Forcing Unbelievers to Answer Ethical Questions

[RamistThomist]

*This is not a theonomy thread (although the same challenge would apply to certain autonomous systems). These are questions that are to shift the ground under the unbeliever's feet.

1. What is the nature of good and evil?
2. What are the standards for ethical evaluation?
3. What about guilt and personal peace?
4. How do we attain or produce moral character?

Greg Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, p. 66

 

[RamistThomist]

I will try to expand this later. It is late.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I think Manata's recent Triablogue post: If Evil...then God was masterful at demonstrating that an atheist has no grounds for condeming or commending anything.

 

[Greg]

*This is not a theonomy thread (although the same challenge would apply to certain autonomous systems). These are questions that are to shift the ground under the unbeliever's feet.



Greg Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, p. 66

Hey Jacob,

Have you read through the entire book yet? How is it? Is it basically the same as Always Ready?

 

[Greg]

I think Manata's recent Triablogue post: If Evil...then God was masterful at demonstrating that an atheist has no grounds for condeming or commending anything.

Rich,

I tried looking for that thread but couldn't find it. When was it posted?

 

[etexas]

A former Atheist: I did not trust Christians, and always assummed they were out to save my soul for celestial brownie points, the concept (and nature) of the questions is good.......but in my case there is always that question of whether we would "allow" you to engage us. Grace and Peace..

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Rich,

I tried looking for that thread but couldn't find it. When was it posted?

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/02/if-evil-then-god.html

 

[RamistThomist]

Hey Jacob,

Have you read through the entire book yet? How is it? Is it basically the same as Always Ready?

No. It is like "Always Ready" on steroids. The format is kind of weird. The text was written by Bahnsen himself, but he has been dead for eleven years so it is unnerving to see references to books from last year.

What it is, Gary Demar edited it. Demar sort of did to Bahnsen's work what Bahnsen did to Van Til. Some of the footnotes are from Bahnsen, others are from Demar.

It is on a higher level than Always Ready, but is still aimed at some high schoolers and up. There are practical application questions for the budding apologist, and recommended reading.

 

[BJClark]

*This is not a theonomy thread (although the same challenge would apply to certain autonomous systems). These are questions that are to shift the ground under the unbeliever's feet.



Greg Bahnsen, Pushing the Antithesis: The Apologetic Methodology of Greg L. Bahnsen, p. 66

What about using these same type of questions to shift the ground under people who claim to be believers as well, so they can look in the mirror to see where they need to address their own heart before God concerning things?

 

[RamistThomist]

What about using these same type of questions to shift the ground under people who claim to be believers as well, so they can look in the mirror to see where they need to address their own heart before God concerning things?

Yes. It can also work with those who want to use a bifurcated ethic to their whole of life. For example, if someone says that the word of God is sufficient for my own personal quiet-time ethic, but not for my political ethic, social ethic, apologetic ethic (that would be a neat thought to pursue), then I think these questions could work as well.

 

[JJF]

Don't forget about common grace and the imago Dei. Natural law, which is critical to answering these questions, is important for ethical practice in in the civil realm. There is no substantial difference between natural law and the moral law, so, by appealing to one, you would be appealing to the other. The two serve different functions, however. One is for the Christian, and the other is for the civil realm. The bifurcation is functional, not substantial.

See Dr. David Van Drunen's The Biblical Case for Natural Law for a concise and cogent argument.

 

[crhoades]

So much for this not becoming a theonomy thread...