Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apologetical Methods' started by AV1611, Jul 4, 2007.
What are your thoughts of Bahnsen's book Always Ready?
It's a standard.
I'm about 3/4 the way through it.
Amazing book. Yes I've read it.
Fideistic and overrated, like everything Bahnsen put out.
When you say "everything" Bahnsen put out was fideistic and overrated, then we must draw the logical conclusion that you have read everything he had published. If everything was overrated then why couldn't you have figured that out in the first book or two and stopped reading him? Did you really read everything he wrote, or was that just an overexaggeration?
Was that non-fideistic enough for you, brother?
Perhaps the OP should have said non ad hominem thoughts??
I would not recommend Always Ready as a first read into the arena of presuppositional apologetics. Frame's book Apolgoetics to the Glory of God is better. However, I do not think even this book is terrific. In fact, I do not feel as if there is a great introduction out there in terms of a presuppositional apologetic. I just got in the mail the book put out by Gary North et. al. capturing the classes Bahnsen did at some university. I have not read that yet.
Quotes, examples? Or is this another assertion?
To the OP:
It is not the best *book,* as a book. Simply because it was put together after Bahnsen died. It doesn't flow very well. That being said, I have read it twice. It is very helpful.
I thought Pushing the Antithesis was supposed to be a better intro book. Thoughts?
First, the annoying caveat. Bahnsen is supposed to have done the text. Most of the footnotes, however, are Demar's. It's hard to tell when Bahnsen is speaking and when Demar is speaking. That makes it hard to read.
That being said, the material is excellent, even where I might disagree. He deals with moral absolutes, for example, superbly. It deals with fewer topics, but with more depth.
It is very organized and would be good for something like a study group. With Spear Dane's qualifications noted, I liked it as an intro. book.
I forgot about the study questions. At the end of each chapter there are exegetical observations, detailed study questions, and recommended reading (most of the latter from Demar).
Is that a presupposition on your part?
I'm reading it right now and finding it very instructive.
So his chapter arguing that his method was not fideistic was not a good rejoinder how, exactly?
And, how is it "overrated?" It was billed as an "introduction."
Lastly, he at least tried to offer substantial argumentation, unlike your comment. Indeed, your post seems like most of them: weak assertions begging to have arguments supporting them, like everything Stamper puts out.