on June 1, 2007 by pat in christianity, society, Comments (5)
Conclusion to the Hitchens vs. Wilson debate
Christianity Today finished their final installment of the Hitchens vs. Wilson debate. During this series I was led to read the Great Debate between Bahnsen and Stein where Bahnsen dismantles Stein’s arguments using presuppositional apologetics. Many Christians cheered that great debate throughout the Internet commentary but I for one found it enlightening but in some degree a lost opportunity. You see, apologetics can and should teach Christians to defend opposing beliefs but it should also state what they believe, what they stand for, and whom they follow. Most debates I hear and read seem to dismantle the arguments of their opponent yet missing the greater opportunity to herald forth the Gospel. The biblical apologetic doesn’t end in winning an argument but instead aim to clearly explain the Gospel. It goes more than just put off, it also puts on.
The greater purpose of the apologetic debates is not to prove that the atheist is an idiot, immoral, or idolatrous. Instead it should lead them to Christ who can save them. Here’s the Apostle Paul’s approach:
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1Cor 6:9-11
Paul’s goal is not to declare the sinfulness, logical inferiority, stubbornness of his opposers. Yes all those things may be true, but the greater reason for his ministry was to declare the Gospel of Christ to all. In that passage above you hear the heart cry of Paul to win those whom he knew people at Corinth once were themselves – rebellious and devoid of Christ. We should not miss the forest in the trees as we get caught up in winning arguments instead of winning people to Christ. Kudos to Doug Wilson for doing just that.
TimK
June 4, 2007 @ 6:44 pm
Hey, Patrick. Yeah, it’s that “Tim”. It has been a while but I have been following your website, off and on.
You mentioned that you felt the Bahnsen-Stein debate was a lost opportunity. Would you please elaborate on this?
patrick
June 4, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
Tim!
Good to hear from you brother! Before I begin, prior to reading the “great debate” PDF I’ve not heard of Bahnsen or Stein. Little did I know just how much Bahnsen has contributed to that field of presupp. apologetics. Also I am very young in all the nuances and finer points of the broad range of apologetics. Having not read any of those books Bahnsen has written, I say that the debate was enlightening in how apologetics can be employed to prove that even the atheists most fundamental arguments rests on presuppositions that are unwarranted and are self-refuting because at the very end they too place faith on what they believe.
Now when I say it was in some degree a lost opportunity, I mean that the Gospel could have been more fully presented for the unbelieving camp listening/watching to that debate and more importantly presented to Dr. Stein.
I suppose I would have hoped more for an evangelistic conclusion to the debate rather than leaving you with the sense (only) that the clear winner was Bahnsen who tore down the arguments of Stein masterfully proving clearly that the immaterial universal laws of reason and logic are derived from the nature of God.
I would have hoped that Bahnsen would have also built up arguments for why man exists in light of God who created him and the role of God in the salvation of a sinner through the redemption of Christ. Bahnsen appealed to the audience using Romans for the “suppression of truth”, 1Cor for God making foolish the things of this world.. but it seemed like he ended by proving that God exists (which is great since that’s what the debate was really about) however from an evangelistic perspective it would have been better if he would have not only placed the atheist in the place where “yes, I now see the arguments for the existence of God, now I also see that God has a role in saving me through His Son.” That would have been much better.
TimK
June 5, 2007 @ 7:30 pm
Doh! I had a big ol’ response but didn’t do the math problem. Doh!
patrick
June 6, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Sorry about that Tim.. but without that little CAPTCHA my site would be inundated with spam comments.