Sunday, February 06, 2011

Greg Bahnsen on YouTube

I just stumbled upon a Greg Bahnsen YouTube page. I'm sure many of you already knew about this, but well, no one told me. Here's a sample:

Posted by at
Labels:

7 comments:

Andrew said...

I love to fantasize about a Greg Bahnsen/Christopher Hitchens debate. It's tempting to wonder why God didn't leave the good Dr. here long enough to engage some of the current crop of atheist "intellectuals". Oh well, at least he was here long enough to show us how to expose their silliness. And we do have the Whites, Wilsons, and Koukls etc... of the world. So I guess he has provided; but it is still a tantalizing thought.

4:36 PM, February 06, 2011
Paul said...

Andrew,

Do you have the mp3's of the very famous and taught-in-seminary-apologetics-classes debate between Bahnsen and Gordon Stein? Stein was the 1980's equivalent of Hitchens, et al.

If you don't have it, I'll send you a link.

Bahnsen "owned" Stein in that one!

Peace.

12:51 AM, February 07, 2011
Paul said...

James,

Sorry to not have informed you of Bahnsen on YouTube.

I thought you knew.

Peace.

12:52 AM, February 07, 2011
The Pedagogue said...

I found your blog when I searched for pictures of Luther. Very good to read! Bahnsen is preaching the gospel of Platonic reality more than anything in this clip; love the discussion of logic, but it seems to engender an endless debate. From my perspective, what really separates the 'believers' and 'unbelievers' is just that - belief - and I refuse to accept that the belief is based entirely on logic; rather, it is based on faith. When the 'believer' meets the 'unbeliever' on the plane of logic to discuss God, it's rather removed from his actual faith in God. In other words, I believe in God b/c of faith - logical arguments may very well strengthen that belief in my own mind, but they are not the reason for my belief. The thoughts that my 'logic' about God uses lead to a different conclusion than that of the 'unbeliever'; if all it took was explaining those thoughts to the 'unbeliever', convincing him would be easy. The difference, as I see it, is the predetermined belief (requiring faith) that God is real, or in the unbeliever's case, the predetermined belief that God is not real (though that is a belief that CAN be arrived at purely by logic; not that 'unbelievers' necessarily do arrive there through logic).
Is that logical (ha)?

8:04 PM, February 08, 2011
Paul said...

Hi The Pedagogue,

It sounds like you would enjoy studying Bahnsen. He has been described as the greatest debater of the 20th century and was certainly the greatest Christian debater.

Bahnsen derived his method from his teacher, Cornelius Van Til. So while it may be tinged with Platonism it is more indebted to Kant but only ultimately owing the Scriptures.

The tag line most often associate with him and his proof for the existence of God is "the impossibility of the contrary." In other words, if God doesn't exist, then nothing else can have any possible explanation.

He left us about 1,500 lectures and many books which can be found here:

http://www.cmfnow.com/mp3-bahnsen.aspx

The lectures are only $2 apiece and quite the bargain at that rate!

Good luck in your searching.

Peace.

1:10 AM, February 09, 2011
James Swan said...

I refuse to accept that the belief is based entirely on logic; rather, it is based on faith

Well first, I'm glad you liked the Luther tidbits here on the blog.

Bahnsen would probably say belief in God is a.... presupposition, or founding truth claim.

The Bahnsen / Van Til crowd did a good service for the church by pointing out that each human being has a set of unproven core beliefs, which are accepted on... faith.

3:46 PM, February 10, 2011
James Swan said...

Sorry to not have informed you of Bahnsen on YouTube.

Well, most people don't realize I actually have other books besides Luther in my library.

3:48 PM, February 10, 2011

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)