Greg Bahnsen vs R C Sproul Debate Part One Presuppositional Vs Classical Theology

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonsen Institute, where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.

The fact that so many are here this evening is an indication of at least some degree of interest in the subject matter to be handled. I tell my students that one of the glories of the Reformed faith is just its catholicity, its freedom from partisan peculiarity and idiosyncrasy, and so on. They do not all agree with me, as a recent batch of examinations will attest. That's all right. They don't need to. We are, however, this evening to have a demonstration of Reformed catholicity. And I think that there will be evidence of that catholicity of our faith. We have two distinguished, keen minded, youngish defenders of the faith who are to speak to us and to lead us in a discussion this evening. And they take rather different points of view, but both of them have noble pedigrees in the Reformed tradition. We ought to remember that. I think, that the Reformed family is a great family and that there are different streams and different currents of thought in the Reformed tradition. One of the difficult things for students to learn, I find, is that there can be legitimate differences of opinion about certain aspects of the Reformed faith. That there is no one single position on some points happens to be the truth. Our speakers this evening are, of course, Professor Greg Banson of Reformed Seminary, professor of apologetics and ethics known to us all, and Dr. Arceus Proulx, President and theologian in residence of the Ligonier Valley Study Center. I'll never forget my first meeting with Dr. Sproul a few years ago now. We were met by Jack Oates. Do you remember that, R.C.

Sure.

Airport in Chattanooga. And within 30 seconds, maybe 60 seconds, we were already arguing. Mind you, at that time I was only a country preacher and he was already a theologian in residence.

So I.

Hadn'T a chance in the world. The subject of our argument, nota vena was Romans 1:18 and following especially, as I recall, Romans 1:21. I don't know that I would stand now, RC where I stood then. I hope I've developed a little and I'm now too a theologian in residence. But I'm glad this evening that as a theologian in residence, I can occupy the untouchable ground in the middle in what is going to take place. We're going to have a presentation, 15 minutes each by Professor Bunsen and Dr. Sproul of their points of view. And then there will be opportunity for questions from the group here and responses on the part of these two apologists for the Christian faith. And because he is our guest, we're going to ask Dr. Sproul to speak first. And he will be followed, I think, without any further announcement, unless he goes overtime by Professor Bunsen, who promises me he won't go overtime.

Thank you very much, Dr. DeWitt. I remember that conversation in a taxi cab, too, and I don't remember it as an argument, but it was a. A delightful and stimulating conversation. I remembered your suit, I think, more than I remember. I told my wife I didn't dare wear a turtleneck to this place or anywhere where Dr. DeWitt was around.

I better.

And tomorrow I'll have a vest. Okay, Before I start, and you can take. Deduct this from my time, if you will, but I think it's vitally important to underscore what Dr. DeWitt said about the different strands within the Calvinistic tradition, particularly with respect to apologetic methodology. It never ceases to amaze me how sometimes the zeal of discipleship can tear us apart and hurt us very deeply. I think we always have to keep this whole question of apologetic methodology in its historical perspective, that the difference that we're about to be viewing this evening really has its roots in a difference that was articulated between Dr. Benjamin Warfield, Princeton, and Dr. Abraham Kuyper for the Free University of Amsterdam. Dr. Warfield had such a high regard and respect for. For Dr. Kuyper that he learned the Dutch language solely for the purpose of being able to read Dr. Kuyper's work, not to criticize it, but to learn from it. And those men set an example of the two apologetic traditions that we're discussing here tonight that I think needs to be kept before us always. That this debate or difference of approach is an intramural one between men who are passionately committed to Calvinism and to the Reformed faith. I had initially thought that this was going to be a more lengthy presentation, and I wanted to go in more directly in my initial remarks into some kind of a case for the classical synthesis. But rather than doing that, I'm sure that can come out in the discussion afterwards. I find it always very helpful to go behind the method and the arguments themselves to see if we can find out what people are really concerned about. By way of example, I'll be going to California in a few weeks to meet behind closed doors with David Hubbard, Jack Rogers and Dan Fuller, because Greg and I both are very much involved right now in a national question of the authority and inerrancy of the Scripture, which is an even more serious split within the evangelical world about which I'm sure you're all very much aware. And we're having some of these meetings behind closed doors with gentlemen of a different persuasion, not because we hope to resolve the differences, but that we can have a better understanding of what the concerns are. What's all the fuss about in a question such as this? So what I'd like to do is just state briefly the things that we are concerned about. Those of us who represent what we call the classical synthesis or the evidentialist school, or the term I prefer is the analytical school of apologetics. What we're concerned about in terms of apologetic methodology and why we're concerned about it. First of all, what I'm very much interested in and deeply concerned about is the complete reconstruction of of natural theology, 20th century. That's what I'm all about, trying to call for a reconstruction of natural theology and with that what I believe to be a reconstruction. Classical Calvinistic apologetics. All right, why do I have that concern? These are a few of the reasons why I'm concerned for a reconstruction of natural theology one and very much concerned about the problem of the loss of natural law as a cohesive force for the well being of man in his society. If you're aware of jurisprudence and questions of political matters in our country today, you are aware certainly that the whole idea of natural law as a ground basis or foundation for legislation is one that is not taken very seriously at all in the higher courts or in the academic institutions of jurisprudence. I think there's a direct correlation between the loss of the natural law concept in jurisprudence with the loss of natural theology in the realm of theology and metaphysics. Now, we can talk about the implications of that more later and some of the historical developments of it. But I think the practical ramifications of the loss of a natural law system in this country are extremely destructive. Second of all, I'm concerned deeply about the loss of the intellectual credibility of Christianity. I believe that we are living in the most anti intellectual age in the history of Western civilization. Not the most anti academic, not the most anti technological, but anti intellect, anti intellectual in the sense that we have lost confidence in the ability of the mind to be used as a tool for testing and achieving truth. Third, I'm deeply concerned about the loss of Christian influence on the general culture of our society. This, if I can speak in Calvinistic categories, is a concern of common grace. Not a concern so much for evangelism or winning souls, but as a concern for our responsibility for the general welfare of mankind and also negatively stated as a restraint of evil in this world. And I think that we have seen very evidently the loss of the church as a powerful influence in the shaping of our culture. Fourth, I am concerned about the loss of what I would call the purity of classical and historical Calvinism with respect to the relationship of faith and reason and the intrusion of what I consider to be a neo orthodox methodology into Calvinism. Fifth, and this is perhaps number five and six are probably my two greatest concerns about this whole question of methodology. Number five is the concern of the problem of the intimidation of Christians in our culture. I know from being a college student and a college professor and a seminary professor that I find that students in this day and age have been very much intimidated by the skeptical assault, the intellectual credibility of their faith. And it may not rob them of their own salvation. We're Calvinists, we don't think that could happen. But nevertheless it makes them less active, less aggressive, less bold in the confrontation that they are called to have with the world because they feel that the tool of intelligence, of intellect and of sense perception have been negotiated and granted as the province of the pagan. And finally, I'm deeply concerned about a methodology that might lead us into a Christian ghetto where a Christian community is left with conversation with itself. We're living in a secular society that is assigned to us a reservation where we can live in peace. As long as we understand that religion and theology is a matter of faith and is divorced and separated from questions of science and questions of rationality, the whole field of empirical investigation, we're allowed to have the province of faith. We be good boys and girls and stay over on the reservation and mind our own business. They'll leave us alone and that way we can become less and less and less as the driving force in the changing and shaping of of this world. I'm very much afraid of an apologetic that would lead us to isolationism rather than direct confrontation with the world on its own terms. Now, I still have three, four minutes here. I want to briefly outline on the board, if I can do this quickly, the way I understand the process by which John Calvin himself understood the relationship between revelation, reason, apologetics, etc. We begin first of all with an affirmation of general revelation that Calvin clearly affirms. And I don't think there's any dispute about that among Calvinists that general revelation is objective. It exists apart from us. It comes as part of God's self disclosure. That general revelation in Calvin's terms is of two. And this is a crucial point, and it's a point that in the interchange that we had this afternoon, Greg didn't get a chance to respond to a comment that you made. But we'll get at it later tonight, I hope, and that is that that general revelation can be defined under two different subheadings, one of which we call mediate, the other of which we call immediate. Classic Roman Catholic apologetics, of course, rejects the notion of immediate general revelation as being heretical, mystical subjectivism and endorse Thomas Aquinas view of mediate general revelation. Mediate general revelation, meaning simply that our knowledge of God, that this general revelation comes, it gives us a means by which we can know the God who stands behind that general revelation. Immediate revelation would be an a priori knowledge of God, a knowledge of God that is planted basically within the heart of the soul, the mind of man. Immediate revelation is what we call the sensus divinitatis that Calvin speaks of in the Institutes. This inner knowledge and awareness of God, direct and immediate, without any kind of external means that stand between man and God. But also Calvin has a view of immediate general revelation by which nature, and Calvin calls it creation and providence, which we can call history, serve as a means by which God is known. All right, that's the Thomistic notion of mediate general revelation. There is an intermediate stage. We don't have a direct apprehension of God through nature, but by studying the works of nature, nature becomes a means of pointing to the God beyond nature. So we have general revelation which is both mediate and immediate, which produces natural theology. What I mean by natural theology is a knowledge of God derived from nature itself. A knowledge of God that is derived from nature. Another point I want us to point out and stress the thing I talked about within the taxicab, that that knowledge of general revelation gets through. Romans 1 tells us simply that there's a general revelation there, objective, available. Anybody who wants to see it can read it. But then we go around with our eyes closed. And so it never gets through. No, it is perceived by man. It's understood by man. And the sin of man by which he's held inexcusable is not that he fails to get that knowledge, but the sin by which he is judged universally in Romans one is the fact that he knows God. Knowing God, he does not honor him as God, neither is he grateful. So the Bible tells us that man does in fact know God through the things that are made, through the means or the median of creation. Okay. That natural theology For Calvin is there. However, Calvin says that knowledge, that natural theology is always met immediately by the problem of the noetic effect of sin. You all know what that is. It's the effect of sin upon our minds. The clouds are reasoning, and I think we cross it because of the noetic effects of sin. That general revelation that produces the general, the natural theology that gets through nevertheless immediately becomes distorted. And so it is ineffective to do anything other than to leave us without excuse. It's just enough knowledge to send us to hell, not enough noise to send us to heaven. Okay? Because of the noetic effects of sin, it's ineffective in terms of salvation. All that happens is that man distorts it and turns it into idolatry. You know Common's famous statement that man is a fabrica maker of idols, that's his natural propensity.

All right?

So because of that inadequacy or ineffectiveness of this revelation, we need special revelation. And so he speaks about special revelation and specifically about the Bible. Now, when Calvin speaks about the Bible, he says that the Bible itself also has objective, an objective basis for its credibility and truthfulness, both internal and external indicia, as he calls it, evidences of its truthfulness. But again, even the special revelation runs head on into man's wickedness, corruption, depravity, noetic effects of sin. That we refuse to submit to the clarity of the evidence. So in order for even special revelation to bear salvific fruit in the soul, something else has to happen. And that, of course, is what Calvin calls the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. Okay, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit adds no new content, no new argument, no new revelation. But what it does, to quote Calvin, is that it gives us now the moral ability to acquiesce into the indici, that is, the subjective transformation that the Holy Spirit gives to us gives me the immoral power now to submit to the objective evidence. Now, as a Calvinist, I agree from the outset that all the evidence in the world presented in with all the cogency in the world will never lead a man to Jesus Christ. But there are other reasons for reconstructing natural theology, which I've already indicated apart from evangelism and one that Calvin himself mentions, that the evidence is there and is powerful enough to quote our patron saying, to stop the mouths of the obstreperous who slander Christ with their attacks, that there is no objective basis to the hope and the faith that lies within us. The evidentialist is working on the situation of calling attention to the objective ground basis for the subjective response of faith that we have that is evoked in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. That's what we're about. Those are what our concerns are. We talk more about it after Dr. Bronson has his opportunity to give his presentation.

Not only do we have a lot of points of view in common, but.

We have a little chord angled as well.

I want to begin just with a brief personal remark to reinforce what has already been said twice, to let you know how thoroughly I am in agreement with the fact that we're all Calvinists in this here adventure of apologetics, and we all have an awful lot of common concerns. In fact, while I have promised not to respond to the first talk, I think it should be made clear that RC is talking for more than simply one school of apologetics at many of those points of which I won't mention until the question period. We certainly have a lot in common, and R.C. and I had a very pleasant plane ride for about three hours the other last winter in which we had a chance to kind of get down to the mat on some of these things and find out that we aren't really so far apart as one might originally think. And so there's a lot in common. However, this evening is my job to try to set before you what is a distinctive point of view in apologetics, and I'll try to do that within my time limit. You all know my prevailing sins in that area. I'm going to say two things Apologetics is not I'm going to give you some scripture verses and then I want to tell you what I see as the apologetical situation. Secondly, the requirements of the apologist and finally, the procedure for defending the faith. An awful lot for 15 minutes. First, two things apologetics is not. Apologetics is not mere persuasion. Much of the popular literature in the area of theistic and anti theistic apologetics consists of highly polemical and emotional efforts at converting others. And to be sure, it is often our duty to seek to convince others of our own position. Sadly, however, these efforts too frequently take a form that substitutes psychological persuasion for careful and fair argumentation. Both believers and unbelievers are guilty of this, at least in my estimation. And it's a sad fact of life that logically poor arguments are often psychologically effective in convincing people of the truth of a position. Conversely, good arguments can be psychologically ineffective, and we may consequently find ourselves confronted by a moral dilemma when we discover that certain bad arguments and glib slogans will be found more convincing by a larger audience than what in fact really are good arguments. When we, on top of this, judge the issue that is being disputed to be one of high importance in our lives, such as in the case of apologetics, we are especially tempted to put these bad arguments in the service of the truth. The Christian apologist ought to be the one person on earth who will resist this temptation. For we only dishonor the truth, and ultimately dishonor the Lord of truth when we use fraudulent and suspicious forms of argument in promoting the truth. So the first place, apologetics is not mere persuasion. We may persuade a lot of people to become Christians on the basis of very bad arguments, but our caste as apologists is to find good arguments, one which will not be found out later to be fraudulent when somebody with greater intellectual talent comes along to investigate. Secondly, apologetics does not merely deal in probabilities. This will be an important point. Apologetics is not merely persuasion. Secondly, apologetics is not merely dealing with probabilities. We are to have a reasoned defense of the conviction, the hope that is in us. According to 1 Peter 3 and basing our thinking on the apostolic word, we can, According to Acts 2:36, know assuredly the Greek word know without any doubt whatsoever that God has made Jesus both Lord and Christ. Indeed, the Gospel comes to us that we might know the certainty of our Christian teaching. Luke 1:4. The gospel comes not in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and full assurance and the word there. For full assurance in the Greek means full conviction, assurance, certainty, perfect faith, not marred by any doubts whatsoever. The Bible speaks of our full assurance of understanding in Colossians 2, 2 and our full assurance of hope in Hebrews 6:11. Abraham is called the Father of the faithful. And with respect to faith, Paul says that he was not weak in faith, but had full certainty with respect to God's word. Romans 4:19 21 and thus Hebrews tells us to draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, Hebrews 10:22 and in verse 23 goes on to exhort us to hold fast the confession of our hope. Unyieldingly in Christ, we surpass human probabilities, and we can have bold access and confident faith. Paul says in Ephesians 3 and so while the confidence of the Godless is like a spider's web, Job 8:14 in the fear of the Lord is strong confidence, Proverbs 14:26 and the reason Proverbs says that is because it begins by saying that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of all knowledge. Proverbs 1, 7. And we who put our confidence in Jehovah may quote, know the certainty of the words of Truth, Proverbs 22, 17, 21. And thus I maintain it is wrong to think that certainty in epistemological matters is limited to formal logic in mathematics. Certainty, full certainty, full confidence, without doubt, without yielding, without qualification, pertains to the matters of the Christian faith. John's purpose in writing his first epistle was especially that his readers might have confident knowledge of their salvation. And therefore our confession of faith teaches us that believers may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace. And it goes on to make very clear what the meaning is when it says this. Certainty is not a bare conjectural or probable persuasion grounded upon a fallible hope, but is an infallible assurance of faith. And so apologetics is dealing with the hope that is in us, the full conviction, not probabilities, full assurance, full demonstration. By the way, talk of moral persuasion and moral certainty at this point is simply a cop out for whatever that strange state of mind called moral assurance is supposed to be. It certainly cannot be compatible with mere rational probability. Moral assurance is to be based on the apprehended strength of the evidence. And as all philosophers who have spoken of this suspicious state of mind have said, it is to be proportioned to the certainty of the evidence itself. So apologetics is not your persuasion, and it's not merely dealing in probabilities. Well, what is it? It won't get us very far just to say what it's not, but I want to make very clear that we're not talking about how to persuade people. We're talking about the grounds for Christian truth, and we're talking about not probably true, but fully true, unyieldingly true. What is apologetics? Paul says in First Corinthians 1:20. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world or of this age? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world in one phrase? I think that's the battle cry of presuppositional apologetics. Have not God made foolishness the wisdom of this age? And our twofold apologetical procedure can be found in Proverbs 26:4,5. This is how we show the foolishness of the wisdom of this age. Proverbs says, answer not a fool according to his folly. Lest thou be like unto him. Don't answer a fool according to his approach to things, according to his folly, according to his assumptions or presuppositions. If I can import that term. Don't answer him that way, because then you're going to be like him. You're going to be an enemy behind lines. Proverbs goes right on to say, though answer a fool according to his folly. Not a violation of the law of contradiction, a twofold procedure. First answer him. Don't answer him according to his folly, lest you fall into the same pit with him. But then answer him according to his folly. Why? Lest he be wise in his own conceits, you must show him that he has no ground for conceited knowledge. You must show him that God has made foolish the wisdom of this age. Paul says in Colossians 2 that in Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, be they pertaining to logic, or to causality, or to natural science or morality, or whatsoever. All knowledge is deposited in Christ. And thus Paul goes on to say, since all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are in Christ, see to it that no one robs you.

Through what?

Vain philosophy and empty deception. And how does he describe vain philosophy? That which is according to the traditions of men, according to the elementary principles of worldly learning, rather than according to Christ. Presuppositionalist says, answer not a fool according to his elementary principles of learning, because you'll become like him. Rather, answer him according to your own presuppositions, those which are according to Christ, and then you will be able to conclude with Paul. Hasn't God made foolish the wisdom of this world? The nature of the apologetical situation can be briefly put in this the controversy between the believer and the unbeliever is, in principle, I say in principle, an antithesis between two complete systems of thought involving ultimate commitments and ultimate assumptions. Secondly, even the laws of thought and the laws of methodology, along with one's factual evidence, will be accepted and evaluated in light of those governing presuppositions. Antithesis between two complete systems of thought involving ultimate commitments and ultimate assumptions. Secondly, even the laws of thought and the laws of methodology, along with one's factual evidence, will be accepted and evaluated in light of those governing presuppositions. Thirdly, all chains of argumentation, especially over matters of ultimate personal importance, will trace back to, and will depend on starting points which are taken as self. Thus, circularity in debate will be unavoidable. But that is not to say that all circles are intelligible are valid. Fourthly, in that case, appeals to logic and appeals to fact and appeals to personality may be necessary in apologetics, but they are never apologetically adequate. What is needed is not piecemeal replies, probabilities or isolated evidences, but rather an attack upon the underlying presuppositions of the unbeliever system of thought. And fifthly, the unbeliever system of thought can be characterized as first, by nature the unbeliever is the image of God, and therefore he is inescapably religious. His heart testifies continually to him, as does also the clear revelation of God around him that God exists and that he has a certain character. Secondly, the unbeliever exchanges the truth of God for a lie. He is a fool who refuses to begin his thinking with reverence for the Lord. He will not build on Christ's self evidencing words. He will suppress the unavoidable revelation of God in nature. Third, because he delights not in understanding but chooses to serve the creature rather than the Creator, the unbeliever is self confidently committed to his own ways of thought. Being convinced that he could not be fundamentally wrong, he flaunts perverse thinking and challenges the self testing word of God. Consequently, fourthly, the unbeliever's thinking results in ignorance in his darkened futile mind. He actually hates knowledge and can gain only a knowledge falsely so called, as Paul says at the end of 1 Timothy. To the extent that he actually knows anything, it is due to his unacknowledged dependence upon suppressed truth, the suppressed truth of God within him. And this renders the unbeliever intellectually schizophrenic. By his espoused way of thinking he is actually opposing himself and showing a need for a radical change of mind that he might have a genuine knowledge of the truth. Next, the unbeliever's ignorance is nonetheless a culpable ignorance because he is excuse less for his rebellion against God's revelation. Hence he is, as Paul says, without an apologetic literal translation of the Greek, without an apostle, apologetic for his thoughts. And finally, the unbelief of the unbeliever does not stem from a lack of factual evidence, but from his refusal to submit to the authoritative word of God from the beginning of his thinking. Now I say that's the nature of the situation into which we are tossed as apologists. That's the nature of the world. God, Revelation and the Unbeliever what are the requirements on us as apologists now? Well, I would say first of all the apologist must have a proper attitude. He can't be arrogant or quarrelsome. He must with humility and respect set forth his arguments in a gentle and peaceable fashion. Secondly, the apologist must have a proper starting point. He must take God's Word as his self evidencing presupposition, thinking God's thoughts after him rather than attempting to be neutral in his debate and viewing God's Word as more sure than his personal experience of the facts. Thirdly, the apologist must have a proper method. Working on the unbeliever's unacknowledged presuppositions and being firmly grounded in his own presuppositions, the apologist must aim to cast down every high imagination exalted against the knowledge of God by aiming to bring every thought his own as well as his opponents, by the way, every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Fourthly, the apologist must have the proper goal, securing the unbeliever's unconditional surrender without compromising the apologist's fidelity to the Word. The word of the cross must be used to expose the utter pseudo wisdom of the world as destructive foolishness and Christ must be set apart as Lord in one's heart, as Peter says in 1 Peter 3, thus acknowledging no higher authority than God's Word and refusing to suspend intellectual commitment to the truth of that Word. Well, that's the nature of the situation. Those are the requirements on the apologist. How does he do his work? Lastly, the procedure for defending the faith. Five points 1. Realizing that the unbeliever is holding back the truth in unrighteousness, the apologist should reject the foolish presuppositions implicit in critical questions, and he must rather attempt to educate his opponent. And that will involve presenting the facts. Secondly, within the context of the biblical philosophy of fact, notice we do present the facts. We are evidentialists, but we present them within a presuppositional framework where they make sense. And that framework is that God is the sovereign determiner of all possibility and impossibility. A proper reception and understanding of the facts will require submission to the lordship of Christ. The facts will be significant to the unbeliever only if he has a presupposition transitional change of mind from darkness to light. And Scripture has authority to declare what has happened in history and to interpret what has happened not simply to declare that Jesus rose from the dead, but that he did so to secure our justification. Thirdly, the unbelievers espoused presuppositions must be forcefully attacked, asking whether knowledge is even possible given those espoused presuppositions in order to show that God has made foolish the wisdom of the world. The believer can place himself on the unbeliever's position and answer him according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceits, that is, demonstrate the outcome of unbelieving thought with its assumptions. The unbeliever's claim should be reduced to impotence and impossibility by what I call the internal critique of his system. That is, we must demonstrate the ignorance of unbelief by arguing from the impossibility of anything contrary to to Christianity full assurance of the faith. Fourthly, the apologist should appeal to the unbeliever as the image of God who has the clear and inescapable revelation of God to him, thus giving him an eradicable knowledge of his Creator. This knowledge can often be exposed by indicating unwitting expressions in the unbeliever or by pointing to the borrowed capital, his unadmitted presuppositions which can be found in his system. And then finally, the apologist should declare the self evidencing and authoritative truth of God as the precondition of intelligibility and man's only way of salvation from all of the effects of sin, be they ignorance or intellectual vanity. Lest the apologist become like the unbeliever, he should not answer him according to his folly, but according to God's word. The unbeliever can be invited to put himself on the Christian position in order to see that it provides the necessary grounds for intelligible experience and factual knowledge, thereby concluding that it alone is reasonable to hold and that it is the very foundation for proving anything whatsoever. And finally, the apologist can also explain that Scripture accounts for the unbeliever's state of mind, his hostility and the failure of men to acknowledge the necessary truth of God's revelation. Moreover, Scripture provides the only escape from the effects of this hostility and failure, be they intellectual futility or eternal damnation.

Thank you. Now we'll have opportunity for questions. I wasn't going to do this, but I'm going to take the prerogative of chairman of the meeting and ask one question before I turn the opportunity of asking questions over to you. Dr. Sproul, did I hear you say that the presuppositionalist apologetic represents an abandonment to neo orthodox methodology? An abandonment, an adoption of their methodology. In other words, an abandonment of classic reform.

Somebody might have it on tape if they want the something like that.

I'd like you to expatiate on that a little bit what you meant by that.

All right. What I had Originally prepared for tonight, which time did not permit to do, was to give a brief historical reconnaissance of the historical rise of fideism as a. As an alternative to natural theology, method, metaphysics, philosophy and theology. What I was having in mind there was that from a methodological perspective, neo orthodoxy is noted particularly Barth, for its very stringent rejection of natural theology and by its replacing natural theology with a fideistic approach or defense of the Christian faith. I am very much afraid of that method's broader implications. I don't know how exactly I said that in enumerating my concerns, but to state the differences as sharply as I can in terms of the statement of.

Concern.

Carefully here, because I am not saying, I'm glad you asked that question, that anybody who's a presuppositionalist is new orthodox as a crypto, neo orthodox, crypto guardian or crypto existentialist. I don't mean to say that at all. I want to make that very, very clear. But I am afraid of the implications of the method for these races. I think that first of all, a presuppositionist approach gives the pagan an excuse for his rejection of God because the pagan is sharp enough to see the fallacy of circular reasoning upon which presuppositionalism is established. I don't like this. Have the pagan have an excuse to say, hey, God, the reason I didn't believe in you is because all those that were defending you gave me an argument that violated formal canons of logic. Second of all, when we start our argument by the direct affirmation and assertion of the existence of God, we are in a real dangerous bind of subjectivism. Or I just say God is. That's my starting point. There is a God. The authority by which I say that, humanly speaking in terms of the argument, is the fact that I'm the one who's saying it. If I don't have an objective evidential basis for that, that we call subjectivism, it's a matter of a decision of faith that is not resting upon objective criteria of evidence. That is what I meant by the intrusion of an existential or neo orthodox method into theology and philosophy. God forbid that I should ever call Dr. Van Til or any of his disciples existentialists. I don't believe they are, you know, by any means. But I think it's a happy inconsistency at that point. And this is a fear, a concern. That's why I said it's important for us to see what works. I know that Greg's going to have the opportunity. I Hope he'll take the time to say their concerns. Their concerns are that we're yielding too much to the humanist. We're going to end up in autonomy of the human mind, end up as Cartesian rationalists and all that sort of thing, and compromise the assuredness that he's already mentioned about the word of God. But the only argument I hear so far in presuppositions Apologetics is I start with the assertion of the existence of God, which assertion is precisely the issue under dispute, and I offer no evidence. I just say that's the way it is. That's good evangelism, but I think it's the death blow. It's fatal to apologetics as a reply to the pretenders to truth that Craig has so beautifully described. I think we have another problem with confusion of ontology and epistemology, which I'm sure this discussion will get at sooner or later. But that answering your question, did you.

Wish to say something, Professor Bunsey?

Yes. In the first place, I want to make very clear that the position I hold in apologetics and the position Advocated for over 40 years by Dr. Van Till is by no means whatsoever, and it is highly inappropriate to use the word in the same room. Fideism. It is not subjectivism. It is not anti rationalism. It is not a denial of opposition, objective criteria and grounds for belief. In fact, you will find strenuous statements in Dr. Van Till's literature, as you will find in my limited literature, the fact that there is an objective argument for the existence of God, that it is inescapable and no man has rational grounds to think that he can reject it. So that's not fideism at all. Not at all. It doesn't come close to subjectivism. It doesn't give the pagan an excuse either, because it doesn't say to him that you have one circle here and another circle there. Well, I guess you know different strokes for different folks. Take the one you want. That isn't the presuppositionalist argument. The argument is you're reasoning in a circle and it's a destructive circle. And I may be reasoning in a circle, but it's one which encompasses your thought and everything valid in your thought as well as all other things. It gives science a foundation. Now, this word about presuppositional and circular argumentation needs to be expanded just a bit more. Let us say that I, as a Christian, am dealing with a man who is a committed and exhaustive empiricist. He believes that sense perception is the test of all truth whatsoever. So his ultimate presupposition is that sense perception is the standard of truth. Now consider a man who wants to debate with the empiricist at this point, and he brings an argument, we'll call it argument A, to bear on the empiricist. And another man comes into the room and he uses argument B with the empiricist. Now, if argument A is in fact predicated on an ultimate presupposition which denies that sense perception as the standard of truth, and the empiricist buys argument A, would you please notice that he can only buy that argument by rejecting his presupposition. That is, he can't buy that argument and keep his presupposition, because this is predicated on the denial of that as the ultimate standard of truth. On the other hand, if somebody arguing on the basis of sense perception being the standard of truth goes along as his argument, and the empiricist buys it, he buys it because he's already committed to sense perception as being the standard of truth. Now, nobody's talking about what has been referred to by RSV as the elementary line fallacy of circular reasoning. Nobody says A is true because A is true. We're talking about transcendental thinking. And that's very important area of epistemology. It goes far beyond elementary grit logic, far beyond human empiricism. And in fact, if anything, it has its roots in what is really the continental tradition of Kant of asking about the preconditions of all knowledge, be it logic or sense perception or whatever. And what the presuppositionalist says is you must recognize that an ultimate standard is just that, ultimate. And if you have an argument for that ultimate standard that is other than the ultimate standard, then that other argument is your ultimate standard. Do you understand that you can't establish your ultimate point by going behind it, because if you could go behind it to find some grounds for there, that would be your ultimate standard. And so then the question is, well, how do you argue for this? And the fact is, the only way you can argue is in a way consistent with your presuppositions. And the only way you can establish your presuppositions is transcendentally. And that a circular argumentation has nothing to do with the flatline circularity of begging the question. And then finally, the objective criterion, evidence of the presuppositionalist is precisely the revelation of God, which gets through. I agree with RC Gets through to every man. And I want to maintain it gets through to every man whether he's been to college or not, whether he has a junior high diploma or not, whether he knows anything about Aristotelian logic or symbolic logic or knows anything about Hume or any philosopher. I don't care if it's Sophie the washwoman. She knows God and Paul says is without excuse for her rejection. And I must have a method of argumentation which meets those facts. Not simply immediate natural theology, but an argument based upon the clear, perspicuous and certain revelation of God that comes through to everybody through nature.

Would you repeat that last? I. I didn't hear whether you said immediate or immediate.

The knowledge which all men have is immediate and not immediate and not mediate.

They differ with Calvin at that point.

I'm not going to debate the historical exegesis of Calvin. Really, I don't think I differ with Calvin, but that's really a question for the church history department.

Oh, I wouldn't abandon it to that. I think you're both wrong on Calvin, but. Greg Fresno, stand up when you ask your questions and tell us your name.

My name is Greg Fresno. RC you recall when I was in Atlanta, I asked you a question which I think is perhaps not right along those lines of argument, but it has to do with immediate and immediate logic. What is your standard for making a decision? Thinking God's thought? And I asked you the question that if Satan came up and tempted Eve and said, did God tell you? And she looked at the tree and instead of saying, yeah, I'll take it, she said, no, I'm getting fat, I better not take it. I asked you that question and you said you would ponder it. I would ask like that, the same question, Mr. Bumpson. I ask him that question when I return because I think it deals with the question of on what standard should she have made her reply? Now, I did make a mistake then when I said, as far as my communication to you that said she was simply to make just a reply. It had to be her reply. But on what standard would that compliance be made? So that if she had said, now I'm getting fat, I will take it. Would she have sinned? Now, I know you know, granted, but that's not how it happened. But this is just to the point of the argument, and I'd like to also ask Mr. Bond, say, Austin.

Well, before she ate the forbidden fruit and was fallen, I figured she had the most fantastic figure in the world. She wasn't the least bit worried about getting fat.

Okay.

That's right. Ask the name of that too.

Right.

I know I'm not sure I understand that question. You know. Did you understand that question?

Yeah.

Could you, could you help me with a little.

I'll give you something to shoot at. Okay, But I'll give an answer and then, you know.

Maybe clarify what the question is.

In my mind as I understand it, Greg is asking about the moral foundations of epistemology. You see, Eve is confronted with the situation. Satan says take the fruit. God says don't take the fruit. She's got to make a decision. On what grounds ought she to make the decision? And by grounds here we mean what rational grounds should she use? And by ought we mean what morally was her duty? And I was searching quickly here, I'm afraid the exact address escapes me. But Paul warns, you see, the church at one point that he doesn't want the church to be deluded by the. How does he put it now? Exactly as I recall, it's something to the effect was the subtlety with which Eve was led astray, the subtlety with which she was led astray. That is, it's not simply that she was led astray, but it's the very subtle reasoning by which she was led astray. And what was the subtle reasoning of Satan hath God sent death? That is, he questioned the authority of God's self attesting word. And I would answer as a presuppositionalist as much as it is the heretical hypothetical. What if Eve would have done this, that or the other? If Eve would have remained pure in the sense that, in the external sense she did not eat the fruit, but would have done it because she was afraid she'd lose that marvelous figure she was given at creation. She would have in fact have sinned. Because the question of the fruit wasn't the question of some magical potent or anything like that. It was a question of obedience to the lordship of God alone. And in this case, as C.S. lewis has made so very clear, he's not a presuppositionalist. Lewis says that that command was totally arbitrary on God's part. It wasn't because the fruit was poison or anything like that. It was just to see whether she would have an obedient frame of mind. And so I'd say if she in fact didn't eat the fruit in order to save her figure, she would have then shown that she was using a criteria which was immoral. Because the real issue was whether she would be submissive to God's thoughts and not her own.

That really helps me understand a question. And I would certainly agree that in the conclusion that Greg just gave you about, she just refrained because of her figure rather than out of this genuine desire. Please, God, in obedience, that that would have been sin. Even though she would have external conformity to the law, her internal motivation would have been corrupt. I agree with that completely. However, I do want to comment a little bit about the context of that particular situation. First of all, Eve did have direct, immediate communication with our creator which we did not have the same way, face to face, no verbal communication. I think the subtlety of what Satan did was not asking. He wasn't asking anything about how do you know this was God who told you to eat that or not eat of this tree? You remember the full quotation what Satan said. Hath God said that you should not, what, eat of any tree in the garden? There was the subtle, because God had not said that and Satan knew very well God had not said that. Here enter Jean Paul Sartin, who is telling us every day that unless we are autonomous, we are not really free. If we are answerable on any single point to anybody or anything beyond ourselves, we are not free. In fact, he turns around classical argument for the existence of God and uses it as an argument against the existence of God by saying that if man is God, can't be, because God would destroy the essence of our humanness, which is subjective freedom and autonomy. Now, the subtlety of Satan is as he's putting the idea in her mind that if God has made one restriction on you, you're really not free. But I don't think that there was anything going on there in terms about the debate of the existence of God. I don't think that was in question at all. Let me finish this, okay? And then you can respond. But how does she know the truth? Greg's heard me talk about this in other occasions from the orthodox perspective where they glory in contradictions and antinomies. You've heard the statement Bruner made it. Contradiction is the hallmark of truth. Okay, let's assume that that's the case. Contradiction is the hallmark of truth. Now God says, don't eat at a tree. Serpent comes along and says, you know, eat at a tree. Because God says if you eat a tree, you will D, if A, B will follow. Okay? Satan says if you eat of the tree, you will not die, but you will be as God. Now God says if A, then B. Satan comes along and says, if A, then none be okay. He's pretty sharp. She doesn't have the noetic effects of sin mess her up yet. You see and she says that's a contradiction. Satan is speaking in direct contradiction to what my creator, who I know to be God, has commanded me to do. Okay, but says Eve, contradiction is the hallmark of truth. Huh? So the serpent must be speaking the truth. God is the truth. The serpent must be representative of God. It's my moral duty to eat of the tree. That's how neo orthodoxy works with that one. Okay, so what I'm saying is rationality and the law of contradiction was built into that very first test situation. That where mankind faced the assault of the enemy. She was using reason in making that decision to obey or disobey God.

Can I respond one more time?

This recording has been released into the public domain by the Bonson Institute. Duplication, sharing and distribution is encouraged. For more information about the life and Ministry of Dr. Greg L. Bonson, visit our website, bonsoninstitute.com where we aim to bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.