Basic Training for Defending the Faith: Worldviews in Conflict (Greg Bahnsen)

This is the third part in an "ancient" series on apologetic by the late Greg Bahnsen. He comes from the presuppositional school of apologetics. Hopefully this admittedly dated series will provide some insight into the world of apologetics.

For the most part, this is simply a Biblical representation of the battle between God's children and Satan's children. There shouldn't be any new material for the Bible student. However, around the twenty-fourth minute, Bahnsen begins to enter into some interesting questions.

"What should we say when we agree with world?", "What should our response be when the world seems to be in agreement with us in many aspects of our lives?", "Which worldview has comported to the other?" I believe many Christians would answer that this isn't a bad thing and neither worldview has condescended to the other. Now it's time to ask, how seriously do we take those Biblical passages we just talked about? How feverishly is the serpent's seed at war with the promised children of Eve and Sarah?

There are two ways to respond. The first is that the church has collapsed into failure. The second, and more important to apologetics, is that the world is reaching a conclusion that is illogical to their world philosophy. A practical example of this would be the contradiction of evolution/survival of the fittest with healthcare, medicare, etc. I'm not declaring either of those two items immoral or illogical. But they don't coexist except in a fallen and logical deceived world.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Bahnsen is right about the desire to accept Biblical teaching without accepting Biblical teaching. We don't need to look far past Universalism, Unitarianism, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, and Bart Ehrman. All these attempt to strip out the judging truth of the Bible while retaining the practical social value of the Scriptures.

 

Joshua Torrey is the sole proprietor of Torrey Gazette (don't tell Alaina) and the fullness of its editorial process. That means everything wrong with TG can legitimately be blamed on him.