Originally Posted by Spear Dane

While theonomists were probably blackballed from Reformed institutions, and no one ever had the guts to face Bahnsen in a public debate, and while theonomy will never win the day in Reformed circles, I have reason as a theonomist to rejoice.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

As I have read, this is only true becasue to debate on an issue, actually gives the issue relevance. For instance, I woudl never debate a oneness pentacostal, and the debating of Bahnsen is parallel. ANd I would have never wanted Geisler representing the truth anyway. There was really no reason to debate him becasue until his death there was no notice of his thought other than being 'out there' on the fringe. Once it became Viral and attached itself to others, then the deabtes happened. "Rabbi Bahnsen" was brilliant though, and probably could have won a debate based on his ability to speak well and captivate the audience with perception and pizazz..

I found this almost laughable on the inside flap of his book:




This is Greg Bahnsen's response to criticisms of the theonomic position that have been published or circulated over the last ten years. Bahnsen deals not only with Westminster Theological Seminary's Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, but also with two other brief critical books against him, and with various published articles and typewritten, photocopied responses. One by one, Bahnsen takes his critics' arguments apart, showing that they have either misrepresented his position or misrepresented the Bible. Line by line, point by point, he shows that they have not understood his arguments and have also not understood the vulnerability of their own logical and theological positions.

What I find amazing is when someone, who has 50 people showing him scripturally he is wrong, yet all 50 have misrepresented him....

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

"Rabbi Bahnsen"? That's a cute slur to mask the lack of argument. As for the 50 people showing him they are wrong, they had the opportunity to debate him. Silence ain't golden, but it is another color. Not to mention that WTJ forbade anyone to critique Meredith Kline's slander of thoenomy. How fair...

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

"Rabbi Bahnsen"? That's a cute slur to mask the lack of argument. As for the 50 people showing him they are wrong, they had the opportunity to debate him. Silence ain't golden, but it is another color. Not to mention that WTJ forbade anyone to critique Meredith Kline's slander of thoenomy. How fair...

Originally Posted by Tom Lauder

I have heard repeatedly now from theonomists and lovers of Greg Bahnsen the charge that the Westminster Seminary Journal denied Bahnsen an opportunity to respond to Meredith Kline's review article of his work. The accusation and implication is not only censorship, but also the inability to refute Bahnsen's work on theonomy (appears to be a latent martyr complex running here too?). Bringing it closer to home, there was also a charge made that I reflected this same type of tendency since I happen to attend the same seminary where Robert Godfrey (the "bad guy," and editor of the journal back then in 1978) teaches.
Besides the obvious fallacy in this type of argument (I never even heard of this supposed issue till certain ones brought it up, let alone do I know Godfrey enough to be majorly influenced by him), I suspected that the proponents of such a view were wrong in their assessement of the situation. Finally, after recently listening to another theonomist malign Godfrey, which is supposed to lend support to their cause that theonomy is the biblical view since no one can refute it and all others can do is "suppress the truth," I went and asked Robert Godfrey about these accusations.
[Responding to these accusations]...Godfrey said plainly "These are lies." The position of the WTJ was that responses to book reviews are not allowed since this could end up in a never ending response to the response syndrome (just look at the Calvin Club during disputes). This policy was not put in place just to refuse Bahnsen an opportunity to respond either, but had been the WTJ policy.
Bahnsen came and spoke with Godfrey about his anger with Kline's review and wanted an opportunity to respond. Godfrey told him "no" to the response on that piece, but instead told him to write a full article that deals with critics like Kline and he would happily publish it. Bahnsen never responded with an article.
But what of the charge that Kline rigged the deal by making publication of his review contingent upon Bahnsen not being able to respond? It is true that Kline did ask Godfrey to not publish a response (Godfrey told him he was against that), but it didn't matter since the policy already stood about no responses to review articles. Kline's position, as related by Godfrey, was that he did not want to get into an endless debate with Bahnsen et al.. Still, be that as it may, the decision by Godfrey to not print a response to the review article was not motivated by any desire to suppress Bahnsen, or to deny him an opportunity to respond, and hardly because theonomy was known to be irrefutable.
An interesting side note, Bahnsen demanded of Godfrey that if he responded with an article then there could be no editorial changes to his article. Godfrey told him that no editor makes that type of concession. One wonders if this is not where Bahnsen misunderstood Godfrey and thus the whole censorship accusation started. Godfrey's point was not to have some way to alter what Bahnsen wrote, but to continue with normal editorial freedom. Nevertheless, as stated above, it was Bahnsen who never submitted an article back to the WTJ.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

You like that Jacob? AS they say in Jerusalem, "if the yamulke fits....." Him, Gary, Ken, Rush, should have just worn one, wore sackcloth and swam in ashes.

But why would they debate him? During his lifetime, it was a little more than a novelty in the greater realm of debatable issues. Just like Calvin did not get debated on Limited atonement. Only when a doctrine becomes dangerous and more visible within the fold, is there reason to debate it?

Now I will also state that I find it deplorable on the part of WTS to give Bahnsen a MDiv degree, yet our own 'Dr." Clark here did not debate him. Please take no offense R. Scott. I have just always wondered why this happened. He should have been debated immediately.

Kline also did a fantastic job in my humble estimation.

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

And the heat of my reply was that you are speaking very disparagingly of an ordained minister of the gospel who has passed into glory. And an ordained minister who remained in good standing all of his life. That isn't exactly tactful. Perhaps Westminster was wrong to give him a degree, but perhaps the OPC was wrong not to bring charges against him, if he is that dangerous.

Originally Posted by Amazing Grace

Jacob, my point being is why did he remain in good standing on the subject of theonomy/Law. The OPC, should have vehemently opposed his position in 1973 when Rush wrote Institutes of Biblical Law and Bahnsen wrote the manuscript of Theonomy in Christian Ethics. The ground was fertile for this and why it never happened is a mystery in my mind. Regardles if these 2 men 'caused' the split is a moot point. It happened and the swords were drawn, yet this movement was left untouched. Now we are left with attacking a deceased person who has been elevated into a position of untouchable coated with thick teflon by his disciples.

I honestly did not notice any heat in your reply. and took no offense. You are passionate and I repsect that. And yes, WTS was terribly wrong to give hi a degree. A process which is not easily attained. I only wish Durand kept the original name of his book, "Judicial Warfare" to be "The New Galatians" Yet out of some sort of charity he did not. For some reason the teflon on GB and RR and Gary is thicker than the one on my cookware...

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

Nicholas,
Kline admitted back at the beginning that the Theonomists were a great deal closer to the confession than his side was. So what is your point here in this thread.
Perhaps it would be best to the Intrusive Ethics and its derivative New Covenant Theology point of view and start a new thread on why the Original Westminster Confession was wrong at various points.