Apologetics to the Glory of God

Tag: Greg Bahnsen

  • Mr. White, Mr. Grey, and Mr. Black IV

    In our last post, we examined the Romanist, “evangelical,” and putatively “Reformed” apologetic methods, as advanced by Jacques Maritain, Dr. Carnell and Charles Pinnock, and Dr. Sproul, and applied them to our discussion. In this section, we address Mr. Black, and begin to examine in greater detail the difference in approach that Mr. White and Mr. Grey have in their apologetic. This section comes from pgs 317-319 of Defense of the Faith.

    So also with Mr. Black. He daily changes the truth of God into a lie. He daily worships and serves the creature more than the Creator. He

  • Point of Contact – Possibility


    In this second installment of our newest podcast – Joshua Whipps, Sean Burkes, Justin McCurry and Nic Heath discuss possibility.

    Note: The audio quality is not the best, unfortunately. We’re working on steps to rectify that.

  • Point of Contact – Are the Laws of Logic Created?

    Point of Contact

    In this first episode of our newest podcast – Brian Knapp, Joshua Whipps, and Nic Heath discuss the nature of the laws of logic.

  • Should we concede anything to our opponents?

    Series on Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein

    Debate Transcript

    Should we argue for “general theism”?

    Should our case be “subjective or personal”?

    Should we concede anything to our opponents?

    Bahnsen’s last introductory remark prior to his main argument for the existence of God involves a concession to Stein’s “area of expertise.” As insignificant as this concession seemingly is it serves as a refutation of the oft-repeated-but-never-cited claim that presuppositional apologists contend that unbelievers cannot know anything. The truth is that if unbelievers were epistemologically consistent they could not know anything, but unbelievers are never epistemologically …

  • Should our case be “subjective or personal”?

    Series on Does God Exist? Dr. Greg Bahnsen versus Dr. Gordon Stein

    Debate Transcript

    Should we argue for “general theism”?

    Should our case be “subjective or personal”?

    Having presented his reasons for arguing for Christian theism as a unit or system of thought Bahnsen moves on to discuss what the debate is about. Bahnsen transitions from the aforementioned topic he addresses at the very beginning of his first opening statement through placing a slightly different emphasis upon the systematic nature of Christian theism. Bahnsen is arguing for Christian theism as a unit or system of thought so that the debate …

  • Apologetics and the Arminian

    The purpose of this post is to address a response to the above presentation, wherein presuppositional apologetics seems to be misunderstood by the author. The author’s response can be found here, but I will address most of the post, if not all, in the following article.

    James White recently argued for presuppositional apologetics and against evidential apologetics. (link) He starts out with an analysis of Colossians 1:16-18, and Colossians 2:2-9, which focus on the Lordship of Christ. James White points out that the gospel is a radical claim, which unbelievers reject.

    If you watched the above video (or heard …

  • Bahnsen and Bare Possibility

    Historically, when David Hume and Immanuel Kant exposed the invalidity of the theistic proofs, apologists generally balked at returning to revelation as the basis for their certainty of God’s existence. They elected, rather, to maintain status in the the blinded eyes of the “worldly wise” by attempting to prove Christianity’s credibility by means of arguments that hopefully pointed toward the probability of God’s existence and Scripture’s truth. They settled for a mere presumption (plus pragmatic assurance) in favor of a few salvaged items (i.e., “fundamentals”) from the Christian system. Refusing to presuppose the sovereign God revealed in the Bible

  • Should we argue for “general theism”?



    In my experience the presuppositionalist program of setting out to defend specifically Christian theism generally produces scoffing rather than interaction. At the beginning of his debate with Gordon Stein, Greg Bahnsen states his position on this matter. He says, “I want to specify that I’m arguing particularly in favor of Christian theism, and for it as a unit or system of thought and not for anything like theism in general, and there are reasons for that.”

    There are at least two senses in which Bahnsen explains he will not be arguing for or defending theism in general. Bahnsen …