Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
I got his work on Van Til's Apologetic recently and was wondering what others on the board thought of this book and Bahnsen generally.
Thoughts on Greg Bahnsen
- Thread starter Backwoods Presbyterian
- Start date
- Status
ReformedDave
Puritan Board Freshman
in my opinion, he was the finest proponent of the Van Tillian apologetic. He was also a devastating debater and a wonderful preacher/teacher.....Yeah, I like the guy.
N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
I love Bahnsen. I am not a theonomist- but I think that his contribution to Reformed Christianity will prove to be a big one. He popularized presuppositionalism (in my opinion).
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
but nleshelman are you a member of the former ARP church in Grand Rapids that went RPCNA recently?
timmopussycat
Puritan Board Junior
Bahnsen did invaluable work developing the presuppoitionalist insights independently derived by Van Til and C. S. Lewis into an effective apologetic strategy for popular evangelism. If only he had not bought into Rushdoony's "ethical perspective of Christian Reconstruction" i.e. Theonomy....
tcalbrecht
Puritan Board Junior
I like to think he was being a consistently confessional Presbyterian.
He had much to offer, and I certainly learned much from his teaching and ministry.
sotzo
Puritan Board Sophomore
What has always been interesting to me is that few in the nonbelieving camp would do anything more than cast stones from afar when he was alive...would never go toe to toe with him from the podium...then after his death, they all come out of the woodwork with their attacks in no danger of hearing his rebuttals.
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
Taking his ethics course on CD was some of the most valuable and insightful study time I have ever spent. I definitely give him a 
and a 
and a
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Where would that be available from Barnpreacher?
Barnpreacher
Puritan Board Junior
Mine came from Whitefield Theological Seminary. I don't know if it's available elsewhere for purchase.
Devin
Puritan Board Sophomore
No kidding.
Bahnsen was a man to whom God gave a brilliant mind, and he used it well in his short stay on earth. His encouragement and application of Christianity as a comprehensive worldview has made a huge impact on a lot of folks here, myself included. For that, men like Bahnsen, VanTil, and Rushdoony should be commended.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Thanks!!!
N. Eshelman
Puritan Board Senior
I am. You can read about it here.
You are quite the anomaly yourself! PCUSA to ARP studying in PTS, RPTS, and heading to Erskine! Good stuff.
Josiah
Puritan Board Senior
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Howdy All,
I'm brand-spankin new, and this is my first post.
As mentioned above, Bahnsen was a true gentleman, a scholar, and strong confessionalist. His debating skill was unparalleled, his research thorough, and his presentation inviting. In my estimation, he was head-and-shoulders above his peers.
As to the "theonomic" question, I don't think that his basic conclusions were contrary to the confession and catechism's usages of the Law (for instance, invoking Mosaic Judicials in explaining the requirements of / sins forbidden in the 10 commandments). His method of arguing those points was quite different from theirs, but the conclusions were very similar. Gillespie, for instance, would have seen many of the "judicial" laws as merely moral laws, applied to the civil sphere. In that way, resembling Rutherford's arguments in favor of executing idolaters, adulterers, etc.
Besides the controversial aspects of Bahnsen's views of the Confession, I think he is seen by Presbyterians and Reformed folk as a stalwart of the true Reformed Religion, and a devoted disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. He has now gone to his rest, and is rejoicing in Christ, his only Savior and Master. In this way, I pray he is an example to all of us who, though disagreeing in some points of understanding, can yet profit one another, and be a blessing to all; even those with whom we may sincerely disagree.
Cheers,
Adam
I'm brand-spankin new, and this is my first post.
As mentioned above, Bahnsen was a true gentleman, a scholar, and strong confessionalist. His debating skill was unparalleled, his research thorough, and his presentation inviting. In my estimation, he was head-and-shoulders above his peers.
As to the "theonomic" question, I don't think that his basic conclusions were contrary to the confession and catechism's usages of the Law (for instance, invoking Mosaic Judicials in explaining the requirements of / sins forbidden in the 10 commandments). His method of arguing those points was quite different from theirs, but the conclusions were very similar. Gillespie, for instance, would have seen many of the "judicial" laws as merely moral laws, applied to the civil sphere. In that way, resembling Rutherford's arguments in favor of executing idolaters, adulterers, etc.
Besides the controversial aspects of Bahnsen's views of the Confession, I think he is seen by Presbyterians and Reformed folk as a stalwart of the true Reformed Religion, and a devoted disciple of the Lord Jesus Christ. He has now gone to his rest, and is rejoicing in Christ, his only Savior and Master. In this way, I pray he is an example to all of us who, though disagreeing in some points of understanding, can yet profit one another, and be a blessing to all; even those with whom we may sincerely disagree.
Cheers,
Adam
Last edited:
Neopatriarch
Puritan Board Freshman
I've read Van Til's Apologetic and was changed by it. Still, some of it is still over my head, and it's not clear to me that you can prove the whole Christian worldview with presuppositionalism. It seems like you'll have to bring in evidences at some point.
As for his theonomy, I really appreciate that too. Could someone explain to me where Bahnsen got it wrong on this?
As for his theonomy, I really appreciate that too. Could someone explain to me where Bahnsen got it wrong on this?
Van Til's Apologetic is heavy reading...though Bahnsen made Van Til accessible with that work for people like me.
I found Always Readya great beginner, and I've listened to about 40 hours worth of his audio. The way he argued wan't mere cogitation for academia...he was desirous to glorify God, and was fiercely evangelistic.
I'm not sure I'd be considered a Theonomist by other Theonomists...but Bahnsen spurred me into accepting the principles...
Bahnsen was one of the greatest men God has given us in years.
I found Always Readya great beginner, and I've listened to about 40 hours worth of his audio. The way he argued wan't mere cogitation for academia...he was desirous to glorify God, and was fiercely evangelistic.
I'm not sure I'd be considered a Theonomist by other Theonomists...but Bahnsen spurred me into accepting the principles...
Bahnsen was one of the greatest men God has given us in years.
InevitablyReformed
Puritan Board Freshman
Hello,
This is my first post and the "Bahnsen" title caught my eye.
His debate with Gordon Stein was one of the more impressive two hours of intellectual dialogue I have ever heard (from Bahnsen's side that is). God gave him a wonderful mind that Bahnsen used for His glory.
This is my first post and the "Bahnsen" title caught my eye.
His debate with Gordon Stein was one of the more impressive two hours of intellectual dialogue I have ever heard (from Bahnsen's side that is). God gave him a wonderful mind that Bahnsen used for His glory.
Greg
Puritan Board Sophomore
I've read Always Ready and have listened to a number of his lectures. I'm thankful that He was obedient to the call God gave him and that he used that gift given him for God's glory. I think the Church is very blessed by how God worked through Dr. Bahnsen's life. Dr. Bahnsen has made a very important contribution that we only stand to benefit from.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Bahnsen was my theological mentor, though I discovered him 8 years after his death.
I treasure what I have learned from him, even where I take it to different areas, which is something we all should do. Bahnsen would not want us to sit around meditating over the Stein debate (and I have memorized much of it). He certainly wouldn't want us to hinge our apologetics around a few key phrases of his turning them into cliches.
It is hard to put into words how much he means to me. I disagree with him on eschatology (being one of the few theonomic premillennialists!) and I tinker with his apologetics (still holding to the same format, though). I actually think his TAG can be reconstructed (no pun intended!
) along narratival lines. You can kill about 8 birds with that one stone.
Sadly though, people only see him as an ethicist/apologist when his courses on the Christian life, Calvin (get that if anything! 80 lectures on John Calvin! Who said theonomists didn't like Calvin? Actually, I know who said that in an encyclopedia on Apologetics, but I digress). Also get his systematic theology tapes. Very heartwarming.
I treasure what I have learned from him, even where I take it to different areas, which is something we all should do. Bahnsen would not want us to sit around meditating over the Stein debate (and I have memorized much of it). He certainly wouldn't want us to hinge our apologetics around a few key phrases of his turning them into cliches.
It is hard to put into words how much he means to me. I disagree with him on eschatology (being one of the few theonomic premillennialists!) and I tinker with his apologetics (still holding to the same format, though). I actually think his TAG can be reconstructed (no pun intended!
) along narratival lines. You can kill about 8 birds with that one stone. Sadly though, people only see him as an ethicist/apologist when his courses on the Christian life, Calvin (get that if anything! 80 lectures on John Calvin! Who said theonomists didn't like Calvin? Actually, I know who said that in an encyclopedia on Apologetics, but I digress). Also get his systematic theology tapes. Very heartwarming.
I've listen to several of his tapes and read most of his apologetics books. He's an excellent debater and speaker. I especially like how he took apart the Theory of Evolution. Bahnsen was very bright, quick, and joy to listen to.
I do have problems with some of his apologetic arguments - the transcendental argument in particular. I think it's very impressive but logically flawed. I think if Bahnsen had better understood Clark's apologetics, I would have felt better about Bahnsen's. But Bahnsen's criticism of Clark's apologetics showed a flawed understanding of Clark's. I'm not sure why he didn't 'get' Clark, but there was bad blood between Clark and Bahnsen's mentor Van Til, at that time. And maybe Bahnsen was motivated by loyalty to his mentor. But for what ever reason, it keep him from seeing how Clark's arguments were very much like his own, but with some improvements that would have benefited Bahnsen greatly.
If you could combine Bahnsen's quick intellect and skill as a debater, with Clark's technical improvements, you'd have the über-apologist!
I am glad to have been exposed to the teachings of both men.
I do have problems with some of his apologetic arguments - the transcendental argument in particular. I think it's very impressive but logically flawed. I think if Bahnsen had better understood Clark's apologetics, I would have felt better about Bahnsen's. But Bahnsen's criticism of Clark's apologetics showed a flawed understanding of Clark's. I'm not sure why he didn't 'get' Clark, but there was bad blood between Clark and Bahnsen's mentor Van Til, at that time. And maybe Bahnsen was motivated by loyalty to his mentor. But for what ever reason, it keep him from seeing how Clark's arguments were very much like his own, but with some improvements that would have benefited Bahnsen greatly.
If you could combine Bahnsen's quick intellect and skill as a debater, with Clark's technical improvements, you'd have the über-apologist!
I am glad to have been exposed to the teachings of both men.
Answerman
Puritan Board Sophomore
Greg Bahnsen is my favorite Christian teacher of the last hundred years or so. It is a blessing to have many of his lectures in audio format to pass on to future generations. I think the best description of his character was "humble boldness", a trait that I hope that every Christian would strive to emulate.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I can give you hints later when I get home. Only hints at the moment, maybe movements toward it. Narratival apologetics almost requires a prolegomena to narratival thinking. But still, on my home cache, I have some good stuff.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
These are only movements twoards a narratival theology. It is not so much the prolegomena itself so if it is lacking in a few areas, keep that in mind.
Jamie Smith, Introducing Radical Orthodoxy
( New Testament and the People of God. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 40
(Craig Bartholomew and Michael Goheen, "Story and Biblical Theology," Out of Egypt: Biblical Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 151-152
- Status
