robin]


----------

