ARCHIVE: Bob Enyart has already lost the debate ...

[Hilston]

Bob Enyart Debates As If The Bible Were False: The Biblical Explanation of Bob Enyart's Defeat (or, "How Bob Enyart Lost The Debate With His Very First Post" or, "Who is right, Bob Enyart? Or the Bible?")

As a believer in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, I take its words seriously and apply them to everyday life as much as possible. However, in reading the debate between Bob Enyart and Zakath, I am once again confronted with the question: "Could the Bible be wrong about this?" Or, "Who is right, Bob Enyart? Or the Bible?"

About what, you ask? Namely, could the Bible be wrong about what it says of those who reject the existence of God? First, here is what the Bible say of those who reject the existence of God: They already know the truth, but they hold (suppress) it in unrighteousness; [Ro 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;]
They innately know God, for He has sufficiently revealed Himself to them; [Ro 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.]
They already see and are confronted with the knowledge of God's existence via the creation; [Ro 1:20a For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;]
They have no defense. [Ro 1:20b ... so that they are without excuse:. ]

If these things are true, then Mr. Enyart has implicitly undermined every one of them. The Bible says Zakath already knows the truth, but is suppressing it in unrighteousness. That is to say, Zakath already believes in God's existence, but he aggressively denies it in his unrighteousness. By not confronting Zakath with the falsity of his atheistic claim, Mr. Enyart has implicitly supported an unbiblical claim. He has tacitly granted to Zakath his claim of atheism, which the Bible says is false.
The Bible says Zakath not only knows the truth, but that God has sufficiently revealed Himself to Zakath. By trying to convince Zakath of what Zakath already knows to be true (i.e. God's existence), Mr. Enyart implies that God has not sufficiently done the job, and that God now needs Mr. Enyart's help to further convince Zakath.
The Bible says Zakath has already seen sufficient evidence from God's creation, that he has sufficiently understood them to the point of grasping the eternal power and Godhead of the Creator. However, Mr. Enyart proceeds as if this verse isn't in the Bible, as if further evidence is needed, thus affirming Zakath's unbiblical claim (lie) that he has not seen sufficient evidence to convince him of God's existence.
The Bible says Zakath is "anapologetous," that is "without a defense." How is it then that Mr. Enyart is asking Zakath to present a defense? To offer Zakath the opportunity to present evidence is itself unbiblical. How is it even possible when the Bible says that Zakath has none. One might argue that it has not been a good one. I would agree. However, there are atheists reading the debate who think he's doing pretty well. By actually entertaining and addressing the "defenses" Zakath presents, Mr. Enyart is again undermining the claims of scripture. Zakath should not be able to say a word without first justifying the grounds upon which he says it, which he cannot do on an atheistic worldview. Rather than challenging Zakath to present scientific evidence for his atheism, a biblical approach would be to show how Zakath is a fool for denying his belief in God and to show Zakath that he cannot even make a sentence, let alone present scientific evidence, or use science himself, outside of a Biblical worldview.By pretending that Zakath is truly an atheist (really there is no such thing), by pretending that God has not already sufficiently revealed Himself to Zakath, by pretending that Zakath has not seen enough evidence to ascertain God's existence, and by pretending that Zakath can actually present a defense of his godless beliefs, Mr. Enyart has answered the fool according to his folly, thus becoming like him (Prov 26:4,5). He should, instead, be answering the fool NOT according to his folly, that is, biblically, or else the fool will become wiser in his own conceit. Prov. 26:4,5 may appear to comprise two contradictory statements, but they actually describe a two-fold tack for answering the fool. Answering the fool "not according to his folly" is the positive presentation of the truth. We ought to properly presuppose the biblical worldview (after all, the so-called atheist is actually a defiant believer -- not in the "saved" sense of the word -- but in the rational sense of it) and demonstrate to the gainsayer its internal coherence. Answering the fool "according to his folly" is the negative critique of the gainsayer's position. That is, we ought to apply the gainsayer's presuppositions to his own arguments in order to demonstrate that the fool's worldview leads to incoherence and ultimately, on his worldview, the destruction of all knowledge.

My last point (for now) is this: Instead of showing the sufficiency of scripture that anyone could use to refute Zakath, Mr. Enyart appeals to the technical jargon and details of various claims of science and fields of discipline outside of scripture, furthering the misconception that one needs to know a lot about science in order to debate a so-called atheist.

In summary:

Ps 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God ..."

Why is it the fool who says there is no God? Because, as scriptures state, they already know the existence of God, and of His eternal power and Godhead, because God has, both innately and through the creation, sufficiently revealed Himself to them. This is why the self-professed atheist is a fool and without a defense. He already knows, but chooses to suppress the truth of God in his unrighteousness. By pursuing the line of questioning he has chosen, Mr. Enyart reinforces the lies Zakath has come to convince himself, and thus becomes like him.

Pr 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.

Jim

[novice]

Hilston are you kidding?

You state:The Bible says Zakath is "anapologetous," that is "without a defense." How is it then that Mr. Enyart is asking Zakath to present a defense? To offer Zakath the opportunity to present evidence is itself unbiblical.Its a debate!!!:doh:

I realize you have an axe to grind but it seems to me your having a tough time seeing the trees through your forest.

[Hilston]

Novice,

The Bible says Zakath has no argument, no defense. That is, the self-professed atheist is not able to coherently engage a debate without hoisting himself on his own petard. This is the weakness of all atheistic arguments, and attacking this point is the approach the biblical apologist ought to take. Not the one Mr. Enyart is employing. No where in scripture do we find saints debating self-professing atheists to prove God's existence. Never once. They already know of His existence, but they go through life pretending they need more proof, more evidence. That's why the so-called atheist is a fool. But instead of challenging the professing atheist on that fundamental point, Mr. Enyart nullifies the Bible's method and instead uses his own, thereby perpetuating the myth of atheism by accommodating Zakath's request for evidence.

What do you think Paul means when he says they are without a defense?

[novice]

Originally posted by Hilston
Novice,

The Bible says Zakath has no argument, no defense.The Bible says Zakath will not have a excuse for himself to God!

What would that have to do with debating a Christian here on earth? NOTHING!!!

Furthermore... asking someone to provide a defense is not stating they HAVE a defense. Does that makes sense to you?

In other words a sinful man may think he has a defense or an excuse. He may have convinced himself of his atheistic world-view. Asking him to present his defense might be the first step in showing him that HE DOESN'T have a defense (or more specifically an "excuse").

But then again, Bob isn't God and this isn't judgment day so I think your point is about as silly as humanly possible.

[cheeezywheeezy]

you write:

"Bob Enyart Debates As If The Bible Were False:"

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Have you ever heard Bob debate the existence of God before? You judge an entire debate from one post?

Get the audio series "Bob Debates and Arkansas Atheist"

He starts out the same way...

First he shows that a supernatural being exists...

He then shows what the attributes of this being are...

He then shows that this supernatural being is indeed the God of the Bible...

IF I were to judge the rest of your posts based on this one post of yours...as you have judged Bobs entire debate on his first post...then I can only come to the conclusion that your other posts will not be worth my time.

[Hilston]

Novice writes:The Bible says Zakath will not have a excuse for himself to God!Where? 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?

Novice writes:What would that have to do with debating a Christian here on earth? NOTHING!!!Does "not being ashamed of the gospel" have anything to do with a Christian here on earth?

Novice writes:Furthermore... asking someone to provide a defense is not stating they HAVE a defense. Does that makes sense to you?You already know they don't have one. Why perpetuate the myth? Why not go for the jugular and show them why they have no defense?

Novice writes:In other words a sinful man may think he has a defense or an excuse. He may have convinced himself of his atheistic world-view. Asking him to present his defense might be the first step in showing him that HE DOESN'T have a defense (or more specifically an "excuse").The Bible disagrees with you. The Bible says this is the first step of enabling him to be wiser in his own conceit. Just watch. I predict this very thing -- so does the Bible (Pr 26:4,5). Zakath will indeed come away from this more full of himself and his atheistic worldview than he started. Just. Watch.

Jim

[Hilston]

Cheezywheezy writes:You judge an entire debate from one post?That's all it takes, cheezywheeezy. The second post is further affirmation.

Cheezywheezy writes:Get the audio series "Bob Debates and Arkansas Atheist"I've downloaded the series, cheezywheeezy. It only further solidified how unbiblical the whole approach is.

Cheeezywheezy writes:He starts out the same way ...Yeah -- it's unbiblical, cheezywheeezy.

CW writes:First he shows that a supernatural being exists...Oh -- now there's a method we see in scripture! Let's reduce God to some vague, nebulous intelligent designer thing or things. That really honors our Lord, doesn't it, cheezywheeezy?

CW writes:He then shows what the attributes of this being are...This "being," cheezywheeezy? How about Jesus Christ, the Son of God, cheezywheeezy, who will grind to powder everyone who foolishly rejects Him and His truth?

cheezywheeezy writes:He then shows that this supernatural being is indeed the God of the Bible...By then, it's too late, cheeezywheeezy. The so-called atheist is already wiser in his own conceit. All previous arguments sufficiently crystallize the professing atheist's false worldview. We saw it happen with Douglas Krueger, we saw it happen with Michael Shermer (I used a segment of that debate with KGOV's permission to present the errors of unbiblical theistic reasoning to the Creation Science Fellowship of Pittsburgh.), and we'll see it again with Zakath. It's always the same result because it's an unbiblical method.

cheeezywheezy writes:IF I were to judge the rest of your posts based on this one post of yours...as you have judged Bobs entire debate on his first post...then I can only come to the conclusion that your other posts will not be worth my time.Then spend it elsewhere, cheeezywheezy. Arrivederci.

Jim

[Scrimshaw]

Hilston,

Where in the Bible does it prohibit believers from discussing philosophy with atheists? You can't accuse Enyart of violating a commandment that isn't in the Bible. Also, your arguments are overlooking this scripture:

1 Peter 3:15 - "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."

Bob is giving Zakath the philosophical reasons for the hope that he has. Period. Get over it.

Blessings,

[Hilston]

Hi Scrimshaw,

Scrimshaw writes:Where in the Bible does it prohibit believers from discussing philosophy with atheists?Nowhere. I do it all the time. But in so doing, they are put on notice that all arguments they might present for their particular philosophy are completely foundationless apart from God's revelation. It is pointed out to them that in order to make a sentence, the anti-theist borrows from the Christian Theistic worldview in order to make it; that is, they make the unwarranted assumptions that logic is constant, the human experience is intelligible, that the precepts of scientific inquiry are reliable. The anti-theist is unable to justify those assumptions. Only the Christian theist can do so.

Scrimshaw writes:You can't accuse Enyart of violating a commandment that isn't in the Bible.I showed where the commandment is in the Bible. You also quote one below. Mr. Enyart violates it as well.

Scrimshaw writes:... Also, your arguments are overlooking this scripture:

1 Peter 3:15 - "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."Not at all. The reason for the hope that I have is Jesus Christ, the Head of the Body of Christ, and His shed blood on the cross for me. The reason for my hope is NOT some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things. The reason for my hope is NOT "a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever."

Scrimshaw writes:Bob is giving Zakath the philosophical reasons for the hope that he has. Period. Get over it.Those reasons are false and unbiblical. If we're going to present the truth to the anti-theistic gainsayer, wouldn't it be prudent to see what God has to say about how we go about it? To ask, "What is the biblical method of evangelizing the God-hater?"

Jim

[Scrimshaw]

I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in the Bible does it prohibit believers from discussing philosophy with atheists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Hilston
Nowhere. I do it all the time.

Bob Enyart is discussing philosophy with an atheist. So I'm glad you agree that there is no biblical prohibition against him doing so.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't accuse Enyart of violating a commandment that isn't in the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I showed where the commandment is in the Bible. You also quote one below. Mr. Enyart violates it as well.

What Enyart is doing is discussing philosophy with an atheist, which is something that you just agreed was not prohibited by the Bible.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
... Also, your arguments are overlooking this scripture:

1 Peter 3:15 - "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all. The reason for the hope that I have is Jesus Christ, the Head of the Body of Christ, and His shed blood on the cross for me. The reason for my hope is NOT some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things.

I don't follow your logic here at all. Are you saying that Jesus is NOT an intelligent designer? Do you think he is an UN-intelligent designer? Do you think he is NOT creator? The uncaused first cause of the universe?

The reason for my hope is NOT "a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever."

What an ill-considered comment. Nobody has stated that our hope in God exists because of the laws of physics. Bob only pointed to the laws of physics to show that the naturalistic origin theories *violate* them. You need to evaluate your comments more carefully and make sure you actually understand the purpose of the arguments Bob is using before you attack them.

Blessings,

[Hilston]

Scrimshaw writes:Bob Enyart is discussing philosophy with an atheist.Is that all this is? A philosophy discussion? Why then is it called the Battle Royale and a Debate: Does God Exist?? This is no mere "discussion," as evidenced by the hundreds of posts of specific discussion related to this battle/debate. Your bent toward minimizing the importance of the exchange is noteworthy.

Scrimshaw writes:What Enyart is doing is discussing philosophy with an atheist, which is something that you just agreed was not prohibited by the Bible.Let me clear up your confusion. There is no prohibition against discussing philosophy with anti-theists in scripture. But there are prohibitions against discussing philosophy unbiblically, which is what Mr. Enyart is doing.

Jim previously wrote: The reason for the hope that I have is Jesus Christ, the Head of the Body of Christ, and His shed blood on the cross for me. The reason for my hope is NOT some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things.

Scrimshaw writes:I don't follow your logic here at all. Are you saying that Jesus is NOT an intelligent designer? Do you think he is an UN-intelligent designer? Do you think he is NOT creator? The uncaused first cause of the universe?I didn't say any of those things. It's puzzling you would even ask those questions. The last time someone asked you, "What do you think will happen to you when you die?," did you begin your reply: "Well, my hope is in heaven, and here's why: According to the evidence I've amassed, it appears there must have been some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things ..."?

Jim previously wrote: The reason for my hope is NOT "a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever."

Scrimshaw writes:What an ill-considered comment. Nobody has stated that our hope in God exists because of the laws of physics.Mr. Enyart has plainly stated on more than one occasion that the reason he believes in God is because of evidence from the laws of physics. Ask him.

Scrimshaw writes:Bob only pointed to the laws of physics to show that the naturalistic origin theories *violate* them.Michael Shermer asked Mr. Enyart (paraphrasing), "Why do you believe in God?" Mr. Enyart's answer was, "A rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Dr. Shermer replied, "Your faith is based on fire and rocks?" Mr. Enyart rejoined: "Yeah, what's YOUR faith based on?" Dr. Shermer replied, "I don't have faith." But instead of dismantling that false claim ("I don't have faith") as he should have, Mr. Enyart proceeded with his god-of-the-gaps argument. It was awful.

Jim

[Eli_Cash]

Hillston, I think I mostly agree with you.

[okinrus]

Well I agree. Each of person has the seed of faith within them. So most atheist are not really atheist at heart. Otherwise they would lead a completely miserable life filled with doubt and worry. However the only way to convince an atheist is to help them understand "his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity". Unfortunately Zakath has eaten the fruit of knowledge and has opened his eyes to see his nakedness without God. It will be difficult to cloth someone like that in Christ.


Michael Shermer asked Mr. Enyart (paraphrasing), "Why do you believe in God?" Mr. Enyart's answer was, "A rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Dr. Shermer replied, "Your faith is based on fire and rocks?" Mr. Enyart rejoined: "Yeah, what's YOUR faith based on?" Dr. Shermer replied, "I don't have faith." But instead of dismantling that false claim ("I don't have faith") as he should have, Mr. Enyart proceeded with his god-of-the-gaps argument. It was awful.

This is bibically ok. "My Rock is my Savior and Lord" and the light of God is forever lasting.

[Hilston]

okinrus writes: However the only way to convince an atheist is to help them understand "his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity".The Bible says Zakath doesn't need help understanding this. Paul says that Zakath has already sufficiently understood this. By putting further effort toward this aim, you implicitly undermine the truth of scripture and you become an enabler by further affirming Zakath's mythical claim that he has somehow not seen enough to be convinced of the truth. Is Zakath somehow exempt from the statements of Romans 1 cited above?

okinrus writes: This is biblically ok. "My Rock is my Savior and Lord" and the light of God is forever lasting.What are you saying is "ok"?

Are you suggesting that Mr. Enyart was referring to God the rock? He was referring to created rocks. God is definitely not a created rock. Do you suggest that Mr. Enyart was referring to the everlasting light of God? God "fire" will definitely burn forever. Please explain what you mean.

Jim

[Hilston]

Scrimshaw -- you done a bad thing, bloke. I just noticed something you wrote in the Battle Royale discussion. You wrote:I am not a theist because I claim to "know" that there is a Creator. I am a theist because theism is the origin model that has the most evidential and logical soundness, based on the evidence we observe in biological life and the universe.But didn't you also write the following?Nobody has stated that our hope in God exists because of the laws of physics.Which is it? Are you a theist because of scientific evidence or not?

By the way, anyone interested in seeing the latest research in creation science should consider attending the International Conference on Creationism, Aug 4-9, 2003. Visit the website here: www.icc03.org

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Hilston
The Bible says Zakath has no argument, no defense.

Dude, beating Zakath over the head with something he doesn't believe to be true isn't going to make him accept it. You need to cross a step over into his world and entertain his fallacious logic to really get the point across. You can't debate very well with a book. It's a book! A debate requires a living opponent.

[Scrimshaw]

I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Enyart is discussing philosophy with an atheist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Hilston
Is that all this is? A philosophy discussion? Why then is it called the Battle Royale and a Debate: Does God Exist?? This is no mere "discussion," as evidenced by the hundreds of posts of specific discussion related to this battle/debate. Your bent toward minimizing the importance of the exchange is noteworthy.

Yes, its both a discussion AND debate. Don't get tripped up over semantics. If you are reading the same thread I am, Zakath and Bob are currently discussing numerous philosophical issues, such as: what is truth, the absoluteness of right and wrong, evidence regarding the origin of the universe, etc. Those are questions that philosophers (both Christian and non-Christian) have been debating for centuries.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Enyart is doing is discussing philosophy with an atheist, which is something that you just agreed was not prohibited by the Bible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me clear up your confusion. There is no prohibition against discussing philosophy with anti-theists in scripture. But there are prohibitions against discussing philosophy unbiblically, which is what Mr. Enyart is doing.

Please show me the chapter and verse that states a prohibition against discussing philosophy "unbiblically"......it's important that the passage from the Bible you present also defines what method is of discussion is "unbiblical", and why.



I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't follow your logic here at all. Are you saying that Jesus is NOT an intelligent designer? Do you think he is an UN-intelligent designer? Do you think he is NOT creator? The uncaused first cause of the universe?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't say any of those things. It's puzzling you would even ask those questions.

Eh, you just cast aspersions on Bob for referring to God in those terms.....but you apparently agree that those terms apply to God. :kookoo:

The last time someone asked you, "What do you think will happen to you when you die?," did you begin your reply: "Well, my hope is in heaven, and here's why: According to the evidence I've amassed, it appears there must have been some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things ..."?

Actually, it would start off that way. You build a case for general theism, and once that case is built, you can then go further and begin sharing the reasons for why you believe the Christian God is the true God. It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so". That answer might work for 6 year-olds, but in the realm of educated adults - it ain't gonna fly.


I said:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob only pointed to the laws of physics to show that the naturalistic origin theories *violate* them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Michael Shermer asked Mr. Enyart (paraphrasing), "Why do you believe in God?" Mr. Enyart's answer was, "A rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Dr. Shermer replied, "Your faith is based on fire and rocks?" Mr. Enyart rejoined: "Yeah, what's YOUR faith based on?" Dr. Shermer replied, "I don't have faith."

In Romans chapter 1, Paul says " [20] For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made". So the Bible teaches that our belief in God is based on the evidence we see in "what has been made" - which is the universe and it's laws. So when Enyart says that his belief in God is based on the laws of the universe, he is basing his belief in God on "what has been made". Thus, Bob's answer is in total agreement with Romans 1:20.

Sorry, but your arguments are ill-considered.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Hilston
I've downloaded the series, cheezywheeezy.

I wasn't aware that it was freely available for download. Do you have a link? I'd like to listen to it myself. Thanks.

[Lion]

Hilston;

Brother, you could not be more wrong about Bob’s approach. I am living proof of this. I was an adamant atheist and only started watching Bob’s old TV show because of his conservative bent. I remember saying, to my then also atheist wife, that I liked the show, but I sure wish he would leave all that stupid biblical stuff out of it.

Over the next year and half I watched Bob go against atheist after atheist, and little by little my stubborn, pride filled heart, was convicted to the truth. First my wife fell (only to rise with God). It took me another six months before I gave in and humbled myself. If Bob hadn’t taken the time and effort to break down my barriers I have no doubt my wife, my children and I would still be lost.

You of course are absolutely right that atheist are suppressing the truth and rejecting God rather than having the excuse of ignorance, however, the truth was the same for those following Christ and His apostles but still they debated and reproved and taught. Remember that God says Himself, “Come, let us reason together… though your sins were as scarlet they will be as white as snow.”

I thank God for Bob Enyart and his ministry.

[Freak]

Originally posted by Lion

I thank God for Bob Enyart and his ministry.

:thumb: I also thank God for his service to Christ. It reminds me of the ministry of Apollos.

He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
When Apollos wanted to go to Achaia, the brothers encouraged him and wrote to the disciples there to welcome him. On arriving, he was a great help to those who by grace had believed. For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

[Lion]

Freak said-I also thank God for his service to Christ. It reminds me of the ministry of Apollos.Amen!

[Hilston]

Combined reply to Philosophizer, Scrimshaw and OneEye Jack:

To Philosophizer

Originally posted by Hilston : The Bible says Zakath has no argument, no defense.

Philosophizer writes:Dude, beating Zakath over the head with something he doesn't believe to be true isn't going to make him accept it.I agree completely. So why is Mr. Enyart doing this? Why are you telling me this and not Mr. Enyart?

Philosophizer writes:You need to cross a step over into his world and entertain his fallacious logic to really get the point across.I have nothing against that as long as it is done biblically.

To Scrimshaw

Scrimshaw writes:If you are reading the same thread I am, Zakath and Bob are currently discussing numerous philosophical issues, such as: what is truth, the absoluteness of right and wrong, evidence regarding the origin of the universe, etc. Those are questions that philosophers (both Christian and non-Christian) have been debating for centuries.So what. It doesn't justify a Christian using unbiblical and godless reasoning to try to persuade an anti-theist of what he already knows to be true.

Scrimshaw writes:Please show me the chapter and verse that states a prohibition against discussing philosophy "unbiblically"......it's important that the passage from the Bible you present also defines what method is of discussion is "unbiblical", and why.See my discussion above on Proverbs 26:4,5. If you want further elaboration, let me know. Also consider the fact that we have numerous examples of confrontations with gainsayers in scripture. Not one of them describes or presents an example of someone arguing for the existence of some "creator thing" that might exist. The Bible doesn't allow this kind of argumentation. Furthermore, the corollary truth of Romans 1, describing the anti-theist as already knowing, having sufficient evidence, yet suppressing the truth emphatically underscores this principle. Let me hasten to say that I'm not claiming we must use the exact words as the Bible, as it has been alleged, but that we employ the biblical methodology when presenting the truth.

Scrimshaw writes:Eh, you just cast aspersions on Bob for referring to God in those termsIt's not a question of terms, but of method.

Scrimshaw writes:.....but you apparently agree that those terms apply to God.I would never refer to the Creator as an intelligent designer". He is THE Creator, Jesus Christ. It really sounds as if you're ashamed to say Who He is, which is particularly noteworthy given the passage I cited and its context, in which Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel (Ro 1).

Jim previously asked: The last time someone asked you, "What do you think will happen to you when you die?," did you begin your reply: "Well, my hope is in heaven, and here's why: According to the evidence I've amassed, it appears there must have been some eternal superior intelligent designer creator thing or things ..."?

Scrimshaw writes:Actually, it would start off that way. You build a case for general theism, ...General theism? Where is that principle taught in scripture? There is nothing "general" about the Lord or Truth. He is specifically the true God among countless false ones. To refer a god or gods, who is/are intelligent, eternal, and wise is anti-biblical.

Scrimshaw writes:... and once that case is built, you can then go further and begin sharing the reasons for why you believe the Christian God is the true God.Paul says we are to be casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of a general deity. No wait ... every thought captive to a creative, intelligent designer thing or things. No wait ... every thought captive to whom? Christ, specifically. (2Co 10:5).

Scrimshaw writes:It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so".Your answer beats the one the Bible gives? Amazing. Who would have thought the day would come when a Christian would ridicule another for relying on the claims of the Bible for their Hope.

Scrimshaw writes:That answer might work for 6 year-olds, but in the realm of educated adults - it ain't gonna fly.Yeah, educated people know better than to rely on the Bible. You'd have to be an idiot, or a someone with the mind of a 6-year-old to be persuaded by the words of scripture. Good thing there are people in the world like Mr. Enyart and Scrimshaw who come along and take up the slack where God's word has fallen short.

Scrimshaw writes:In Romans chapter 1, Paul says " [20] For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made". So the Bible teaches that our belief in God is based on the evidence we see in "what has been made" - which is the universe and it's laws.This is talking about anti-theists, Scrimshaw. Are you including yourself among them? It says that the knowledge of God's existence and attributes are understood -- that is, already sufficiently proven -- by the anti-theist via the creation. God doesn't need your or Bob's help in this.

Scrimshaw writes:So when Enyart says that his belief in God is based on the laws of the universe, he is basing his belief in God on "what has been made". Thus, Bob's answer is in total agreement with Romans 1:20.No, if his answer were in agreement with Romans 1:20, he would have said to Zakath, "You already know this, but you suppress it in unrighteousness."

To OneEye

OneEye writes:I wasn't aware that it was freely available for download. Do you have a link? I'd like to listen to it myself. Thanks.It was way back in October of 2000. I don't think the current archives at KGOV.com go back that far.

Jim

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Hilston
I agree completely. So why is Mr. Enyart doing this? Why are you telling me this and not Mr. Enyart?
Bob is appealing to the tools of reason that Zakath claims to favor: science and logic. Zakath does trust these things. So Bob is just trying to lead him through the truth using the tools that Zakath favors. That is biblical. Paul did it all the time, using elements of each culture he visited to teach the Word.

[Hilston]

Lion writes:Hilston;Please call me Jim.

Lion writes:Brother, you could not be more wrong about Bob’s approach. I am living proof of this. I was an adamant atheist and only started watching Bob’s old TV show because of his conservative bent. I remember saying, to my then also atheist wife, that I liked the show, but I sure wish he would leave all that stupid biblical stuff out of it.The ends do not justify the means. I know someone who was actually influenced by Madonna's music to pursue Christ and became a zealous witness for the Lord. That doesn't justify Madonna's music. I myself came to Christ through studying Mormonism. That doesn't justify the false doctrine of the LDS.

Lion writes:You of course are absolutely right that atheist are suppressing the truth and rejecting God rather than having the excuse of ignorance, however, the truth was the same for those following Christ and His apostles but still they debated and reproved and taught.There's nothing wrong with debating and reproving and teaching, but it must be done biblically. It's also good to distribute Bibles, but not if you stole them from the local bookstore.

Lion writes:Remember that God says Himself, “Come, let us reason together… though your sins were as scarlet they will be as white as snow.”Indeed. Wonder why God didn't say, "Come, let us reason together ... though you think I don't exist, rocks cannot create themselves and fires don't burn forever."

Lion writes:Freak said - "I also thank God for his service to Christ. It reminds me of the ministry of Apollos." Amen.

Here is how Apollos preached: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." It doesn't say, "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by anti-theistic reasoning that a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Apollos reasoned from the scriptures. Mr. Enyart is not doing that. Anyway, Scrimshaw thinks the Jews would have to have had the minds of 6-year-olds to be persuaded Apollos's method.

Jim

[Lion]

Hilston asks; General theism? Where is that principle taught in scripture?Acts 17:22-23Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an alter with this inscription: TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Therefore, the One whom you worship you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you.

To the atheist who places science as his god, Bob shows them that the true Creator of science is the one they are worshiping without knowing it. It is Him that Bob is declaring to them.Scrimshaw said-It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so".

Hilston answered-Your answer beats the one the Bible gives? Amazing. Who would have thought the day would come when a Christian would ridicule another for relying on the claims of the Bible for their Hope.No, what he is saying is that you would just say “The bible says so!” Where as he shows them where and how the bible tells them. Because if someone will not guid them, (Acts 8:27-35 how will they learn?

[cheeezywheeezy]

Man dude...I just visited your site, read some of the stuff i.e., the review of The Plot...and you just don't like Bob do you.

Anyway...

Ok...let me get this straight...

proverbs 26:4 says:

"Do not answer a fool according to his folly..."

and proverbs 26:5 says:

"Answer a fool according to his folly..."

You then claim how although they may appear to be apparent contradictions they are actually a method to debate. First we don't answer a fool according to his folly...and then we do. And that's good.

You then say...

"Mr. Enyart has answered the fool according to his folly,..."

And you claim that is bad! Bob answers a fool according to his folly and you say he has done wrong...you then claim how, according to scripture, one must answer a fool according to his folly. You just don't like the way Bob has done it. He has done that which you claim should be done...but since it isn't like you would have done it...Bob is a fool. How foolish.

I think Proverbs 26:11 describes you best...

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"

You repeatedly show your folly in everyone elses folly because they don't folly the way you would folly.

[Lion]

Jim,
It seems very strange to me that you would take such a vindictive attitude to a brother in Christ and the way in which he is led by the Holy Spirit to bring people to the Lord. I think you are judging a brother wrongly and should repent. Otherwise, state what Bob has said to ZaaaKath that is unbiblical.

[Hilston]

Philosophizer writes:Bob is appealing to the tools of reason that Zakath claims to favor: science and logic. Zakath does trust these things. So Bob is just trying to lead him through the truth using the tools that Zakath favors.That's the wrong method. You said yourself that "beating Zakath over the head with something he doesn't believe to be true isn't going to make him accept it." So instead of using what he already trusts, Mr. Enyart should be dismantling Zakath's anti-theistic trust in those very things. That would be answering the fool according to his folly. Mr. Enyart would then show that Zakath trusts logic and science irrationally. That is the Biblical critique of Zakath that Mr. Enyart should be using. Instead of "Do you believe in truth?", the question should be "How, on your worldview, do you even claim to engage in a debate?" Make Zakath justify his use of logic and science (exclusively theistic principles). The atheist can't do it. But rather than excavating the very root upon which Zakath's anti-theistic worldview rests, Mr. Enyart chooses instead to shoot at the leaves. "That's OK," the anti-theist says, "I can grow more."

Philosophizer writes:Paul did it all the time, using elements of each culture he visited to teach the Word.Sure, but he didn't use unbiblical methods or compromise the Word the way Mr. Enyart is doing.

Jim

[Lion]

BigCheese! I think Proverbs 26:11 describes you best...

"As a dog returns to its vomit, so a fool repeats his folly"

You repeatedly show your folly in everyone elses folly because they don't folly the way you would folly.ROTFL!!!!

GREAT!

[cheeezywheeezy]

Hokey smokes...I just read Hilston's interest and they tell a lot. For example I have come to the conlcusion that you are a rock-n-roll, alcoholic with lung cancer. You talk about foolish.

How is one that destroys his God given body able to tell everyone else how things should be done?

[Lion]

Hilston- The ends do not justify the means.True, but just because the means are not Jim’s means, in no way shows they are not God’s means.
Please repent and apologize to Bob for your evil backbiting.
Or show where Bob has in any way blasphemed God during this debate or spoken something untrue about God. There's nothing wrong with debating and reproving and teaching, but it must be done biblically. It's also good to distribute Bibles, but not if you stole them from the local bookstore.What a stupid comparison. Indeed. Wonder why God didn't say, "Come, let us reason together ... though you think I don't exist, rocks cannot create themselves and fires don't burn forever."He did, Gen 1:1 In the beginning… Here is how Apollos preached: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." It doesn't say, "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by anti-theistic reasoning that a rock cannot create itself and a fire cannot burn forever." Apollos reasoned from the scriptures. Mr. Enyart is not doing that. Anyway, Scrimshaw thinks the Jews would have to have had the minds of 6-year-olds to be persuaded Apollos's method.Just because you don’t understand science (as evidenced by your replacant theory) doesn’t mean it is unbiblical to persuade someone to God by explaining science. Bob uses the scriptures when appropriate, and at other times the princibles behind scripture that, show that God is God, at others.

Tell, me, what biblical references are you using in your replacant theory? Aren’t you trying, in that thread, to show what you think to be a biblical concept through unbiblical means? Are you now playing the hypocrite?

[Hilston]

Combined reply to Lion and cheeeezywheeeezy.

To Lion

Lion writes:It seems very strange to me that you would take such a vindictive attitude to a brother in Christ and the way in which he is led by the Holy Spirit to bring people to the Lord.Vindictive? For what could I possibly want to take revenge against Bob Enyart?

Lion writes:I think you are judging a brother wrongly and should repent.I would be remiss if I didn't point it out. I am obligated to defend the scriptures and to condemn the misuse of them.

Lion writes:Otherwise, state what Bob has said to ZaKath that is unbiblical.See above and previous page.

To cheeezywheeezy

cheeezywheeezy writes:... the review of The Plot...and you just don't like Bob do you.You're wrong, cheeezywheeezy. I like him a lot. I was debating someone who kindly sent me a complimentary copy of The Plot. He wanted to know what I thought, so I felt obliged to critique it. Your kneejerk assumptions make me curious. I could be wrong about you, cheeezywheeezy, but this kind of false assumption (i.e. that a critique implies disdain) is a pattern I find among sycophants. It's gross.

As to your tortured efforts to understand Prov. 26:4,5, you seem to be missing a major grammatical point of the verses. The verses no doubt appear to be contradictory. One says "answer a fool according to his folly." The other says "answer NOT a fool according to his folly." So it must be that either (a) the Bible is a bunch of hooey, or (b) this verse is talking about ways, manners, methods of answering the fool. It should be obvious to the reader that the verse is describing a manner of answering the fool correctly and a manner of not answering the fool correctly, and warns against doing either incorrectly. I really should not have to explain this to you. But with this in mind, please go back and read what I wrote and it will all make sense to you.

Jim

[Lion]

Jim,
You forgot to answer this part of my post?Tell, me, what biblical references are you using in your replacant theory? Aren’t you trying, in that thread, to show what you think to be a biblical concept through unbiblical means? Are you now playing the hypocrite?

[Hilston]

Lion -- I just read that post. It showed up after I posted my previous.

Here is my answer to that post now:

Lion writes:Please repent and apologize to Bob for your evil backbiting.It's not backbiting. Bob Enyart is well aware of my position on this.

Lion writes:Or show where Bob has in any way blasphemed God during this debate or spoken something untrue about God.Mr. Enyart doesn't have to blaspheme God or speak an untruth about God to lose this debate and to be wrong in his apologetic method.

Jim previously wrote: Indeed. Wonder why God didn't say, "Come, let us reason together ... though you think I don't exist, rocks cannot create themselves and fires don't burn forever."

Lion writes:He did, Gen 1:1 In the beginning…In the beginning ... what? "In the beginning, an intelligent eternal creator thing or things ..."?

Lion writes:... doesn’t mean it is unbiblical to persuade someone to God by explaining science.Has Bob explained science? Show me where. It is apparent that he, like Zakath, assumes the verity of science without explaining it. If Bob did explain science to Zakath, it would have been made clear to Zakath that he has no justifiable grounds to appeal to science anti-theistically.

Lion writes:Tell, me, what biblical references are you using in your replacant theory? Aren’t you trying, in that thread, to show what you think to be a biblical concept through unbiblical means?Nope. The purpose of that thread is made clear in the opening post.

Lion writes:Are you now playing the hypocrite?Nope. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God or anything about God in that thread.

[LightSon]

Dear James,

Good thread! You have brought up an issue that I have often wondered about in my attempts at using apologetics.

Shall I argue strictly from my "God is" position,
or do I try to argue from their "God is not" position and try to lead them where I might go where I actually in that position or else to lead them to the illogic of their position.

I am still trying to understand the nuances of your position. I don't think all of us here fully understand the dynamics and boundaries of a biblical approach as you perceive it.

Please note that I haven't bought into your position necessarily. There are some hazy areas (perhaps in my brain only) for me to think through first. It does seem that Paul went to Mars hill and reasoned from their "UNKNOWN GOD" position to bring them to the truth.

Thanks for stirring up an interesting hornets nest.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Hilston
Nope. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God or anything about God in that thread.

Then why did you post it in the Attributes of God forum?

[Lion]

In the beginning ... what? "In the beginning, an intelligent eternal creator thing or things ..."?Hmmmm… are you saying you think God is not the intellgeant, eternal Creator? “In the beginning, God created”. And that is what Bob is proving to Zaaaakath in this debate. And he is doing it using the science that God created and has shown us through His creation. There is nothing wrong about that in any way shape or form.Has Bob explained science? Show me where. It is apparent that he, like Zakath, assumes the verity of science without explaining it. If Bob did explain science to Zakath, it would have been made clear to Zakath that he has no justifiable grounds to appeal to science anti-theistically.What are you talking about? He is very carefully taking Zaaaakath through the princibles of science (IE the scientific method) and proving there is a God, using the facts of the creation as a guid. Does this mean Zaaaakath will believe? No, of course not, (although I believe it is far more likely that he might turn using Bob’s approach than yours, just as I did) but there are countless others that can read these posts and learn about God’s wonders. It will also give others valuable tools for combating atheistic beliefs. Nope. The purpose of that thread is made clear in the opening post.Oh, so then you don’t believe that we are hard wired human beings with free will? You don’t believe that this is a biblical concept? Is that what you are saying?

About playing the hypocrite you said; Nope. I'm not trying to prove the existence of God or anything about God in that thread.What you are trying to do with that thread is to show how God could create a hard wired being that still has free will, and you think this is a biblical concept. Therefore you are playing the hypocrite because you are using a non biblical argument to support what you consider to be a biblical concept. Just as Bob is doing.

[Hilston]

Hi LightSon,

LightSon writes:Shall I argue strictly from my "God is" position,
or do I try to argue from their "God is not" position and try to lead them where I might go where I actually in that position or else to lead them to the illogic of their position.You should do both, but biblically. This is what Prov. 26:4,5 is saying.

LightSon writes:I am still trying to understand the nuances of your position. I don't think all of us here fully understand the dynamics and boundaries of a biblical approach as you perceive it.I've encountered this sentiment before. I think the reason is that we don't immediately see the harm in trying to prove things that anti-theists deny. But the attempt to make these proofs neglects a vital, but often hidden fact, which is that the anti-theist is a liar and self-deluded. When we do not immediately confront this fact, the anti-theist is allowed to continue his lie and self-delusion.

LightSon writes:It does seem that Paul went to Mars hill and reasoned from their "UNKNOWN GOD" position to bring them to the truth. At first blush, it does appear that Paul is violating Proverbs 26 and his own teaching in Romans 1. A closer look at the context shows more: Note that the disputants on Mars Hill have already heard Paul's preaching about Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Scrimshaw would say that Paul was mistaken in doing this. By the time Paul is on Mars Hill debating the Athenians, Paul has already directly and unabashedly preached Christ (not some creative intelligent thing or things that created rocks and fires).

Acts 17:18 "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."

Note further that Paul specifically identifies the Unknown God: He is Jesus Christ, the very God whom the disputants worshiped in deliberate ignorance (v. 23); that is to say, the Athenians suppressed the truth in their unrighteousness, just as Paul wrote in his epistle to the Romans.

Paul then goes on to further declare the God they already know and His prerogative over their lives, and even quotes one of their own poets to affirm they already know this God (v. 28).

Thanks for bringing this up, LightSon. It's an excellent example of what I've been talking abut.

Jim

[Lion]

Jim, by your own standard Bob’s arguments are perfectly in standing with what Paul did on Mars Hill. You said; At first blush, it does appear that Paul is violating Proverbs 26 and his own teaching in Romans 1. A closer look at the context shows more: Note that the disputants on Mars Hill have already heard Paul's preaching about Jesus Christ and His resurrection. Scrimshaw would say that Paul was mistaken in doing this. By the time Paul is on Mars Hill debating the Athenians, Paul has already directly and unabashedly preached Christ (not some creative intelligent thing or things that created rocks and fires).
Acts 17:18 "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection." Bob constantly preaches on Christ being God, and Zaaaakath already knows his position on this issue, just as you say the Greeks did on the hill. So what’s the difference?

Oh, and as to the Proverbs 26 passage, aren’t you violating one of its concepts by putting in your two cents in a topic that you aren’t involved in?

Prov 26:17 He who passes by and meddles in a quarrel not his own is like one who takes a dog by the ears.

[Scrimshaw]

Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please show me the chapter and verse that states a prohibition against discussing philosophy "unbiblically"......it's important that the passage from the Bible you present also defines what method is of discussion is "unbiblical", and why.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See my discussion above on Proverbs 26:4,5. If you want further elaboration, let me know.

What? You mean God would need YOU to elaborate Proverbs 26:4,5?? Gee, what would God do without Mr. Hilston elaborations!! (See how your ridiculous logic backfires on your own arguments??)

Also consider the fact that we have numerous examples of confrontations with gainsayers in scripture. Not one of them describes or presents an example of someone arguing for the existence of some "creator thing" that might exist. The Bible doesn't allow this kind of argumentation.

Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared. 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."


Furthermore, the corollary truth of Romans 1, describing the anti-theist as already knowing, having sufficient evidence, yet suppressing the truth emphatically underscores this principle. Let me hasten to say that I'm not claiming we must use the exact words as the Bible, as it has been alleged, but that we employ the biblical methodology when presenting the truth.

LOL!! The Apostle Paul just gave you the Biblical methodology for presenting the truth! In case you didn't catch it the first time, here it is again:

"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."

You have been soundly refuted. Suck it up, take your correction, and let's move on.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.....but you apparently agree that those terms apply to God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would never refer to the Creator as an intelligent designer". He is THE Creator, Jesus Christ. It really sounds as if you're ashamed to say Who He is, which is particularly noteworthy given the passage I cited and its context, in which Paul says that he is not ashamed of the gospel (Ro 1).

So your entire quibble is over calling God "an" intelligent designer instead of "the" intelligent designer? Wow, what a powerful argument!! <-----Note extreme sarcasm.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, it would start off that way. You build a case for general theism, ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

General theism? Where is that principle taught in scripture? There is nothing "general" about the Lord or Truth. He is specifically the true God among countless false ones. To refer a god or gods, who is/are intelligent, eternal, and wise is anti-biblical.

No duh. That's why I went on to explain that the second step is to explain why the Creator is Jesus. The first step is to establish the necessity for the existence of "the" Creator, and the second step is to establish the IDENTITY of the Creator. So let's recap. 1st step = *existence* of the Creator, 2nd step = *identity* of the Creator. It's that simple. Why you would want to quibble about this is beyond me.


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It certainly beats your answer, which would be - "I'm going to heaven because the Bible says so".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your answer beats the one the Bible gives? Amazing.

That's not what I said. I said that simply saying the "Bible says so" is not a good form of ARGUMENT when talking to unbelievers. You are mangling my words and slandering me in the process. Are you aware of what the Bible says about slanderers??

Who would have thought the day would come when a Christian would ridicule another for relying on the claims of the Bible for their Hope.

Again, if you would kindly remove your words from my mouth I'd much appreciate it. We do rely on the Bible for our HOPE, however, when you are talking to somone who does not believe in the Bible, it is a useless argument to say - "God is real because my Bible says so". That is a useless and ineffective argument because the person you are speaking to does not believe the Bible is true. It would be the same as if a Muslim told you that Muhammad was greater than Jesus because his "Quran told him so". His argument means nothing to you unless you believe the Quran is true.

Now do you see how idiotic your argument is or need I go on??


Scrimshaw writes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That answer might work for 6 year-olds, but in the realm of educated adults - it ain't gonna fly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah, educated people know better than to rely on the Bible. You'd have to be an idiot, or a someone with the mind of a 6-year-old to be persuaded by the words of scripture.

I never made that claim. You are twisting and misapplying my words. You are slandering me. Since you are so keen on Proverbs, do you want me to start quoting all the passages that condemn slanderers??

Good thing there are people in the world like Mr. Enyart and Scrimshaw who come along and take up the slack where God's word has fallen short.

Gee, and what would God do without Mr. Hilston to straighten out all the Mr. Enyarts and Scrimshaws for Him!! Yes, it appears that God's Word wasn't good enough, so God needs Mr. Hilton to straighten everybody out!

Your own idiotic arguments backfire on you and you don't even realize it. :nono:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Lion
Jim,
It seems very strange to me that you would take such a vindictive attitude to a brother in Christ and the way in which he is led by the Holy Spirit to bring people to the Lord. I think you are judging a brother wrongly and should repent. Otherwise, state what Bob has said to ZaaaKath that is unbiblical. Very telling, no? :rolleyes:

[Lion]

Scrimshaw, Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared. 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."Awesome! That should be the end to this argument. What more uis there to say?

I hope he takes this to heart and sees the error of his ways.Prov 9:8...Rebuke a wise man and he will love you.

[cheeezywheeezy]

OK...OK...OK...here we go. The coin is up and it is heads. That means Jim get's to go first.

So...Jim Hilston,

Here is your chance to prove, using your method, that God exists. What would your posts say. Lay the whole thing out right now.

[Knight]

Originally posted by Scrimshaw
Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared. 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."Great post! :up: :thumb:

[DEVO]

OK fess up, is Hilston Malcolm???? :kookoo:

[NATEDOG]

Right on cheezy, that is just what I was thinking.
I agree with hilston for the most part.

Jim,
It's good to see somebody that knows Van Till's/Bahnsen's apologetics. I understand what you are getting at in your posts because I've spent a lot of time studying presuppositional apologetics. I see the need for epistemic consciousness everywhere. I don't think the points you are making are that clear to most of the people reading them though. I don't think Scrimshaw or Lion or the Cheezydude have any previous knowledge of the topic.
I think now would be a good time to bust out a quick presuppositional apologetics 101 class. Maybe that will clear up some of this "strife", and accusations of slander will be put to rest.
What do you say?

Scrimshaw and lion,
I don't think Jim has any problem with using science in a debate to point to God's existence, I just think that he wants it put in the right place. His main disagreement with Mr. Enyart isn't that he uses science to prove his points, but that he has conceded to the position of neutrality.
The Bible specifically says that man isn't neutral. It says that man is bent against God, and that his reason has become corrupt and twisted. Bob is playing on thin ice here. How can he expect to win a debate when he is founding his arguments on faulty parameters?
The ancient Greeks perceived themselves as approaching the tough philosophical questions with the neutral eyes of an infant (supposing infants are even neutral). That is where they went wrong.
All their philosophy was based on a faulty fundamental presupposition. Zakath is suffering from the same delusion.
That's why his reason leads him to the place of declaring that there is no God. Why is Bob Enyart succumbing to the same error?

[DEVO]

NATE isn't it true you are biased against Bob because you do not like his stance on the openness of God?????

Would it be fair of me to withhold my monthly donations to "Survivors" because I knew you were a hard core "closed theist"?

I wouldn't do that. That would be counterproductive wouldn't it?

I sense this same type of counter productiveness emanating out of every post you make.

[Hilston]

To Lion:

Lion writes:Jim, by your own standard Bob’s arguments are perfectly in standing with what Paul did on Mars Hill. ...Really? Has Bob preached the risen Christ to Zakath? Has Bob declared to Zakath that, despite Zakath's claims to the contrary, that he really does already know that God exists? If not, then he is feeding into Zakath's lie and self-delusion, not to mention the violation of scriptural principles regarding the anti-theist worldview.

Lion writes:Bob constantly preaches on Christ being God, and Zaaaakath already knows his position on this issue, just as you say the Greeks did on the hill. So what’s the difference?The difference is Paul showed the Athenians that they could not claim to be unaware of God's existence or claim they have insufficient proof of God's existence (Read Acts 17:18ff with this in mind). Zakath does both, and unlike Paul, Bob Enyart has failed to call him on it. What is worse, Bob Enyart perpetuates the myth of atheism and of insufficient evidence by enabling Zakath to continue with his lie and self-delusion.

Lion writes:Oh, and as to the Proverbs 26 passage, aren’t you violating one of its concepts by putting in your two cents in a topic that you aren’t involved in?If that's how you really understand the Proverbs 26 passage, then aren't you doing the same thing? What is your defense, Lion?

To Scrimshaw:

Scrimshaw writes:What? You mean God would need YOU to elaborate Proverbs 26:4,5??Of course not. Did you see that part where I said, "I really should not have to explain this to you"?

Jim previously wrote: Also consider the fact that we have numerous examples of confrontations with gainsayers in scripture. Not one of them describes or presents an example of someone arguing for the existence of some "creator thing" that might exist. The Bible doesn't allow this kind of argumentation.

Scrimshaw writes:Wrong. The Bible allows for all forms of reasoning and argumentation, ...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.

Scrimshaw writes: ... as long as the end result is the gospel of Christ is shared.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.

Scrimshaw writes:... 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."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?

Scrimshaw writes:So let's recap. 1st step = *existence* of the Creator, ...Why do you feed into the anti-theist lie? You don't have to prove what they already know and are lying about.

Scrimshaw writes:I said that simply saying the "Bible says so" is not a good form of ARGUMENT when talking to unbelievers.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?

Scrimshaw writes:That is a useless and ineffective argument because the person you are speaking to does not believe the Bible is true.I don't know a single person who became a believer because someone proved to them that the Bible is true. But more importantly, the Bible does not allow for this form of argument when it comes to confronting the anti-theist with truth.

Scrimshaw writes:It would be the same as if a Muslim told you that Muhammad was greater than Jesus because his "Quran told him so". His argument means nothing to you unless you believe the Quran is true.It wouldn't mean anything ultimately even if I DID believe the Q'uran were true. The Muslim argument is incoherent regardless of who believes the Q'uran is true. It says a lot that you see no superiority between the claims of the Bible and the claims of the Q'uran as long as both parties believe in the book in question.

Jim previously wrote: Good thing there are people in the world like Mr. Enyart and Scrimshaw who come along and take up the slack where God's word has fallen short.

Scrimshaw writes:Gee, and what would God do without Mr. Hilston to straighten out all the Mr. Enyarts and Scrimshaws for Him!!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. Bob Enyart, however, is suggesting by his words that God was not truthful when He said that anti-theists already know and have been given sufficient evidence for God's existence. There is a difference between acting as if God's word is sufficient by adding to it (as Bob Enyart is doing) and simply pointing out the fact that someone is doing this (as I am doing).

Jim

[Hilston]

cheeezywheeezy writes:Here is your chance to prove, using your method, that God exists.My chance? Don't you already know that God exists? How is it possible that God does NOT exist? Do you view that as a real possibility?

Jim

[Hilston]

Hi Natedog,

You write:I don't think the points you are making are that clear to most of the people reading them though.I realize that. Everytime I get into this kind of discussion, I find that only a few really get it. I've seen one post on this thread that shows promise. There's such a difference in attitude, and a clear openness to how compelling the scriptures are on this issue.

Natedog writes: I don't think Scrimshaw or Lion or the Cheezydude have any previous knowledge of the topic. I don't think it should matter. The scriptures should suffice to make the case. I don't think the resistance is due to a lack of understanding. It smacks more of desperation that they do not want to let go of their pet methods of autonomy and neutrality and brute fact argumentation. I mean, why else do people bring up the kinds of things we've seen so far in this exchange, except out of desperation?

Natedog writes:I think now would be a good time to bust out a quick presuppositional apologetics 101 class.I think part of the problem with apologetics is that it is too often treated as an "anything goes" free for all. I wish that a quick intro course would clear this up, but as I said above, I don't think the resistance comes from a misunderstanding. When I first read Bahnsen on apologetics, I knew it was true and heartily embraced it. Why don't others have the same reaction? I don't know, but I have my suspicions.

As to anyone desiring further background on the differences between presuppositional and evidential argumentation, here are some links:

http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF991.htm
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/tgfconf/1999/TGF995.htm
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/topical/matrix.htm
http://www.tgfonline.org/TGF/bootcamp/pb13apol.htm

[NATEDOG]

NATE isn't it true you are biased against Bob because you do not like his stance on the openness of God?????

It's true I disagree with Bob Enyarts openness of God stance, I say that loudly. I'm not biased against Bob.

Would it be fair of me to withhold my monthly donations to "Survivors" because I knew you were a hard core "closed theist"?

Survivors is a ministry designed to provide young people the opportunity to share with their peers the truth about abortion.
I don't see why you would withhold a monthly donation based on an individual in the groups theological beliefs. However, I wouldn't expect you to donate to the Closed Theist Seminar.

I wouldn't do that. That would be counterproductive wouldn't it?

I guess maybe a little counterproductive, but more pointless than anything.

I sense this same type of counter productiveness emanating out of every post you make.

I don't get what you're saying here. I don't think that what Bob Enyart is doing is an unworthy endeavor. I think he's trying very hard to reach an admirable goal, but I do think that he's engaging in sword play using a pocketknife (and holding up quiet well because his opponent is fighting with a pocketknife as well) when he's carrying a broadsword at his side. If Mr. Enyart continues to follow the same line of reasoning that he has so far I expect to see a tie.

Are you trying to say that me withholding my kudo's for his method of debate= you withholding money from a pro-life ministry based on the theological beliefs of one member?

[NATEDOG]

Greg Bahnsen's book "Always Ready" is read worthy whether you agree or disagree with it. I recommend it.

[DEVO]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
I don't see why you would withhold a monthly donation based on an individual in the groups theological beliefs.BINGO.

I dont see why a Christian would side with an atheist in a debate regarding the existence of God because of a theological difference.

[Hilston]

Natedog: You are correct. "Always Ready" is a must-read, especially for those who disagree. On the other hand, "Classical Apologetics" by Lindsley, Sproul and Gerstner is to be avoided even by those who agree with them. Are you familiar with that title?

Jim

[NATEDOG]

I dont see why a Christian would side with an atheist in a debate regarding the existence of God because of a theological difference.

I'm not siding with Zakath on this. Many atheists have suffered crushing defeats at the hands of Christian apologists, because of their faulty logic and blind faith. Many Christians have lost debates to atheists by immersing themselves in the muddy water that is unregenerate reason.

Saying that Zakath is winning this debate does not validate atheism. Saying Bob Enyart is winning the debate does not validate Christianity. It merely says that so and so presented a stronger case for their position.
If Enyart presents a compelling case for the existence of God based on how ludicrous it would have to be for him not to exist, then I would say he wins.
If Zakath succeeds in reducing this debate to a bunch of "ifs", "ands", "buts", then I would say it supports his chaotic worldview more so than Bob's worldview.


Like I said, I think what Mr. Enyart is doing is a worthy endeavor.
I just don't know why he would choose to combat a giant deadly robot in hand to hand combat when he could simply unplug his cord from it's power socket.

[NATEDOG]

I've heard of Classical Apologetics, but have never read it.
Was it written by RC Sproul Jr. or Sr.?

[Hilston]

Natedog writes:I just don't know why he would choose to combat a giant deadly robot in hand to hand combat when he could simply unplug his cord from it's power socket.To go a step further, it is unbiblical to use anti-theistic methods and condemned by Scripture. Biblically, we ought to be pulling the plug by critiquing the anti-theistic methodology at a fundamental level, just as Paul did in Athens.

Excellent comments, Natedog. I especially like how you state the transcendental argument "... how ludicrous it would have to be for God not to exist." Kudos to you.

Jim

[novice]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
I just don't know why he would choose to combat a giant deadly robot in hand to hand combat when he could simply unplug his cord from it's power socket. Gee what an advantage you have running around just unplugging robots!

Although I am not sure how our friend Hilston would like that! :D

[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!

[Turbo]

I agree! Thank God for Bob Enyart and his ministry.

[novice]

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! Well thats all fine and good but what would Van Till and Bahnsen think???? :shocked: :noid: :crackup: :chuckle:

[Hilston]

Novice,

Welcome back. There are some questions that have been awaiting your return:

Novice wrote:The Bible says Zakath will not have a excuse for himself to God!Where? 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?

Novice wrote:What would that have to do with debating a Christian here on earth? NOTHING!!!Does "not being ashamed of the gospel" have anything to do with a Christian here on earth, Novice?

Jim

[cheeezywheeezy]

THAT'S IT??? You condemn Bob for presenting a beginning of an argument for the existence of God and when you are asked to write how you would start out such a discussion ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY IS...

"Don't you already know that God exists? How is it possible that God does NOT exist? Do you view that as a real possibility?"

You simply change the debate topic of "Does God Exist" to "Does God NOT Exist". You take away the oportunity to show that God is real and loving and just etc...from yourself and put it on the other person to prove that your God does not exist.

If this is how you would start the discussion and you asked someone the question you asked me...

"Do you view that as a real possibility?"

and i then said "yes I view it as a real possibility that God does not exist and I would like you to show me that He does"...then where would you go?

[Hilston]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
I've heard of Classical Apologetics, but have never read it.
Was it written by RC Sproul Jr. or Sr.?

RC Sr, I think. On second thought, I do recommend the book to those with a firm grasp of biblical apologetics, mainly because it exposes the folly of straw man arguments and power of the evidentialist paradigm to trump rationality.

It seems to me that the worst part of evidentialism is the meta-level discussion is itself evidentialistic. Witness the kinds of claims used here to justify bad and unbiblical methodology: "It worked on me!" As if that justifies it. God uses the folly of men, even Madonna and the Mormons, to accomplish His purposes.

Jim

[cheeezywheeezy]

You mock Knight with the statement...


"Witness the kinds of claims used here to justify bad and unbiblical methodology: "It worked on me!" As if that justifies it."


How is that unbiblical? When Jesus healed the blind man all he could say was...

"...I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see." (John 9:25)

Isn't that biblical? The answer the guy gave was hey...look what he did for me? Isn't it great! That's what Knight is saying...and you mock him.

Pro 26:11 As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.

[jeremiah]

Here is a scripture that might help you understand. This is what Jesus said in John 3-12. " If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how shall you believe if I tell you heavenly things."
If Bob explains to Zakath, and those listening in, earthly things about God's existence and they don't believe, then how are they to understand the heavenly things.
Yes, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Yet a prerequisite in the same book, the Bible, is that one "must " believe that God exists, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
I did not know that apparently two admininstators, both Knight and Lion, were saved through the very same man and ministry which you attack for its methods. This should give you pause to think, and reconsider.
I agree with you, Zakath is a biblical fool. but Bob is biblically wise as shown through Knight and Lion. Daniel 12: 3 " And they that be WISE shall shine as the brightness of the firmament,and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars forever and ever."

[NATEDOG]

I was an atheist just like Zakath!

I don't think that God can't use Bob's ministry or this debate to bear fruit. I don't exactly agree with Billy Graham's evangelistic methods, but I know of plenty of people that have come to Christ after they have heard his preaching.
It sounds that you've kind of gotten defensive, and have started viewing this as an attack on Mr. Enyart rather than a critique of the approach he has taken in this debate.

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.

Presuppositional apologetics don't preclude the use of scientific points and argument. They can be helpful, maybe even compelling.
To however, make that the foundation of your apologetic seems to me to be a warping of priority.
How can you reason 'tit for tat' over details with an unbeliever who's (unless you can provide an alternate biblical explanation for the scriptures that would seem to say this) reason is twisted.
Atheism is an incoherent worldview. It can't provide the parameters for reason. Atheism can't account for reason. It can't account for induction, therefore neither of these things, reason and induction, can be accepted reasonably.
If they can't be accepted reasonably, and they are accepted, then they must have been accepted unreasonably.
Mr. Enyart seems to have granted Zakath neutrality. He is letting Zakath fight him with the sword of reason.
Reason can't exist in Zakath's worldview, so why should Bob let him defend that worldview with reason?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Good things may come from this debate. God may use Mr. Enyarts arguments to bring people to him, even if he doesn't use the most effective debate tactics. God will use it for good even if Enyart loses the debate. Don't consider this an attack on his motives.
Peace,
Nathan

[Hilston]

cheeezywheeezy, here's a newflash for you: Bob Enyart is not the Messiah and Bob Enyart did not save Knight.

Also, you show a pattern here,cheeezywheeezy. Every critical thing is taken by you as a personal affront, even when it isn't directed at you. Grow some thicker skin. Also, look up the word "mock."

cheeezywheeezy writes:You condemn Bob for presenting a beginning of an argument for the existence of God and when you are asked to write how you would start out such a discussion ALL YOU HAVE TO SAY IS... "Don't you already know that God exists? How is it possible that God does NOT exist? Do you view that as a real possibility?"What's wrong with that, cheeezywheeezy? I haven't violated scripture by my questions as Bob Enyart has with his.


cheeezywheeezy writes:You simply change the debate topic of "Does God Exist" to "Does God NOT Exist".What debate topic, cheeezywheeezy? You asked me to prove the existence of God. I am asking you how is it possible that He doesn't exist. There is no "topic of debate" here, except the purpose of the thread I started (to expose the unbiblical apologetic method being witnessed against Zakath).

cheeezywheeezy writes:You take away the oportunity to show that God is real and loving and just etc...from yourself and put it on the other person to prove that your God does not exist.Who is the "other person", cheeezywheeezy? You? If so, I need to know more about your position, hence the questions. I don't debate in a vacuum. Don't you already know that God is real and loving and just?


cheeezywheeezy writes:If this is how you would start the discussion and you asked someone the question you asked me... "Do you view that as a real possibility?" ... and i would "yes I view it as a real possibility that God does not exist and I would like you to show me that He does"...then where would you go?Is that your actual position, cheeezywheeezy? Do you consider it a actual possibility that He does not exist? You see, this little exercise that you're foisting upon this thread exposes the very thing I set it up to critique. You have a false notion of neutrality in the debate, as if you could actually stand in the position of the anti-theist and argue consistently in the so-called atheist's behalf. I've tried this myself in the past. The error of the exercise is this: Anti-theists are God-hating self-deluded liars and they espouse a worldview that cannot be justified on their own principles. This is what must be confronted and exposed, cheeezywheeezy. I doubt you would be able to adequately and consistently represent the real-life anti-theist viewpoint, as evidenced by the way you responded to my questions above.

Jim

[cheeezywheeezy]

NATE, you said...

"Mr. Enyart seems to have granted Zakath neutrality. He is letting Zakath fight him with the sword of reason.
Reason can't exist in Zakath's worldview, so why should Bob let him defend that worldview with reason?"

It's only the second round!!! You guys are acting as if Bob is a biblical moron and this is the first time he has ever been in this situation. Have you not seen and heard Bob debate an atheist before to know where he's going with his arguments?

You also say...

"It sounds that you've kind of gotten defensive, and have started viewing this as an attack on Mr. Enyart..."

Hilston started this as an attack on Bob when he wrote:

"I predict a loss for Mr. Enyart...because Mr. Enyart's arguments are horribly unbiblical"

and

"in the end, that Mr. Enyart cleaned Zakath's proverbial clock on a debate level, whether through superior rhetoric or a wider knowledge of science, the fact is, if Mr. Enyart continues to argue unbiblically, he will have lost the debate on a biblical level."

Hilston got his shorts all up in a bunch just after one post claiming Bob's entire argument was entirely unbiblical...AFTER ONE POST! If you guys have not seen Bob debate an atheist...just wait.

[cheeezywheeezy]

"You have a false notion of neutrality in the debate"

what debate?

you spent an entire post as is a debate didn't exist...and then claim I am making false notions in this so called debate that doesn't exist.

[cheeezywheeezy]

"I haven't violated scripture by my questions"

Where in the bible does it list the questions you are supposed to ask when engaging in a debate?

[cheeezywheeezy]

"Bob Enyart is not the Messiah and Bob Enyart did not save Knight."

I never said that he did.

But you state that Knights salvation "testimony" is unbiblical when you said...

"Witness the kinds of claims used here to justify bad and unbiblical methodology: "It worked on me!" As if that justifies it.

Describe the unbiblicalness of what Knight has said.

[NATEDOG]

It's only the second round!!!

Maybe you're right. Maybe he'll prove me wrong, that'd be cool.
I just don't see it heading in that direction.
Also, I've heard that Bob strictly subscribes to the evidential model, and the first few posts didn't do anything to make me doubt that it's true.

You guys are acting as if Bob is a biblical moron and this is the first time he has ever been in this situation.

I've never seen Bob debate an atheist. I have seen many evidentialists debate atheists though, so if he is taking that approach I probably know what to expect. Who knows, maybe he'll bring something to the debate I've never seen before.

[NATEDOG]

It'd be interesting to see a battleroyal debate on the Presuppositional method vs Evidential method.

[Hilston]

Natedog,

I've never seen an evidentialist save himself from his own methodology. It cannot be done.

Cheeezywheeezy writes:Hilston got his shorts all up in a bunch ...Are you attacking my fashion sense, cheeezywheeezy? [Now that's mocking, cheeezywheeezy].

cheeezywheeezy writes:... just after one post claiming Bob's entire argument was entirely unbiblical...AFTER ONE POST!The fact that you even state that sentence sufficiently demonstrates that you just don't get it, cheeezywheeezy. I listen to, attend and read as many "Does God Exist" debates as I have opportunity. I can always tell from the opening arguments whether the person is going to lose the debate on a rational biblical level or not.

cheeezywheeezy writes:If you guys have not seen Bob debate an atheist...just wait.I have, cheeezywheeezy. I followed his debates with Douglas Krueger and Michael Shermer. It's always awful overall. I will grant that he occasionally makes excellent points, but unfortunately, he introduces them in unbiblical and irrational ways. Bob Enyart has fine debating skills; much better than mine. Depending on the particular point he is making, he is very good at staying on topic and holding the opponents feet to the fire. Also, he thinks on his feet, which is something I really admire and wish I could do better. 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.

[cheeezywheeezy]

what would you consider to be the best Presuppositional position debate to watch, read, or listen to in order to compare the two?

[NATEDOG]

I always like the Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein debate.
http://www.u-turn.net/3-2/exist.html

I don't know where you could get the debate on audio, I'll look for it.

[NATEDOG]

http://www.grandstrandredeemer.org/misc.html

if you go here, about 3/4 of the way down the page there is the bahnsen vs stein debate on real player. it's advertised in really small letters, so you may have to look hard for it.

[Hilston]

Originally posted by cheeezywheeezy
what would you consider to be the best Presuppositional position debate to watch, read, or listen to in order to compare the two?

Books:

Bahnsen, Greg L. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. American Vision and Covenant Media Foundation, 1996.

______. Van Til's Apologetic: Readings & Analysis. P&R Publishing, 1998.

Frame, John M. Apologetics to the Glory of God: An Introduction. P&R Publishing, 1994.

______ Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought. P&R Publishing, 1995.

Pratt, Richard L., Jr. Every Thought Captive: A Study Manual for the Defense of Christian Truth. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1979.

Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1955.

Audio debates:

The Great Debate: Does God Exist?
Writeup from CMF website: "This is the famous formal debate between Dr. Bahnsen and atheist promoter Dr. Gordon Stein held at the university of California (Irvine) in 1985. Hear how hard it is to deny God's existence and how intellectually rigorous the Christian position actually is."
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=241&1=316&3=9530

Does God Exist?: A Debate Between Greg Bahnsen and Edward Tabash
Writeup from CMF website: "This formal debate between Dr. Bahnsen and atheist lawyer (former ACLU) Edward Tabash at the University of California (Davis), is a great follow-up to the Bahnsen/Stein debate. Witness again how an atheist fails to wrestle with fundamental philosophical issues."
http://www.cmfnow.com/product.asp?0=241&1=316&3=9532

Jim

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
I always like the Greg Bahnsen vs. Gordon Stein debate.
http://www.u-turn.net/3-2/exist.html

I don't know where you could get the debate on audio, I'll look for it.

I've heard that one. He cleans that guy's clock, if you ask me.

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
http://www.grandstrandredeemer.org/misc.html

if you go here, about 3/4 of the way down the page there is the bahnsen vs stein debate on real player. it's advertised in really small letters, so you may have to look hard for it.

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.

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/topic/apologetics.html

[NATEDOG]

Who cleans who's clock?

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
Who cleans who's clock?

Bahnsen cleans Stein's.

[NATEDOG]

gooooooood :ahso:

[novice]

Originally posted by Hilston
Novice,

Welcome back. There are some questions that have been awaiting your return:Oh well then, by all means! :rolleyes:

Jims states:Where?Here...
Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,....Romans 2:1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?

Jim states: 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?Yes.

Do you agree that Zakath THINKS he has a defense or an excuse?

Jim states:Does "not being ashamed of the gospel" have anything to do with a Christian here on earth, Novice?

Jim Ya know I can honestly say I have no idea as to what sort of a point your making.

But then again maybe that is a good thing. :bannana:

[Knight]

Originally posted by Hilston
cheeezywheeezy, here's a newflash for you: Bob Enyart is not the Messiah and Bob Enyart did not save Knight. Jim, do you really think that was the point being made?

[novice]

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. Ya mean like if Bob Enyart used the MATRIX or Blade Runner as the basis for his arguments? :rolleyes:

Sorry Hilston, I couldn't resist.

:chuckle: :chuckle: :crackup:

[NATEDOG]

I don't know dude, I'm havin a hard time taking Larry here seriously. :chuckle:

[NATEDOG]

Novice,
I'd just ask you to understand it before you knock it.

[LightSon]

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!

Wow! That is one awesome testimony Knight.

Isn't it amazing how a seed planted can so dramatically affect countless lives? How many more will come to Christ as a result of your labor and that of your family? Thanks for sharing!

For God's glory.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by NATEDOG
I don't know dude, I'm havin a hard time taking Larry here seriously. :chuckle:

:) I too am trying to take you seriously NOVICE, but I keep hearing this Yuk, Yuk, Yuk as I read your posts. I think it might be your avatar. :chuckle:

[novice]

Originally posted by LightSon
:) I too am trying to take you seriously NOVICE, but I keep hearing this Yuk, Yuk, Yuk as I read your posts. I think it might be your avatar. :chuckle: LOL... :D

[Hilston]

Jefferson informed me that this thread was mentioned on Bob Enyart Live. At Bob's suggestion, I am posting the private correspondence he and I had back in February of 2002 regarding apologetic methods. It was prompted by some inaccurate comments Bob Enyart made on Bob Enyart Live regarding presuppositionalists. I've annotated minimally only for the sake of providing context. I will submit the e-mails as separate posts.

Greetings Bob,

I heard part of your Feb 13 [2002] internet broad(band)cast and some of your statements got my attention. You said: "There are Christians who call themselves presuppositionalists. ... They are adamant; they get angry if they hear somebody try to convince an atheist that God exists."

Would you be willing to share what experiences you've had with presuppositionalists that give you this impression? Being a presuppositionalist myself, my experience is quite the opposite. Presuppositionalists tend to be more rational and less emotional, while evidentialists seem more likely to become angry, irrational and overly emotional, and eventually stomp away in a huff (figuratively speaking).

You said, "[Presuppositionalists] get angry because they believe that you can't become a Christian unless you already assume that the Bible is the Word of God."

This is a false statement. I don't know of a single presuppositionalist who would agree with this. In fact, I can't think of a single *person*, regardless of denomination or apologetic methodology, who would agree with this.

You said:
"[Presuppositionalists] think you canNOT become a Christian unless you assume, you presuppose that the Bible is the revealed will of God."

Also false.

You said:
"And that argument fails in a number of ways, one of which the Bible wasn't always here. We didn't always have the Bible."

Excellent point, albeit non sequitur, given that you're arguing against a strawman. Your statement here is nonetheless important because it addresses the following question: Prior to the books of the Bible becoming established, or let's say, before Moses wrote down the Pentateuch, how did people know what was and was not the Word of God?

You said:
"... Not only did [police officer Carroll] become a Christian [after hearing the scientific arguments that evolution was false], but he's brought many others to the Lord. And we've heard that story countless times from people around the country and even outside the country."

A presuppositionalist has no problem with people coming to faith in Christ from hearing scientific arguments against evolution, so this of course is not a refutation.

Bob, you've betrayed a very serious misunderstanding of the presuppositional apologetic. Moreover, you've done your listeners a disservice and probably prematurely alienated some to presuppositionalism (which is now a "bad word"), and not because you've adequately understood, let alone refuted, its thesis. You've basically and implicitly encouraged your listeners to disregard a certain label that you have yet to clearly understand.

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.

Please write back if I can clarify anything further for you.

Yours,
James Hilston

[Hilston]

Bob Enyart's reply was as follows:

In a message dated 2/15/2002 1:06:24 AM Mountain Standard Time, Hilston1 writes:

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.

More than a decade ago, I read a book by Van Til (was it?) suggested by some of his fans. I recall (or I think I recall, perhaps you can correct me), that they were trying to convince me that I should not debate evolution or science with unbelievers, as that approach could not even theoretically work. Now, am I dreaming this (the mind does strange things with memories), or is it possible this all actually occurred. I really don't recall exactly the debate, it was a while ago, and I only gave it some attention. But, can you please answer this question: Is it a worthwhile effort, and one that can move a man closer to conversion, to scientifically debate the existence of God with unbelievers, apart from quoting Scripture?

Thanks, -Bob

----------------
More to come ... (if I can find it ...)

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Hilston
I especially like your repudiation of the "hate the sin, love the sinner" anti-truth of modern christendom.


Dear Jim,
I can only conjecture as to what such a repudiation would look like. What would be the antithesis you embrace?

-love the sin, love the sinner.
-hate the sin, hate the sinner.
-love the sin, hate the sinner.

That's about it. Are one of these preferred in your view?