You can get it here too. Scroll down the page a little ways, and it's the third link under the Dr. Greg Bahnsen heading.
Oh well then, by all means!Originally posted by Hilston
Welcome back. There are some questions that have been awaiting your return:
Yes.The context is not being ashamed of the gospel. Paul goes on to describe those who oppose the truth, giving us a clear understanding of what makes their professed atheism tick. Do you agree with the Bible that says Zakath has already had sufficient proof of God's existence?
Ya know I can honestly say I have no idea as to what sort of a point your making.Does "not being ashamed of the gospel" have anything to do with a Christian here on earth, Novice?
Ya mean like if Bob Enyart used the MATRIX or Blade Runner as the basis for his arguments?Originally posted by Hilston
In fact, the things that I like about Bob Enyart are the very reason that I lament the unbiblical argumentation he uses. If he were to use the biblical apologetic method, he would be devastating.
Originally posted by Knight
Praise the Lord Bob evangelizes his way and not NATEDOG's and Jim's!
I was an atheist just like Zakath! The first step in me becomming a Christian was watching Bob destroy an atheistic evolutionist on his TV show one night using the exact same arguments he is using in the BR VII.
Now me, my wife and all of our 5 children, my sister her husband all of their children (some are grown up) and even my father will be with the Lord in heaven! Thank you Bob!
Briefly stated, presuppositionalism is a uniquely biblical approach to apologetics, based on biblical examples and biblical principles, which employs evidence and arguments in a uniquely biblical way. Frankly, I was hoping you would embrace the apologetic once you heard it articulated. I urge you to find out what presuppositional argumentation actually is and how it profoundly differs from evidentialism (a.k.a. Classical Apologetics).
As an aside, while I disagree with much of your doctrinal views, I appreciate the example you set for having a zeal and enthusiasm for the truth. I especially like your repudiation of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" anti-truth of modern christendom.
Originally posted by Hilston
I especially like your repudiation of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" anti-truth of modern christendom.
Originally posted by Hilston
Of course not. Did you see that part where I said, "I really should not have to explain this to you"?
All forms? No exclusions? Does the Bible allow for even unbiblical forms of reasoning and argumentation? Perhaps you can give an example of this: The Bible says "Answer NOT a fool according to his folly." Applying your understanding of 1Co 9:19, give me an example of how NOT to answer a fool according to his folly. Don't skip this, Scrimshaw. Your integrity is at stake here.
Really? Cool. A guy down the street says he wishes he could have a ministry sharing the gospel with Playboy centerfolds and exotic dancers. I'll tell him that Paul says it OK as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared.
I'm going to ask you a question, and please think carefully before you answer: Do you think, when Paul says, "all possible means" that there any any exclusions to that statement? If yes, then what exclusions? If no, then do you think Paul is saying it would be OK for someone to become a prostitute in order to save prostitutes?
Why do you feed into the anti-theist lie? You don't have to prove what they already know and are lying about.
I would not say so simplistically "The Bible says so" (although it's not a bad start) but rather, "Here is what the Bible says about that." Would you be averse to that kind of answer?
It wouldn't mean anything ultimately even if I DID believe the Q'uran were true.
You comparing apples and oranges, Scrimshaw. I am critiquing Bob Enyart for using unbiblical argumentation.
I don't fault God's word at all. It sufficiently condemns this form of reasoning, and I am pointing it out.
I think the debate is going better than I first imagined.Originally posted by NATEDOG
Just a quick question for you guys.
After reading Zakath's last post, how do you think the debate is going?
Did you take speling in skool?Did you take grammer in school?
Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, ...
I'll ask the question again. I want an example of how NOT to answer a fool according to his folly.The folly of an atheist is that they disbelieve in God who has made his existence obvious through Creation. Therefore, the only way one could answer an athiest "according to his folly" is if they answered the atheist in a way that "disbelieved in Creator" also, because that is the atheist FOLLY.
Scrimshaw, since you claim I foolishly misapplied the Prov. 26:4,5, please give me the correct application of the verse. Thanks.Another example of answering a fool according his folly would be answering YOUR foolish arugment in this thread. For example, you foolishly used Proverbs 26:4,5 to argue against Bob's method of argument, ...
Scrimshaw, if that is what you believe that verse is saying, then you too are sinning by sharing your knowledge. Clearly it's not what the verse means.... but, that act in itself is an unbiblical act because Proverbs also says - Proverbs 12:23 - A prudent man keeps his knowledge to himself, but the heart of fools blurts out folly. So we must believe that you are NOT a prudent man but a fool, because you did not keep your knowledge to yourself but opened this thread.
I've used Proverbs, Acts, Romans, Psalms. There are plenty more references to make the point. These ludicrous charges do not bode well for you, Scrimshaw. With every jab and the increasingly desultory points you make, you sound more and more desperate.So if we are to use Proverbs as our textbook for debate method, ...
Right, so you admit there are exclusions. Will you now revise your claim that the manner doesn't matter "as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared"?Actually, we know of direct commands not to look at women lustfully, ...
Prov. 26:4,5 is explicit. The condemnation of erroneous argumentation in scripture is explicit, and the endorsement of proper argumentation in scripture is explicit. Please see my previous posts.... but we do not know of any direct commands that say - "thou shalt not debate an atheist by appealing to the laws of physics, or referring to God as an intelligent designer". Once you find that verse for me, I'll gladly concede my argument.
... You forget what Paul said here:
1 COR 9:19 -- "Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings."
Would you agree it is a violation of the law of God to lie? To endorse a lie? To perpetuate a lie? That is what is happening when someone allows a person to claim to be an atheist and to claim that they haven't seen enough evidence for God's existence and attributes. Would you allow an alcoholic person continue to deny being an alcoholic? Would you allow a person to continue through life thinking that he is good enough to attain heaven without Christ? If not, then why would you allow someone to claim that they haven't seen enough evidence to believe in God?The exclusions are obvious - excluded is all means that would violate a law of God.
I'm not opposed to describing Jesus Christ as an intelligent designer or appealing to the laws of physics as long as it is done in the biblical way. What I'm opposed to is the failure to confront the lie of atheism, which is their claim regarding the insufficiency of evidence. It is biblically wrong to argue by first affirming a lie and, in this case, the myth that the anti-theist hasn't had sufficient proof for God's existence.Unforturnately for your hopelessly misguided arguments, there is no law of God that states you cannot call God an intelligent designer or appeal to the laws of physics when discussing the existence of God with a nonbeliever.
A rebuke of what? Their claim of insufficient evidence? Or their claim of God not existing? You can't prove they've had sufficient evidence by showing more evidence. That's a self-refuting proposition.If they already know and lie about the existence of God, then reiterating the evidence that reveals the existence of the Creator would function as a rebuke.
I agree. But Bob is not refuting the atheist lie (i.e. "there is not enough evidence and I don't believe in God"). Instead, he has bought into it. If Bob were rather showing Zakath that Zakath already knows God exists, as Paul did with the Athenians on Mars Hill (Acts 17:18ff), we would not be having this discussion. Bob is not showing Zakath the cookie he stole and lied about. Bob is trying instead to prove there is a cookie missing (which Zakath already knows but denies knowing).It'd be like showing the missing cookie to a child who stole it from the cookie jar and hid the cookie under his bed. Simply presenting the evidence that refutes the atheist lie is a good thing, and functions as a rebuke. There is nothing unbiblical about it.
The Bible is truth. Declaring the truth changes lives. The spoken Word of God is the sword of the Spirit (Eph 6:17). Paul declared the gospel without shame, even to those who disregarded the scriptures and the revelation of God.You don't get it do you? If the person you are speaking to considers the Bible to be an ancient book fully fallacies and myths, what good would appealing to it be?
No. I'm saying it is a lie for the anti-theist to claim that they have not seen enough evidence for God's existence. He has seen sufficient evidence and lies to himself and everyone else about it. Knowing the truth, yet suppressing it in unrighteousness, the anti-theist can still hear the declaration of Scripture and be moved by it. He may say, "Don't quote that book to me, it is meaningless to me," but in reality it is affecting him, whether by softening or hardening, but affecting him nonetheless.Are you going to argue that everyone is really a "Christian" deep down inside; so everyone is truely a bible-believer, but many lie about that as well?? Where exactly is your argument headed?
David was declaring the same thing as Paul. There is sufficient evidence, the heavens declare it, the skies proclaim it, day after day, night after night. Therefore, Zakath is believing a lie, the lie that he has not seen enough evidence to believe in God. He has seen sufficient evidence. He can't escape it. Offering him more evidence only perpetuates the myth, and by not having that myth confroned and dismantled, Zakath is left wiser in his own conceit.In fact, David used this exact same argument in Psalms 19 -
Psalms 19:1,2 - "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge."
You're wrong. Bob's arguments are aimed at exposing the lie of atheism, which is the belief that there is no God. But there is no such thing as atheism. Bob is trying to discredit something that doesn't really exist. What Bob ought to be arguing against is the lie that Zakath doesn't believe in God, just as Paul argued with the Athenians. Paul rebuked them for having the "Unknown God" altar. Bob should rebuke Zakath for his "Unknown God" altar.This knowledge displayed by creation not only expresses the existence of God, but His glory as well. Even if there are those who knowingly suppress this knowledge, exposing their deceitful tactics would function as a rebuke; and there is no better way of exposing a lie than by emphasizing the evidences that prove it to be a lie..........and that is exactly what Bob's arguments are doing.