# Greg L. Bahnsen



## Reformingstudent (Nov 7, 2004)

Can someone here tell me who he was and what he did. I have heard his name before but am not sure if I understand
or know what he wrote. He was a theonomist right? 


Just wondering.



Thanks.





Tom


----------



## VanVos (Nov 7, 2004)

He was a great man and I would argue that he was the greatest apologist of the 20th century. Here's a small profile of him. 

Greg L. Bahnsen, Ph.D.
September 17, 1948 -- December 11, 1995

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Greg L. Bahnsen, (1948-1995), was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. He received his Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Southern California, specializing in the theory of knowledge. He previously received the B.A. (magna cum laude, philosophy) from Westmont College, and then simultaneously earned the M.Div. and Th.M. degrees from Westminster Theological Seminary. Dr. Bahnsen lectured to a broad range of evangelical Christian groups at many colleges and conferences. He was an experienced apologist and debater, a clear and cogent teacher of the Christian worldview who was devoted to training believers in understanding and applying the Christian faith to every area of life. He published numerous scholarly articles, a number of well-known books, and has over 1,500 recorded lectures and sermons. NOTE: While Dr. Bahnsen died on December 11th, 1995, his audio tapes and written materials were, and still remain, the foundation for Covenant Media Foundation's ministry.

VanVos

[Edited on 8-11-2004 by VanVos]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 7, 2004)

Dr. Bahnsen is most recognized for defending, explaining, expanding and applying the theology of Dr. Cornelius Van Til, under whom Bahnsen studied. Dr. Van Til formalized what it known as presuppositional apologetics, and Bahnsen, more than anyone else, has carried on Van Til's torch in that area. But he also furthered the root ideas of Van Til's apologetic and applied them to other areas, such as ethics, which, as you correctly noted, resulted in Bahnsen's teaching on theonomy, and his writing of _Theonomy in Christian Ethics_, which in many ways sparked the current debate over theonomy.

While presuppositional apologetics and theonomy are what Bahnsen is most well-known for (and rightly so), he demonstrated a depth and breadth of doctrinal and logical precision as a whole, and firmly held to and defended the many aspects of the historic Reformed faith. While he passed away in his mid-to-late fourties in 1995, he has left an important impact and legecy behind. Right now he is one of my favorite theologians.

Lectures and debates by Bahnsen on a range of issues can be found for extremely cheap download prices here ($1.99 for each 1+ hour file). There is also much discussion on the issues of presuppositional apologetics and theonomy on this board, including their theological and philosophical origins and implications.

[Edited on 8-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## crhoades (Nov 8, 2004)

I'll post some personal observations later but for now here is an article by Kenneth Gentry - PCA from Chalcedon Report:

http://www.chalcedon.edu/cgi-bin/GPrint2002.pl?file=report/issues/2004feb/gentry.php

*Appointed for the Defense of the Gospel: The Life and Ministry of Greg L. Bahnsen * ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rev. Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr., Th.D. 
February 2004 

One of the key areas of Christian endeavor is also one of the most pressing religious concerns before the church today: apologetics. The Scriptures call us to "œsanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence" (1 Pet. 3:15). And with the world set in rebellion against God, man universally "œsuppresses the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. 1:18). So not only do we have an obligation to engage in apologetics but we also have a difficult obligation "” in that Scripture forewarns that men will resist us from the very depths of their being. 

Both of the Biblical statements mentioned in the previous paragraph have a strong bearing upon apologetics. Peter directs us to an apologetic that sanctifies the Lord; not just any apologetic method will do. Paul informs us that man really knows the truth, which, because of his unrighteousness, he vigorously suppresses. With these Scriptural insights we are pressed to engage an apologetic that is uncompromising in its commitment to Christ and that takes account of man's inherent knowledge of God as a point of contact. This calls us to the transcendental method that engages apologetics at the presuppositional level "” the view explained and promoted by Dr. Cornelius Van Til and two of his leading disciples, Rousas J. Rushdoony and Greg L. Bahnsen. 

*My Interest in Bahnsen's Life and Ministry * I have been asked to write a brief article introducing the ministry of Dr. Bahnsen, whose ministry was largely rooted in apologetics. I thank God that, by His providence, I was able to study under Bahnsen at Reformed Seminary from 1975 to 1977. The four theologians who have most influenced my personal life, Biblical faith, and pastoral practice are John Calvin, Cornelius Van Til, Rousas J. Rushdoony, and Greg L. Bahnsen. They have shown me that Calvinism is "œChristianity come into its own." And I praise God for their ministerial labors. 

Paul tells us of the victory associated with Christ's entry into heaven. At that glorious event He poured out abundant and glorious gifts upon men (Eph. 4:8ff.). One of those important gifts for the ongoing life and ministry of the church is the gift of "œteacher" (Eph. 4:11). I count Greg Bahnsen as one of the great gifts of God to the church in our time. 

In my circuitous route to Reformed theology and the Presbyterian pastorate, I had come out of a dispensational church, through a dispensational college (Tennessee Temple College ) and seminary (Grace Theological Seminary), to the growing conviction of the covenantal nature of God's dealings with man. 

In 1976 I transferred from Grace Theological Seminary in Winona Lake, Indiana, to Reformed Seminary in Jackson , Mississippi . As providence would have it, I was there for most of Bahnsen's tenure with that institution. But those two years were of dramatic life-changing and ministry-encouraging consequence "” because of Greg Bahnsen. 

When I first enrolled in a Bahnsen class, I admit that I was not pleased. Here was a professor who really made you work for your grades. And some of his views were new and unusual to me: theonomic ethics and postmillennial eschatology, in particular. But thank God for this mind-expanding, ministry-altering experience! Initially I resisted Bahnsen's unusual positions. In fact, I set about to challenge those positions among my fellow students. But anyone who has experienced Bahnsen's instruction, knows that he was so careful in his presentation, so logical in his argumentation, so quick in his thinking, so Biblical in his foundations, and so forceful in his conclusions that all hope of credible resistance was futile. I eventually was swayed by his presentations and adopted his positions. And I have never regretted having done so. 

Intellectually, he taught me to study and to think; pastorally, he showed me the relevance of Scripture for all of life; personally, he encouraged me to stand firm in my convictions and to trust in God against all opposition. I will never cease to be amazed at the incredible breadth of knowledge he possessed, at the ease with which he could analyze and respond to questions and arguments, both philosophically and scripturally. He is an example for anyone who would promote God's Word according to the Pauline directive in 2 Corinthians 10:4-5. 

Over the years it was my joy and privilege to have Greg stay in my home on several occasions, to have him proclaim the Word of God in my pastoral charges, to co-author a book with him, and to appear on the same platform with him at several conferences. I continued to grow because of his ministry even after my formal training under him in seminary. I am thankful for the enormous influence he has had, and for the large collection of tapes (over 1800) that are and will continue to be available and circulating among God's people. My only disappointment is that circumstances did not allow him time to produce more books "” though the few he did release are enormously important contributions to applied theology. 

I am thankful, though, that the Lord allowed him to finish his extremely important work: Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis . Greg knew the enormity of his health difficulties in his final days, so he labored diligently to finish the book before his heart surgery "” just in case. The book focuses on key passages in Van Til's writings which are necessary for understanding presuppositionalism, arranges them topically for easy, flowing reading, and provides clear and insightful commentary on the issues involved. It is a must-read for understanding the greatest Christian apologist of the 20th century, Dr. Cornelius Van Til "” an apologist who was not the clearest of writers. 

*Bahnsen's Early Life and Training*
Greg L. Bahnsen was born on September 17, 1948 in Auburn, Washington, to Robert and Virginia Bahnsen. He was the eldest of two sons. As a young child Bahnsen grew up in Pico Rivera, California, where he suffered numerous medical complications. His most serious problem was a severe blood platelet problem that nagged him for the rest of his life, causing him to have difficulty stanching bleeding. His physical problems were aggravated at the age of five by a water tank falling on his right hand, causing a mild deformity. It was not until his medical exam, required for enrolling in college, that he discovered he also had a heart problem, which was to claim his life twenty years later after his third valve implant surgery. 

Despite his physical difficulties, he was blessed to be raised in a Reformed home with loving Christian parents who saw the importance of covenantally passing on their spiritual inheritance to their sons. He regularly attended church, church camps, Youth for Christ, and other Christian and church related activities, never straying from the Faith. For his entire life he was either a member of or a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). 

Dr. Bahnsen was also gifted by God with a strong intellectual capacity, which showed itself in superior grades all the way through high school. Even as early as high school he was already reading and absorbing the works of Cornelius Van Til. Later he graduated from Westmont College in 1970 with a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy, securing magna cum laude honors and the John Bunyan Smith award for overall grade point average. 

Before graduating Westmont College, Bahnsen married Cathie Wade in 1969 (they would eventually have three sons and an adopted Vietnamese daughter; they were divorced in 1990 after she deserted him). While he attended college he began writing for Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation, where he could employ his appreciation of Van Til. His covenantal Calvinism was becoming more pointedly focused; his desire for applied Calvinism was leading him to admire Rushdoony's strong convictions in the fields of apologetics, theology, and social ethics. 

*His Graduate Life and Later Ministry * 
In 1970 he enrolled in Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS) in Philadelphia , the premiere Reformed seminary in the nation at that time. There he studied under and became close friends with Dr. Van Til, who greatly appreciated his apologetic prowess. He graduated from WTS in May of 1973, securing two degrees simultaneously: a professional ministerial degree (the Master of Divinity) and an academic degree (the Master of Theology). Not only did he acquire these two degrees but he did so in style, winning the William Benton Greene prize in apologetics and a Richard Weaver Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. 

Upon securing his graduate degrees in theology, he enrolled in graduate studies in philosophy at the prestigious University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles in 1973. Two years later (in 1975) he was ordained as a minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and moved to Jackson , Mississippi , to accept the position of Associate Professor of Apologetics and Ethics at Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS). He would continue in his doctoral work at USC while teaching at RTS, earning his Doctor of Philosophy degree in June of 1978. His dissertation was in the field of epistemology and was titled: "œA Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception." 

In 1977 a reworked version of his master's thesis from Westminster Theological Seminary ("œThe Theonomic Responsibility of the Civil Magistrate") was published as the nearly 600 page Theonomy in Christian Ethics . Unfortunately, theonomic ethics caused a firestorm of controversy in seminary and presbytery circles, resulting in his contract with RTS not being renewed after the 1978"“79 academic year. The Bahnsens then moved back to southern California in June of 1979 where Greg wrote frequently for Gary North, planted an OPC church (January 1980), and accepted a faculty position with the prestigious Newport Christian High School in Newport Beach (September 1980). 

In February of 1985 Bahnsen debated the president of Atheists United and the American Rationalist Federation (Dr. Gordon Stein), demonstrating his remarkable apologetical and debating skills before an audience of hundreds. The taped debate is one of the best-selling tape sets available through Covenant Media Foundation (which distributes his materials) and has been a source of great encouragement to untold numbers of Christians. He engaged in several other public debates on apologetics and various social and political issues (including theonomy, gun control, homosexuality, Roman Catholicism, Islam and Judaism), and spoke at conferences across America, in the British Isles and Russia during his distinguished career. 

In 1990 Dr. Bahnsen worked with Michael Nelson to establish the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. The Studies Center has as its mission cultivating "œintelligent commitment to the Christian faith, seeking with skill, sincerity and love to: challenge unbelief in all its forms and defend the claims of Christ, expound and explain the system of precious truth found in the Scriptures, apply God's word to the life of believers as well as to their world, train God's people for service to the Lord, and to encourage Christian piety, outreach, compassion and maturity." After Bahnsen's death, the Board of the Studies Center established Bahnsen Theological Seminary to provide distance education for those seeking advanced theological degrees. 

Bahnsen authored six books: Theonomy in Christian Ethics ; Homosexuality: A Biblical View; By This Standard; No Other Standard; Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith; and Van Til's Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. He co-authored one with me (House Divided: The Break-up of Dispensational Theology), contributed major articles to seven other books, wrote hundreds of articles, and produced over 1,800 audio tapes. 

On December 5, 1995 , he underwent his third open-surgery to replace his aortic valve. Within twenty-four hours he developed serious complications. After being comatose for several days he died on December 11, 1995 at the age of forty-seven. Since his death his ministry influence has actually grown, primarily due to his large catalog of tapes and the influence of SCCCS and BTS. Certainly, though he is dead, yet he speaketh. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Gentry is the author of thirteen books and a contributor to eight others, from publishers such as Zondervan, Baker, Kregel, P & R, and American Vision. He is the editor of a new title from Ross House Books: Thine Is the kingdom: A Summary of the Postmillennial Hope. He has spoken at conferences and on radio across the nation and runs a website for Reformed educational materials: www.kennethgentry.com.

[Edited on 8-11-2004 by crhoades]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 8, 2004)

Greg Bahnsen has the respect of many both inside and outside the theonomic movement for his scholarly skills and devout faith. However, his influence with respect to theonomy on the church, though some on this board would clearly disagree, has been a negative one, in my opinion. His teaching about the nature of the moral and judicial laws, is inconsistent with the historic Reformed teaching and, specifically, that of the Westminster Confession of Faith. He, along with Rushdoony and North, all claim to be inspired by the teachings of their mentor, Cornelius Van Til, but Dr. Van Til repudiated their theonomic teachings as inconsistent with the principles he espoused. 




> Then too I am frankly a little concerned about the political views of Mr. Rushdoony and Mr. North and particularly if I am correctly informed about some of the views Gary North has with respect to the application of Old Testament principles to our day. My only point is that I would hope and expect that they would not claim that such views are inherent in the principles I hold.
> 
> From a letter to Gregg Singer, May 11, 1972, in Gary North, _Political Polytheism: The Myth of Pluralism_ (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989), p. 133n.



Hence, the error known as 'theonomy' which figures so largely in Bahnsen's writings leads me to discourage one from reading his writings uncritically.


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Greg Bahnsen has the respect of many both inside and outside the theonomic movement for his scholarly skills and devout faith. However, his influence with respect to theonomy on the church, though some on this board would clearly disagree, has been a negative one, in my opinion. His teaching about the nature of the moral and judicial laws, is inconsistent with the historic Reformed teaching and, specifically, that of the Westminster Confession of Faith. He, along with Rushdoony and North, all claim to be inspired by the teachings of their mentor, Cornelius Van Til, but Dr. Van Til repudiated their theonomic teachings as inconsistent with the principles he espoused.
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with this assessment.

Maybe Andrew and I should start a percentage agreement chart like Paul and I have!


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Greg Bahnsen has the respect of many both inside and outside the theonomic movement for his scholarly skills and devout faith. However, his influence with respect to theonomy on the church, though some on this board would clearly disagree, has been a negative one, in my opinion. His teaching about the nature of the moral and judicial laws, is inconsistent with the historic Reformed teaching and, specifically, that of the Westminster Confession of Faith. He, along with Rushdoony and North, all claim to be inspired by the teachings of their mentor, Cornelius Van Til, but Dr. Van Til repudiated their theonomic teachings as inconsistent with the principles he espoused.
> 
> 
> ...



Going by that same logic, I suppose it would be fitting for me to automatically recommend against _all_ the works of any author who is _not_ a theonomist.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> I agree with this assessment.
> 
> Maybe Andrew and I should start a percentage agreement chart like Paul and I have!


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Chris, Your statement is _not_ using the same logic that I expressed. I did not say that I "automatically recommend against _all_" works of Bahnsen. What I said was that because theonomy is such a major theme in his writings that one should not read Bahnsen _uncritically_.

Besides which, I am sure you wouldn't want to _really_ discourage someone from reading Calvin who, after all, was an anti-theonomist!


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> Besides which, I am sure you wouldn't want to _really_ discourage someone from reading Calvin who, after all, was an anti-theonomist!



Proto-Theonomist, proto.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Finn McCool_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Book IV, Chap. 20 (on theonomy):




> Sec. 14...This I would rather have passed in silence, were I not aware that many dangerous errors are here committed. For there are some who deny that any commonwealth is rightly framed which neglects the law of Moses, and is ruled by the common law of nations. How perilous and seditious these views are, let others see: for me it is enough to demonstrate hat they are stupid and false.





> Sec. 15...And as that exercise in ceremonies properly pertained to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship and religion of God, yet was still distinguishable from piety itself, so the judicial form, though it looked only to the best method of preserving that charity which is enjoined by the eternal law of God, was still something distinct from the precept of love itself. Therefore, as ceremonies might be abrogated without at all interfering with piety, so also, when these judicial arrangements are removed, the duties and precepts of charity can still remain perpetual.





> Sec. 16...The allegation, that insult is offered to the law of God enacted by Moses, where it is abrogated and other new laws are preferred to it, is most absurd. Others are not preferred when they are more approved, not absolutely, but from regard to time and place, and the condition of the people, or when those things are abrogated which were never enacted for us. The Lord did not deliver it by the hand of Moses to be promulgated in all countries, and to be everywhere enforced; but having taken the Jewish nation under his special care, patronage, and guardianship, he was pleased to be specially its legislator, and as became a wise legislator, he had special regard to it in enacting laws.



[Edited on 8-11-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## crhoades (Nov 8, 2004)

Bahnsen...Calvin..._uncritically_

Due to the fall we are to read all men critically with the Scriptures open. We are also to search our own presuppositions and interpretations to make sure we are are being fair to everyone. This also includes looking through the annals of history to see what other Godly men have written.

Was Bahnsen 100% in everything he wrote or taught? Probably not. Was Calvin? Was Westminster? Was it all of their goals? Yes!

Suffice it to say that Bahnsen was a theonomist - many (myself included) would argue the best representation thereof. If we want to look at the life of and the impact of Bahnsen on the church then this would be a great thread. To argue the merits/demerits of theonomy should be taken to the law of God forum. If memory serves me correctly there is a rather long thread on it over there. 

Wherever one comes out on Christian ethics, it would be hardpressed to find someone diminishing Bahnsen's contributions to apologetics. 

If you've never listened to the "Great Debate" between Bahnsen and Stein, it can be found *here* for free downloading.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 8, 2004)

To clarify, it is not my intent in this thread to debate the merits or demerits of theonomy. Yet, in discussing Bahnsen and his impact on the church, it is not reasonable to expect that theonomy won't come up and therefore it is legitimate, I believe, to make a brief statement about my reason for issuing a caution in reading his works, precisely because theonomy is such a major theme in his writings and because I believe theonomy to be an error. I am not saying that Bahnsen did not also write much that was good, but his theonomic theme is evident is just about every writing of his that I have seen and therefore I believe a red flag is warranted. 

It is quite right to read all writers critically and to follow the example of the noble Bereans who searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

In the area of presuppositional apologetics, as a student of Van Til, I believe that Bahsen was on the right track. But I would refer readers to Van Til over Bahnsen any day.


----------



## wsw201 (Nov 8, 2004)

I went to a Seminar on NPP over at WTS Dallas a few weeks ago. The speaker was Sinclair Ferguson. He said something that was very interesting, and true. He noted that in the US folks tend to look to individual theologians for answers, turning them into a "guru". He stated that guruism is less prevelent in Europe, but is gaining in popularity, but not to the extent it is in the US. Though Bahnsen was a bright guy, along with Calvin, Luther, Van Til, etc., they are not the Church. And it is the Church that is the "bulwark of the truth" not any particular theologian. Therefore, doctrine for the Church is established by the Church not any single theologian no matter what we think of them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2004)

To most of what has been said, by theonomists and non-theonomists alike. I especially think Wayne's point is good to keep in mind. Andrew, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - my last post was bad wording on my part. I was basically trying to say that to whatever extent you recommend caution with regard to Bahnsen's work, it makes similar sense for those who agree with it to likewise offer equal caution with regard to the treatment of ethics by those who disagree. But since people from both camps have contributed much, and we should ultimately read all authors with at least some degree of caution, I just wanted to clarify that it's not like one need read Bahnsen with an enormous grain of salt. And as to reading Van Til and Bahnsen on apologetics, Bahnsen clarified and explained much of Van Til's apologetic that was otherwise unclear to many.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> To most of what has been said, by theonomists and non-theonomists alike. I especially think Wayne's point is good to keep in mind. Andrew, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding - my last post was bad wording on my part. I was basically trying to say that to whatever extent you recommend caution with regard to Bahnsen's work, it makes similar sense for those who agree with it to likewise offer equal caution with regard to the treatment of ethics by those who disagree. But since people from both camps have contributed much, and we should ultimately read all authors with at least some degree of caution, I just wanted to clarify that it's not like one need read Bahnsen with an enormous grain of salt. And as to reading Van Til and Bahnsen on apologetics, Bahnsen clarified and explained much of Van Til's apologetic that was otherwise unclear to many.



Agreed!


----------



## JohnV (Nov 8, 2004)

Well, all I know is that it was Bahnsen himself that talked me out of Postmillennialism for good, and it was his 'heir apparent' that talked me out of Presuppositionalism for good. Each of these, in as much as they are argued for as exclusive, I cannot agree with if Bahnsen's arguments are the standard arguments for them. 

I agree with Wayne's statement, and think it is very important. For me it is crucial to the value of Bahnsen's writings. Everyone here knows that I don't like to read him. But that doesn't mean that I haven't. I just can't get very far into his works before I begin to feel disappointed at that lack of propriety, in regards to that point. I just won't reference him; and I usually tend to try to get participants on this Board to put things in their own terms, rather than cite passages from Bahnsen. If what he said is true, then the value is in the truth, not the man. 

Quoting Bahnsen, as if that settles the matter, doesn't settle it for me. He is not an authority; he is a champion of a particular set of views. He was eloquent, he was persuasive, and he was widely published. He was, in fact, well respected by many. But the Confessions warns us about putting trust in men's writings. The Word is to be our guide. In this sense Calvin was a different kind of writer than Bahnsen. Calvin concentrated on matters that the Bible made clear, and developed the teaching of them in a thorough manner; Bahnsen concentrated on matters that cannot be clearly established from Scripture, but which remain adiaphora, even after his meticulous explanations. As long as we remember that they are adiaphora, then we have no problem. But this limits the range of Bahnsen's works in the church.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> But the Confessions warns us about putting trust in men's writings. The Word is to be our guide. In this sense Calvin was a different kind of writer than Bahnsen. Calvin concentrated on matters that the Bible made clear, and developed the teaching of them in a thorough manner; Bahnsen concentrated on matters that cannot be clearly established from Scripture, but which remain adiaphora, even after his meticulous explanations. As long as we remember that they are adiaphora, then we have no problem. But this limits the range of Bahnsen's works in the church.



Calvin concentrated on matters that the Bible made "clear"? It depends on what you mean by that. All of us on this board, as well as historic Reformed Christendom, agree that the majority of Calvin's views are in fact the "clear" teaching of Scripture. But do you think Calvin's views were received as just as "clear" in his day? Absolutely not! Indeed, he was the leading voice of _reformation_, precisely because his views were _not_ simply accepted as clear during his time, but were at the height of being controversial. So it was with Luther's Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. I see Bahnsen's work as parallel to that in our day. It is controversial, yes - but that does not automatically negate its truth value or even its intrinsic "clarity" from Scripture as some of us see it, any more than the fact that Calvin's views were the controversy of his time negates them. While I'm not a huge fan of John Piper's writings most of the time, in his book _The Pleasures of God_ he asks, in reference to the doctrine of unconditional election, whether controversial views can nurture Christlikeness. He then accurately notes that he cannot think of even one key doctrine of the orthodox faith that has not been controversial. So in summary, Calvin's writings do _not_ have the inherent distinction from Bahnsen's that you mentioned above.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 8, 2004)

Chris:

Calvin's Institutes are still as accepted as they were when he wrote his first pamphlet, which later became the Institutes. The churches adopted many teachings that were championed by Calvin, and he was looked up to, and searched out, to be a teacher of the Word by churches. What he wrote about was Bible doctrine. 

One may disagree with some of the things he asserted, but his main thesis was that of clear Biblical teaching, teaching which was historically part of the church all along. He was not bringing in something new, or some doctrine that was still under debate. The purpose of his Institutes was to re-establish sound Biblical teaching. 

Bahnsen's work is mainly the attempt to establish Presuppositionalism, to defend Postmillennialism, and to promote Theonomy. These, at best, are adiaphora, not sound historical doctrine. The people are divided on these issues, and are not bound to them. Defending them is commendable, and are a help to instruction in these matters. But the churches must refrain from imposing anything that the Bible does not authorize. 

I'm not saying that Bahnsen doesn't deal with other things. He is usually referenced in relation to the topics I mentioned. And he has been noted as the go-to guy for the best explanations on these matters.

To be succinct: Calvin is cited on primary doctrine, doctrine that is binding; Bahnsen is cited on secondary doctrine, doctrine that is not binding.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 8, 2004)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Calvin's Institutes are still as accepted as they were when he wrote his first pamphlet, which later became the Institutes. The churches adopted many teachings that were championed by Calvin, and he was looked up to, and searched out, to be a teacher of the Word by churches. What he wrote about was Bible doctrine.
> 
> One may disagree with some of the things he asserted, but his main thesis was that of clear Biblical teaching, teaching which was historically part of the church all along. He was not bringing in something new, or some doctrine that was still under debate. The purpose of his Institutes was to re-establish sound Biblical teaching.



And why did that teaching need to be _re_-established if not that it was under debate in his day? Ask Calvin, Luther and Zwingli, for example, to give a one-paragraph summary of the significance of the Lord's Supper in churches today, and you would get three radically different answers. Now we look to Calvin's answer as being the sound, historically orthodox one, but that is largely due to its sound, historical corroboration over the years between his time and ours by some other Reformers, the Puritans, the Westminster Divines and the Pilgrims. But the fact that that post-Calvin corroboration plays a large part in our acceptance of the doctrine today does not make Calvin's own proclamation of the doctrine in his day any less worthy. It is similar with Bahnsen's teachings such as presuppositionalism and theonomy. While he was one of the first to _formalize_ them as we see them today (as Calvin was the first to formalize some of the doctrine he restated in the exact way he did), that alone is not enough to establish them as out of sync with historic orthodoxy or with biblical accuracy.



> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Bahnsen's work is mainly the attempt to establish Presuppositionalism, to defend Postmillennialism, and to promote Theonomy. These, at best, are adiaphora, not sound historical doctrine. The people are divided on these issues, and are not bound to them. Defending them is commendable, and are a help to instruction in these matters. But the churches must refrain from imposing anything that the Bible does not authorize.



Minor disagreements within the school of thought of which Bahnsen is a part do not call into question the unified call of that school as a whole, any more than disagreements within the broad Reformed school of thought (Exclusive Psalmody, lapsarianism, eschatology, apologetics) call into question the unified voice of the Reformed faith and message. And Bahnsen and those in the same school of thought as him could hardly agree more with your last sentence.

[Edited on 8-11-2004 by Me Died Blue]


----------



## JohnV (Nov 8, 2004)

Chris:

Maybe I wasn't clear. Calvin's teachings are not Scripture. But what he concentrated on was Scriptural teaching. It was about primary doctrine. On the other hand Bahnsen's writings, in the main, were about secondary doctrine, things which churches call "adiaphora", matters of personal conscience. One is bound to the gospel truths, and that was Calvin's concern for the churches; one is not bound to views on the millennium or on apologetic methodologies, etc. Calvin's milieu was a monolithic RCC church; Bahnsen's was that of faithful churches among splintered denominations.

Just think about it a minute: no one has thought of everything as it pertains to the secondary doctrines, and so we can't be authoritative on these topics. The Bible neither mandates any one particular view, and neither does the WCF, nor does it give us the answers to the necessity questions pertaining to them. Those things which Calvin dealt with mainly, and those things which Bahnsen dealt with mainly, are two different categories of things. Neither of them are Scripture, but some teachings can carry authority because of the necessity placed upon them by Scripture. No such necessity is given on secondary doctrines. That's why they are secondary. You just can't make a secondary into a primary based on man's reasoning. It must be by necessity from Scripture, and no other way.

Some churches, like the OPC for example, have allowed that things like Postmillennialism and Presuppositionalism are not opposed to the the WCF. They have also ruled that Evidentialism and Amillennialism, Classicalism and Historic Premillennialism are also not contrary to the WCF. The WCF is held to be the main body of teachings of Scripture that binds the churches. So churches like the OPC allow freedom in these things within limits. But they will not, neither can they bind consciences on these matters. 

If the Westminster Assembly was predominantly Postmillennial, and quite convinced of it as well, then it is quite significant that they did not bind their views on others in formulating the doctrines which churches should adhere to. If a person wishes to bind that view on others, then he is actually claiming greater authority on the matter than the Westminster Assembly. I'm not saying that Bahnsen did that. If he only tried to persuade then that is well within his sphere, as long as he did not hold office while doing that. He should not give the impression that the office of elder is arguing for his views, but only he personally. What I said above is that Bahnsen's main work, or that which he is most known for, deals with secondary doctrines, not primary. 

If some say that his intent was to make these primary doctrines, then it is clear that it is not I that is laying an indictment against him. Those who use Bahnsen to make that happen are the incriminators, not me. He may well have been careful to avoid trying to make these binding. Followers of his are not so careful. 

All I said was that his arguments argued me away from Postmillennialism, and secondly that we had to be wary of putting too much authority where it did not belong. I did not say he was not an authority on apologetics, or the millennium, or the modern tenets of Theonomy. I'm only saying that, even if he is authoritative, it only goes so far, and no further. I have the freedom to be persuaded differently and still be considered true to the Word, just as followers of Bahnsen have the freedom to be persuaded and still be considered true to the Word. We just may not go beyond these limits, no matter how persuaded we may be. Biblical necessity is the final arbiter.


----------



## JohnV (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> John,
> 
> Please back up your statements that people here just quote Bahnsen as the authorotative end all. If you can't then I take offense to this. Also,
> ...



Paul, I didn't mean to ignore you. I gave it a lot of thought, and decided to open a new thread addressing this concern. Its called "Limits of Church Office". I hope we can find the answers there.


----------



## blhowes (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> If you've never listened to the "Great Debate" between Bahnsen and Stein, it can be found *here* for free downloading.



I'm guessing that most of you have already listened to this debate at one time or another. This is my first time, and I just finished the first of the four mp3 files.

WOW! This is good stuff. I'm looking forward to listening to the rest of the debate. I was 'concerned' when Dr. Stein gave his 15 minute opening, wondering if Dr. Bahnsen knew what he was getting himself into and was prepared to answer the objections. Dr. Stein sounded very logical, prepared, and ready for battle. After the cross-examination period, those concerns disappeared. 

Its too bad the presidential "debates" didn't follow a similar format - it would have been much more interesting.


----------



## crhoades (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by crhoades_
> ...



It only gets better!  For another debate check out the Bahnsen/Tabash debate: http://www.cmfnow.com/subcatmfgprod.asp?0=207&1=369&2=-1
I think Stein did a better job by far than Tabash. Tabash gets his lunch ate. I actually have that one on video and it is just embarassing.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 9, 2004)

I split the posts about Van Til and theonomy into a new thread since that part of the discussion was becoming a discussion of its own.

I've listened to the debate with Stein several times, and Bahnsen indeed does a superb job. One thing I find almost humorous is that the most intelligent questions to Bahnsen come not from Stein, but from the audience members at the end!

A great 4-part lecture series by Bahnsen is "Challenge to Unbelief."


----------



## blhowes (Nov 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> I've listened to the debate with Stein several times, and Bahnsen indeed does a superb job. One thing I find almost humorous is that the most intelligent questions to Bahnsen come not from Stein, but from the audience members at the end!


I've enjoyed what I've heard so far. I'm at the end of the third file where they're giving their closing arguments.

Throughout the debate, it seemed like Dr. Bahnsen wanted to get to the heart of the matter by trying to show that there's no basis for logical argument with the athiest's world view. One thing that I noticed is it seemed like there were some unanswered challenges that Dr. Bahnsen didn't answer (or I missed it). I was wondering how you or others would respond?

The unanswered challenges I'm talking about came in Dr. Stein's opening comments where he went through the 11 most common arguments he hears in support of there being a god. Several of them seemed to follow the same pattern, but here's one of them:

One argument is(roughly) that the order and design of the universe proves that the universe must have been created by an intelligent being. It couldn't have just happened by chance. His counter was something like this: Everything that exists has order and therefore must have been created by something greater than itself. Therefore, since God exists and God has order, God must have been created by something greater. How would Dr. Bahnsen (or others of you) respond to this kind of reasoning?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Nov 9, 2004)

Bahnsen was essentially agreeing with Stein that those "traditional" proofs were either inconclusive or flawed, and told him that his argument had a different basis from any of them.


----------



## blhowes (Nov 9, 2004)

Paul and Chris,
Thanks for your responses. Now that you mention it, I remember him agreeing with Stein that those weren't good arguments, so it makes sense not to address them.

Just curious. From your experiences, is Dr. Stein one of the best proponents of the atheistic worldview? If not, who is the most formidable?

Also, you guys talk about Van Til a lot. Are there any good debates of his online? If Van Til was debating Dr. Stein, how do you think he would have approached it differently (if he would have)?


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 9, 2004)

Has any presuppositionalist ever bested Dan Barker? I know Doug Wilson tried to.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Nov 10, 2004)

Hey what do you all think of Gene Cook? I've heard some of his radio debtes on sermonaudio.com and he seems to do a pretty good job.


----------

