"The Critique of Bahnsen's Apologetic, by Andrew C. Baine"
A Response
Baine wrote, "He [Bahnsen] arrived at this awkward position by combining a truth with a falsehood. Firstly, he correctly assumed that God and the Trinity cannot be separated." But what, mind you, is that falsehood he combined, Mr. Baine? He claims that Bahnsen wrongfully assumes that every person (unbelievers included) know God. If Baine understood the basic understanding of Reformed covenant theology, he wouldn't have a problem with it, but apparently he doesn't. To put it simply, all men are in covenant relationship with God. That is exactly what Paul stresses in Romans 1, and the language used in the context is indicative of man's relationship with God. That is why Bahnsen concluded that unbelievers are secrete believers. So is it that surprising then that Bahnsen would then conclude that they know of the Trinity (or their ability to understand it) and predestination? No. If man, in his heart of hearts, knows God, then the obvious conclusion would be that he knows God as he is, in his divine power (Rom. 1:20) and nature, being evident since creation. In essence, Mr. Baine is going against the source of truth, the presupposition every Christian should hold dear, vis-à-vis sola scriptura. If the Christian does not have that, he has rationalism or empiricism. Furthermore, Paul states that the unbeliever is without excuse: "For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse." (ESV) Bahnsen then denies that man just has some "general" idea about God, because Paul says that since the beginning man knows God, the living and true God. Here's the Greek for Mr. Baine: gnontes ton theon. And to my surprise, he has that in his video! How could he miss it? The Greek is clear when it renders the article ton.
He then mixes the knowledge of the first man, in effect saying that he needed to hear God give him instructions. Well obviously! It is of no surprise then that the Westminster divines wrote, "How doth it appear that there is a God? The very light of nature in man, and the works of God, declare plainly that there is a God; but his word and Spirit only do sufficiently and effectually reveal him unto men for their salvation." Calvin himself said that men need direction because we are "idol factories." Man left on his own devises his own deities. In Romans 1 the effect is seen in the arrogance of man of devising his or her way in worship. That is not to say that men don't know God. Paul would then be contradicting himself if he said men known the ton theon and turn around and say, "Well, men really don't know God." Man is just not consistent in believing that belief he already has. And it is of no surprise then that Bahnsen solidified his dissertation on self-deception. Man willfully makes himself an unbeliever. He has to lie to himself in order to believe it. Baine then remarks, "Was Bahnsen joking? Can you be cold and not believe you are cold?" The answer to that is yes, and that is the shock that unbelievers have to face. This is the amazing stupidity that unbelievers make—they force themselves to not believe the obviously true axioms of life.
Certain of the paradoxes that men and women hold are merely paradoxical: one believes that Y is false yet forces him or herself that Y is true. This is a point in which Baine argues that Bahnsen never solves the paradox; and the reason Bahnsen "doesn't solve" his paradox is because it is only an "apparent paradox." That is to say that the paradox only has the appearance of being paradoxical. He then mixes the corollary by quoting Hebrews 11:3 that faith comes by hearing. But we've already established that men are idol factories and that men need the word of God to establish, and refute, the apparent paradox of self-deception.
No comments:
Post a Comment