Image via Wikipedia“…the apologist cannot attempt to persuade the unbeliever by using the unbeliever’s style of thought or standards of evidence and truth, etc. Such a procedure simply will not woo him to Christ but encourage him to assert his own autonomous authority over Christ’s claims.” -- Greg Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith (100)Bahnsen was a leading advocate of the presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics.
h/t Apologetics 315, which has a review of Always Ready, here.
4 comments:
The issue is complex. I do not fully agree with him. In modern times we must appeal both to faith and reason, and demonstrate that faith has a rational basis, and that reason has a faith background.
Agreed. This holds true for a lot of other beliefs too. (real conservative)
Very nice point, Orlando. Of course, faith and reason are not two dichotomous points -- faith entails reason. I want to study presuppositionalism a bit, and have a book on my shelf.
Real con -- thanks for all your comments on this blog.
The problem with using the unbeliever's style of thought is that such usage gives the unbeliever's style of thought subliminal superiority over your own style of thought. This is true in Christianity just as it is true in politics or academics or business etc etc etc. St Paul tried to argue philosophy with the philosophers and got his butt handed to him on a platter. Why? Because he tried to establish common ground where no common ground exists. This basic fact is true. Our Christian faith is completely rational and contains a complete world view that all other world views are but pale imitations. That being said when a Christian tries to argue 'rationally' with a rationalist the rationalist has won the argument before the argument began. Begin with "wisdom" and you will end up looking like a fool. Begin with foolishness and you will end up looking like Solomon.
Post a Comment