Book Review: Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen
If you’re familiar with Presuppositional Apologetics, the first third of the book will seem a bit redundant, in that information presented is information you’re quite familiar with already.
The rest of the book is a good read.
Bahnsen presents the pressupositional methodology of Apologetics, which basically says that the Triune God of Scripture is the foundation of our Ethics, logic, and epistemology. Without the Christian God, unbelievers can not account for their standard of ethics, logic and knowledge.
God is the ultimate foundation on our moral standard. We say that murder and rape is evil, but ultimately how is that moral statement even significant. In a purely naturalistic worldview, does not survival of the fittest reign? God is the foundation on what is right and wrong, because He is the all powerful God.
God is also the foundation of our reasoning. In a naturalistic worldview, how do we account for our reasoning? In other words, where do the laws of logic ultimately stem from? Who says the law of non contradiction is actually a useful and true law to abide by? Who says a cat can be an animal and at the same time a cat can not be an animal? These laws of logic, which underly all conversation are ultimately founded on the logic of God. God being logical, created us in his image; therefore we are logical beings. Logic is a communicable attribute of God.
God is also the foundation of all epistemological claims. Epistemology is the philosophy of knowledge. When studying epistemology we study how we know things; what is the difference between belief and concrete knowledge; when we know something, do we truly know it? Whenever dealing with these type of questions, we deal with the area of epistemology. The simplest way to explain this concept of infinite regress regarding epistemological claims is to provide a simple life example. “Apple designed the iPhone.” This is a knowledge claim. If I continue to ask “How do you know?” over and over again, you could finally give up and say, “Well, ultimately I don’t know. Apple could be a Indonesian brand, putting on a facade.” Ultimately our knowledge claims must be brought to an ultimate source. If we ask “How do you know” as many times as possible, ultimately there has to be a stopping point, or all knowledge claims are basically nonsense. God is the Christian’s ultimate source of knowledge. We can know things, because God knows things and has given us revelation, claiming that He knows things and that we are created in His image, therefore we have the ability to know things.
Okay. Having digressed a bit. The above information only lays out the basic point of Always Ready by Greg Bahnsen.
Most well known Apologetics is Evidential or Classical. Presuppositional Apologetics argues, as Van Til says, not merely the facts (Evidentialism) but the “philosophy of facts”.
This apologetic challenges the foundation of our view on right end wrong, reasoning, and the ability the know things.
If you are familiar with Presuppositional Apologetics, this is a great classic addition to that knowledge. If you are beginning your journey of Apologetics Against all Opposition by Bahnsen is probably a better place to start.
One thing to consider when reading any Apologetics book, is how this relates to the great commission. From the Apologetics I’ve read and studied, I personally find it hard to relate Apologetics to missions, because Apologetics is not the gospel.
Remember the Gospel when doing apologetics and set apart Christ as Lord in your heart (1st Peter 3:15). God is the foundation of everything.
If anything remember this:
Apologetics is not Evangelism. Evangelism is not Apologetics. Evangelism should include Apologetics. Apologetics needs to lead to Evangelism .
I do love what presuppositionalism has to offer, especially by way of the transcendental argument(s), and the emphasis on scripture (or their understanding of certain passages that support their view). There are, however, many confused notions throughout. For example, in properly damning so-called theological rationalism, the presuppositional quest for "certainty" as grounded in the triune God is turns out to be a property of the believer (i.e., psychological certainty) and not the certainty of propositions for which it strives to ground (certainty is not a property of truth). That is a conflation and confusion that can be found throughout the writings of Van Til et seq.. Epistemically speaking, I do not need to be logically certain to be justified in the beliefs I hold (whether a believer or unbeliever).
ReplyDeleteMoreover, the logical howlers of "circularity" and "begging the question" are frankly devastating to presuppositionalism methodology although readily embraced by some writers and acknowledged others, including John Frame. That is to say, it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian! Frame admits as much in the 5 Views book on apologetics. Do I really presuppose presuppositionalism when I argue, or could I reject presuppositionalism as a meta-apologetic? Think about the question before you respond. and yes, I know he counter argument that all views are circular--but does that get the presuppositionalist off the hook? I don't think so.
I think one would do much better in immersing themselves in the writings of the Reformed epistemology. Or even better, I personally embrace the cumulative case approach whereby much of what is pressed by presuppositionalists fits nicely in my understanding of the doctrine of divine conceptualism (which would include the laws of logic, numbers. etc.) I freely admit that I hold to realism when it comes to numbers, et seq., but I do not need to subscribe to this particular meta-apologetical methodology. I could simply hold to a cumulative case methodology and have a hearty understanding of divine conceptualism in my theological repertoire.
Lastly, I think theological the reformed-presuppositional understanding on the doctrine of God (theology proper) is faulty on numerous points, including immutability, divine timelessness, and simplicity (the so-called "eternalist" view). These are very weighty issues my young squire, but and would need to be unpacked in a different context.
When I became a believer, I also held to a particular understanding of apologetics--the classical view (or two-step view), whereby we show evidence that there is a creator and then argue for the truth claims of the resurrection. And frankly, presuppositionalism was regarded as the "enemy" of apologetics when I was in seminary.
I still believe there is much to the classical view that I embrace. However, things began to change when I started studying philosophy and theology proper, and I can see on my own what is presupposed (not defended) by the presuppositionalist methodology. Once I honed my mind and understanding, I no longer needed to rely on my teachers or books to see the fault lines.
This is a lifetime marathon of study and I can see you are much like I am in that you will always read and cultivate your understanding. I want to help you get there faster by cutting to the chase so-to-speak which is why I suggested read mapping apologetics as an introduction to all of the competing views. You already have a very deep understanding of presuppositionalism (I see that it is dear to your heart). Well . . . it is time to move on and increase your learning. I will never tell you that you are wrong (unless you are wrong) for holding to some view or another. as long as it is orthodox and true, spread your wings a little more.
Thank you Keith for your response. Regarding philosophical objections to pressup, I am still beginning to study pressup and am not entirely familiar with some of the objections, but have heard of the concepts presented above. One thing I am noticing in my reading of pressup in particular is the comprehensiveness of my own personal library. I am noting works that are referenced in some of my books, and those referenced works are on my bookshelf. I can pick them up, and read them myself.
DeleteI do believe there appear to be two stages in library development. The first stage is building a collection and coming to the realization that you have at least one book on essentially every major topic. The second stage (takes longer) is when you read a book by Bahnsen and note that the books he references are books that you have yourself.
It is the second stage that takes longer but derives more excitement. I’m developing some curriculum for an apologetics course for the youth and having a developed library of multi-cross referencing is quite beneficial.
One thing I do see as I’m particularly reading Van Til and other Neo-Calvinist writers is the comprehensiveness of the Christian World and Life view. Van Til for apologetics, Kuyper for Pro Rege and Common Grace, and Bavinck for Theology.
One thing I appreciate about Van Til is his massive amount of topics he addresses in his writing. You want theology, he has. You want philosophy, he has some of it (although I’ll be digging into some dooyeweerd soon).
A issue I’m seeing thus far with pressup is the lack of focus on the moral failings of people. I haven’t read any book by Van Til yet but have read the equivalent of 100+ of Van Til pages in Greg Bahnsen’s Analysis and readings. So far there is much stress on the epistemological sinfulness, which I agree with, but do not see this as reaching toward the gospel as easily as the presuposing of moral absolutes. In that one who hears that their worldview doesn’t account for knowledge, more likely than not, will just count their worldview as arbitrary and move on in their life. But if one points out to the “Covenant Breaker” as morally reprobate without God, then you may address the moral issue pressupositionally but of more benefit through the lens of pressup point out that the unbeliever needs to turn from their sinfulness.
There is also a visible disconnect with apologetics and evangelism. As I have made it a mantra of sorts: Apologetics is not Evangelism. Evangelism is not Apologetics. Evangelism should include apologetics. Apologetics must necessarily lead to Evangelism. This is quite obvious in evidentialism and Classical, but also present in pressup (although “deceivingly” concealed).
Anyways. Long story short. Thanks.