What do you think?
Rate this book
Always Ready: Directions For Defending The Faith
This book is a compilation of several of Dr. Bahnsen's published works on Christian apologetics, including his Apologetics syllabus, articles on practical apologetic problems (like the problem of evil, the problem of miracles, etc.), and an exposition of Acts 17. (paper)
289 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1996
248 people are currently reading
1,280 people want to read
About the author
Greg L. Bahnsen
72books143followersGreg L. Bahnsen was an influential Calvinist Christian philosopher, apologist, and debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 120 reviews
May 27, 2024
Best book on apologetics I've ever read.
I suppose when most Christians refer to certain defenses made on behalf of Christianity, they tend to recommend specific lectures or books by learned apologists on the particular subject. For instance, a book on the problem of evil may be recommended separately from a book on the cosmological argument for God's existence. Greg Bahnsen's Always Ready however, smashes this compartmentalization of Christian apologetics. It really is, "All right there!" I wholeheartedly recommend Bahsen's work as not only concise and to the point, but also far-reaching an exhaustive in its simplicity. I do believe it's the best single academic and pragmatic book I've ever read on the subject of apologetics. So what's so great about Always Ready and how does it differ from other books on defending the faith? There are four reasons I tout this product above the competition.
It's Scriptural
I don't know about you, but I get frustrated when I read any work of Theology- including apologetic material- only to find that Scripture isn't even used to support the main thesis. There often exists a disconnect between the "ends" and the "means" in Christian's interaction with culture, and I at least partially fault "philosophical" books about Theology (i.e. books that support a Biblical assertion without first building the support itself on top of Bible passages). In the realm of law and government this thinking is horrendously common. "Let's use humanism against the humanists" is really the strategy of most Christian lawyers and politicians. They want to support a Christian end such as outlawing abortions, without making their arguments from Scripture verses (Psalm 127:3, Psalm 22:10-11, etc.) and doctrines (man's intrinsic worth rooted in his position as an "image bearer," God's commands against murder, etc.). Instead they'll rely completely upon court "precedent" and statistical surveys (i.e. It's what the people want!). I've listened to and read many apologetic works that do the same exact thing. They'll use philosophical arguments to prove Scripture. The "Free-will" defense is an extremely common philosophical rebuttal to those who would accuse God of being unloving, however where does Scripture ever make such a case? Both the book of Job and the book of Romans make it quite clear that man has no standing to act as God's judge, yet the majority of apologists want so desperately to act as God's defendant using arguments He hasn't even given them.
Dr. Bahnsen is a breath of fresh air after being exposed to so many humanist-flirting Christians. He unequivocally takes his stand upon Scripture itself and denies any inkling of a notion which would even start to ponder the possibility of proving Biblical authority without first presupposing it. Many astute individuals will at this point make the accusation, "That's circular argumentation!" And in a sense it is. But as I expanded on previously in my remarks concerning John Frame's book Apologetics to the Glory of God, "A circular argument is actually quite unavoidable when referring back to our ultimate authority." Every worldview- no matter what it is- argues in a "broad" circle such that the adherent assumes at the outset that what he is defending is true. If this were not the case, a rationalist could not use reason to argue for rationalism, an empiricist could not use science to prove science, etc. All philosophical systems therefore need a "final authority" which is self-authenticating. This is the way Yahweh, which means "self-sufficient one," presents Himself to Moses in the burning bush. Bahnsen recognizes this fact and starts off his central thesis by correlating many of the passages that explicitly teach the supremacy of Christ as our logical starting point. Col. 2:3 presents "Christ Himself" as the one "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." If our starting point for epistemology (the study of truth) is not Christ than we committing the sin of idolatry. Paul warns that Christ should be our starting point so that as verse 4 indicates, "no one may delude [us] with persuasive argument." And what kind of persuasive argument are we referring to? Verse 8 describes it as the "elementary" principles of the world. Paul writes, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." King Solomon stated it this way in Proverbs 1:7, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." For the Christian, "every thought," as 1 Cor. 10:5 states, should be "captive to the obedience of Christ." Therefore our philosophical starting point, our "elementary principle," our verification for all truth, our "final authority," is the Word of God. Therefore, Bahnsen's starting point is the Bible.
It's Presuppositional
Bahnsen is not willing to concede any philosophical ground as "neutral" territory. He recognizes the fact that one cannot "serve two Masters" for he will either "hate the one" or "love the other." If Christians for a moment give nonbelievers the upper hand in this they've lost the battle at the outset, for what they are saying, "We are autonomous." In other words, "We can arrive at truth without a precommitment to God." This methodology seems contrary to the apologetics of Paul on Mar's Hill, who "pushed the antithesis," labeling the unbelievers as "ignorant" and preaching what the Athenians already knew in their heart of hearts though they were suppressing it; that God is "not far from each one of us." According to Bahnsen, Paul was following the example set forth in Proverbs 26:4-5 to "not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. [but instead to] Answer a fool as his folly deserves, lest he be wise in his own eyes." If we accepted the nonbeliever's pressupositions whatever they may be, we are essentially answering a fool according to his folly. We are "like him" because we're making the same mistake he's making. If Paul were to concede polytheism at the outset he would have lost. If he were to have conceded Gnosticism he would have lost. So why do we concede empiricism? Why do we set about to give historical or scientific evidence that will lead someone to Christ by their own reason according to their own standards of autonomous empiricism. More frequent now among the laity is the concession of pragmatic postmodernism. "Christ works for me, maybe He'll work for you too!" These approaches answer a fool according to his folly. What we should do instead is, "Answer a fool as his folly deserves." This means showing him or her that they can't live by their own philosophy. Their worldview possesses internal inconsistences and is self-refuting. It can't even live up to its own standard of measure. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is without inconsistencies and does live up to its epistomological standards. It corresponds to reality, and even non-Christians must assume the God of the Bible to be true in order for reality to be intelligable at all. God is supremely over us "for in Him we live and move and exist." Our pressupositions (things we assume to be true without proof) can only be Christian if we are to be rational.
It's Understandable
Bahnsen's writings may take a little bit to get use to, but they are much more understandable than many of the other presuppositional writers. Van Til and Frame seem infinitely more confusing than Bahnsen does at explaining the preconditions for intelligibility, etc. The only author off-hand who may be simpler is Dr. Jason Lisle, however, Lisle in his book The Ultimate Proof of Creation, does not go into as much detail as Bahnsen does.Bahnsen manages to exegete Acts 17, expound upon the impossibility of philosophical "neutrality," explain the preconditions for intelligibility, preach on the attitude and purpose an apologist must have, teach the "don't answer, answer" strategy, explain the transcendental argument (The proof for God's existence is that without Him we couldn't prove anything), talk about logical fallacies, and answer the problems of evil, faith, miracles, etc. in a 274 page book. I guarantee once you learn the strategies herein you'll want to share them with your unsaved friends and coworkers. They're powerful, full-proof, and Biblical.
It's Practical
Bahnsen emphasizes the fact that evangelism and apologetics are inseparable. We aren't using mind games to diffuse another's worldview for our own enjoyment or superiority. We are to be humble, respectful, and above all Gospel-focused. This is the reason he includes an exegetical insight on Acts 17. We need to follow in Paul's footsteps and preach the truth of God's Word, not man's wisdom. This book is an essential part of any apologist's training, and since all Christians are to be apologists, we should all read this book. I would have to say in all seriousness, that if you could purchase any book to read and keep in your library on apologetics, I believe this would be the book to have because of its powerful message and practical method.
I suppose when most Christians refer to certain defenses made on behalf of Christianity, they tend to recommend specific lectures or books by learned apologists on the particular subject. For instance, a book on the problem of evil may be recommended separately from a book on the cosmological argument for God's existence. Greg Bahnsen's Always Ready however, smashes this compartmentalization of Christian apologetics. It really is, "All right there!" I wholeheartedly recommend Bahsen's work as not only concise and to the point, but also far-reaching an exhaustive in its simplicity. I do believe it's the best single academic and pragmatic book I've ever read on the subject of apologetics. So what's so great about Always Ready and how does it differ from other books on defending the faith? There are four reasons I tout this product above the competition.
It's Scriptural
I don't know about you, but I get frustrated when I read any work of Theology- including apologetic material- only to find that Scripture isn't even used to support the main thesis. There often exists a disconnect between the "ends" and the "means" in Christian's interaction with culture, and I at least partially fault "philosophical" books about Theology (i.e. books that support a Biblical assertion without first building the support itself on top of Bible passages). In the realm of law and government this thinking is horrendously common. "Let's use humanism against the humanists" is really the strategy of most Christian lawyers and politicians. They want to support a Christian end such as outlawing abortions, without making their arguments from Scripture verses (Psalm 127:3, Psalm 22:10-11, etc.) and doctrines (man's intrinsic worth rooted in his position as an "image bearer," God's commands against murder, etc.). Instead they'll rely completely upon court "precedent" and statistical surveys (i.e. It's what the people want!). I've listened to and read many apologetic works that do the same exact thing. They'll use philosophical arguments to prove Scripture. The "Free-will" defense is an extremely common philosophical rebuttal to those who would accuse God of being unloving, however where does Scripture ever make such a case? Both the book of Job and the book of Romans make it quite clear that man has no standing to act as God's judge, yet the majority of apologists want so desperately to act as God's defendant using arguments He hasn't even given them.
Dr. Bahnsen is a breath of fresh air after being exposed to so many humanist-flirting Christians. He unequivocally takes his stand upon Scripture itself and denies any inkling of a notion which would even start to ponder the possibility of proving Biblical authority without first presupposing it. Many astute individuals will at this point make the accusation, "That's circular argumentation!" And in a sense it is. But as I expanded on previously in my remarks concerning John Frame's book Apologetics to the Glory of God, "A circular argument is actually quite unavoidable when referring back to our ultimate authority." Every worldview- no matter what it is- argues in a "broad" circle such that the adherent assumes at the outset that what he is defending is true. If this were not the case, a rationalist could not use reason to argue for rationalism, an empiricist could not use science to prove science, etc. All philosophical systems therefore need a "final authority" which is self-authenticating. This is the way Yahweh, which means "self-sufficient one," presents Himself to Moses in the burning bush. Bahnsen recognizes this fact and starts off his central thesis by correlating many of the passages that explicitly teach the supremacy of Christ as our logical starting point. Col. 2:3 presents "Christ Himself" as the one "in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge." If our starting point for epistemology (the study of truth) is not Christ than we committing the sin of idolatry. Paul warns that Christ should be our starting point so that as verse 4 indicates, "no one may delude [us] with persuasive argument." And what kind of persuasive argument are we referring to? Verse 8 describes it as the "elementary" principles of the world. Paul writes, "See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." King Solomon stated it this way in Proverbs 1:7, "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; Fools despise wisdom and instruction." For the Christian, "every thought," as 1 Cor. 10:5 states, should be "captive to the obedience of Christ." Therefore our philosophical starting point, our "elementary principle," our verification for all truth, our "final authority," is the Word of God. Therefore, Bahnsen's starting point is the Bible.
It's Presuppositional
Bahnsen is not willing to concede any philosophical ground as "neutral" territory. He recognizes the fact that one cannot "serve two Masters" for he will either "hate the one" or "love the other." If Christians for a moment give nonbelievers the upper hand in this they've lost the battle at the outset, for what they are saying, "We are autonomous." In other words, "We can arrive at truth without a precommitment to God." This methodology seems contrary to the apologetics of Paul on Mar's Hill, who "pushed the antithesis," labeling the unbelievers as "ignorant" and preaching what the Athenians already knew in their heart of hearts though they were suppressing it; that God is "not far from each one of us." According to Bahnsen, Paul was following the example set forth in Proverbs 26:4-5 to "not answer a fool according to his folly, lest you also be like him. [but instead to] Answer a fool as his folly deserves, lest he be wise in his own eyes." If we accepted the nonbeliever's pressupositions whatever they may be, we are essentially answering a fool according to his folly. We are "like him" because we're making the same mistake he's making. If Paul were to concede polytheism at the outset he would have lost. If he were to have conceded Gnosticism he would have lost. So why do we concede empiricism? Why do we set about to give historical or scientific evidence that will lead someone to Christ by their own reason according to their own standards of autonomous empiricism. More frequent now among the laity is the concession of pragmatic postmodernism. "Christ works for me, maybe He'll work for you too!" These approaches answer a fool according to his folly. What we should do instead is, "Answer a fool as his folly deserves." This means showing him or her that they can't live by their own philosophy. Their worldview possesses internal inconsistences and is self-refuting. It can't even live up to its own standard of measure. On the other hand, the Christian worldview is without inconsistencies and does live up to its epistomological standards. It corresponds to reality, and even non-Christians must assume the God of the Bible to be true in order for reality to be intelligable at all. God is supremely over us "for in Him we live and move and exist." Our pressupositions (things we assume to be true without proof) can only be Christian if we are to be rational.
It's Understandable
Bahnsen's writings may take a little bit to get use to, but they are much more understandable than many of the other presuppositional writers. Van Til and Frame seem infinitely more confusing than Bahnsen does at explaining the preconditions for intelligibility, etc. The only author off-hand who may be simpler is Dr. Jason Lisle, however, Lisle in his book The Ultimate Proof of Creation, does not go into as much detail as Bahnsen does.Bahnsen manages to exegete Acts 17, expound upon the impossibility of philosophical "neutrality," explain the preconditions for intelligibility, preach on the attitude and purpose an apologist must have, teach the "don't answer, answer" strategy, explain the transcendental argument (The proof for God's existence is that without Him we couldn't prove anything), talk about logical fallacies, and answer the problems of evil, faith, miracles, etc. in a 274 page book. I guarantee once you learn the strategies herein you'll want to share them with your unsaved friends and coworkers. They're powerful, full-proof, and Biblical.
It's Practical
Bahnsen emphasizes the fact that evangelism and apologetics are inseparable. We aren't using mind games to diffuse another's worldview for our own enjoyment or superiority. We are to be humble, respectful, and above all Gospel-focused. This is the reason he includes an exegetical insight on Acts 17. We need to follow in Paul's footsteps and preach the truth of God's Word, not man's wisdom. This book is an essential part of any apologist's training, and since all Christians are to be apologists, we should all read this book. I would have to say in all seriousness, that if you could purchase any book to read and keep in your library on apologetics, I believe this would be the book to have because of its powerful message and practical method.
November 20, 2022
Very good. I appreciated the method of apologetics that Bahnsen outlined. It was especially useful in outlining the presuppositions that all worldviews have, believer and non-believer alike. There is little point, even in debate, of pretending that we as Christians don't have a point of view and are somehow neutral observers, so we should not be afraid to speak from the place of a Christian worldview. The main criticism I would have with Bahnsen's method is that he says that it can be used to counter all non-believers, but in practice it seems that he just means atheists (and maybe pantheists) based on his logic and all his examples. It appears very effective against those ideologies, but I don't see how his method of impossibility of the contrary would work with non-Christian theists, for example a Muslim. Classical apologetics does better and is more prepared to deal with those cases. But overall, Bahnsen does a phenomenal job supporting his method and grounding it in Scripture. I found it to be a very helpful book.
June 2, 2016
"The necessity of apologetics is a moral necessity: God has chosen us to do His work through us and has called us to do it. Apologetics is the special talent of some believers, and the interested hobby of others; but it is the God-ordained responsibility of all believers." Bahnsen (page 111). Always Ready is a phenomenal book. A treasure trove of biblical apologetics, and sound doctrine; a pearl of wisdom and truth. As Bahnsen stated above, apologetics is not optional for believers. We must be "always ready" (1 Peter 3:15) to give a defensive of the hope that is within us. So, by all means, give yourself to the study of apologetics, in which this book shall be invaluable.
October 22, 2020
Great overview of Biblical apologetics. It could serve as an intro to the presuppositional approach depending on your background. For some, Pratt’s Every Thought Captive or Lisle’s Ultimate Proof of Creation may be a better starting point.
April 22, 2020
Repetitive at the beginning, but still very goos.
March 1, 2023
Free audiobook on spotify🥹 Presuppositional & each chapter brings fresh defenses, rather than a repetitive response like many presups. Fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom & no man can find God in his own intelligence. 10/10
May 27, 2024
Hands down the best book I've ever read on apologetics.
July 7, 2017
An excellent resource, and one I'm likely to reread before too long.
August 6, 2009
As an undergraduate philosophy student at a secular university, I constantly have my faith in question and tend to spend a lot of my time reading and discussing apologetics. I picked up Dr. Bahnsen's book because I had heard defenses of presuppositional apologetics from laymen and felt that I should honor a tradition by reading some of its more learned defenders. After reading the book, I was highly disappointed.
Considering the fact that Dr. Bahnsen has M.Div. and Th.M. degrees from Westminster and a Ph.D. in philosophy from USC, this book was not very good. From the very beginning Dr. Bahnsen makes claims that are very polemical and very underdeveloped. Within the first 10 pages of the book he asserts that approaching apologetics on a neutral ground (practicing classical apologetics) is "nothing short of immorality." Now even though I would (somewhat) adhere to the classical apologetics camp, I was not worried by his claim, but his bad argumentation; he spends less then three pages defending this claim. His thoughts are so underdeveloped that it looked like something I would expect from one of my fellow undergraduates. And to beat it all, his scriptural citations he uses as support could easily offer a different interpretation than the one Dr. Bahnsen assumes.
Throughout the book Dr. Bahnsen makes such claims. In his section on the problem of evil he suggests that non-Christians have no objective system of ethics from which they can judge God. Dr. Bahnsen just assumes that all non-Christians are moral relativists or nihilists of some sort. Again given his education, this is completely unwarranted. Dr. Bahnsen knows that there are many non-Christian moral realists in the world (not a majority, but a significant minority nonetheless). This is just inexcusable.
Furthermore, his system of presuppositional apologetics falls under one of the most common informal fallacies in all of argumentation. It argues in a circle. Now Dr. Bahnsen does acknowledge this throughout the book and defends himself by recognizing that his circularity is not a flat circle (more of an oval?), but he asserts that all debates about ultimate truth must eventually argue in a circle (again he supports his argument with one very underdeveloped paragraph).
Dr. Bahnsen suggests that the Christian apologist can defend the truth of the faith by arguing for the impossibility of the contrary. He says, "the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything." Wow. What a statement. And not to my surprise, Dr. Bahnsen gives next to no support for this assertion. He gives tons of very loose scriptural exegesis to support his claim, but no philosophical defense whatsoever. And given Dr. Bahnsen's enthusiasm for assuming what you are trying to defend or prove, a very obvious rebuttal to this would for the non-Christian to simply assume a coherent worldview similar to that of Dr. Bahnsen's but only one with a god which reveals himself in four persons instead of three. If you are so ready to just presuppose that which you are trying to defend, all bets are off on actually showing the non-Christian they are wrong if they have any brains whatsoever, because they can just assume that they are right.
After reading this book, I can say that I have not lost hope for presuppositional apologetics as a whole, but rather with this particular book defending it. Perhaps there are great defenses of the Christian faith being given using a presuppositional methodology, but this is without a doubt not one of them.
Considering the fact that Dr. Bahnsen has M.Div. and Th.M. degrees from Westminster and a Ph.D. in philosophy from USC, this book was not very good. From the very beginning Dr. Bahnsen makes claims that are very polemical and very underdeveloped. Within the first 10 pages of the book he asserts that approaching apologetics on a neutral ground (practicing classical apologetics) is "nothing short of immorality." Now even though I would (somewhat) adhere to the classical apologetics camp, I was not worried by his claim, but his bad argumentation; he spends less then three pages defending this claim. His thoughts are so underdeveloped that it looked like something I would expect from one of my fellow undergraduates. And to beat it all, his scriptural citations he uses as support could easily offer a different interpretation than the one Dr. Bahnsen assumes.
Throughout the book Dr. Bahnsen makes such claims. In his section on the problem of evil he suggests that non-Christians have no objective system of ethics from which they can judge God. Dr. Bahnsen just assumes that all non-Christians are moral relativists or nihilists of some sort. Again given his education, this is completely unwarranted. Dr. Bahnsen knows that there are many non-Christian moral realists in the world (not a majority, but a significant minority nonetheless). This is just inexcusable.
Furthermore, his system of presuppositional apologetics falls under one of the most common informal fallacies in all of argumentation. It argues in a circle. Now Dr. Bahnsen does acknowledge this throughout the book and defends himself by recognizing that his circularity is not a flat circle (more of an oval?), but he asserts that all debates about ultimate truth must eventually argue in a circle (again he supports his argument with one very underdeveloped paragraph).
Dr. Bahnsen suggests that the Christian apologist can defend the truth of the faith by arguing for the impossibility of the contrary. He says, "the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything." Wow. What a statement. And not to my surprise, Dr. Bahnsen gives next to no support for this assertion. He gives tons of very loose scriptural exegesis to support his claim, but no philosophical defense whatsoever. And given Dr. Bahnsen's enthusiasm for assuming what you are trying to defend or prove, a very obvious rebuttal to this would for the non-Christian to simply assume a coherent worldview similar to that of Dr. Bahnsen's but only one with a god which reveals himself in four persons instead of three. If you are so ready to just presuppose that which you are trying to defend, all bets are off on actually showing the non-Christian they are wrong if they have any brains whatsoever, because they can just assume that they are right.
After reading this book, I can say that I have not lost hope for presuppositional apologetics as a whole, but rather with this particular book defending it. Perhaps there are great defenses of the Christian faith being given using a presuppositional methodology, but this is without a doubt not one of them.
June 19, 2009
I will confess that I was a bit leery of picking up this book, because of the intellectual powerhouse that I know Bahnsen to be. I have listened to dozens of his lectures, and have always admired his ability to articulate very complex categories of thought. However, I was pleasantly surprised when I began this book, and quickly devoured it within a period of just a few days.
The book has short chapters to start with, which make the reader feel like he is accomplishing something great, and although these small bites are very repetitive, this repetitious manner is actually quite helpful. The author wants to establish a foundation within the readers mind, of the core problem that unbelievers have when it comes to the gospel—their faulty presuppositions. It is from this starting point that Bahnsen attacks, and it is a marvel to behold as he uncovers layer after layer of epistemological fallacies that spring forth.
Throughout the book, Bahnsen incorporates a kind of mantra that keeps bringing the reader back to need to establish the source of authority. He rightly questions the unbelievers desire to start on level ground, and exposes this common error of apologetics. There is no common ground between believer and unbeliever, and this must be brought into the light if any headway is to be made. The unbeliever is in darkness, and although he knows of God and His righteousness, he suppresses the truth. This point that continually arises throughout the book was most helpful in seeing the lie behind neutrality. The reason and logic that the unbeliever points to as an authority, is in itself totally corrupt apart from the new birth, and even in an unregenerate person, it is part of his fallen nature and is never a place to start.
The highlight of the book was not a particular chapter or section, but the theme throughout of questioning the unbelievers propositions and exposing them as inconsistent with that person’s particular worldview. This was so helpful, and something that Bahnsen was a master of. His ability to point out the inconsistency of the atheistic worldview provides the reader with concrete examples of how to put this into practice. How can an atheist point to his own reason as the final arbiter of truth, when that very reason comes from a random universe which contains no meaning or authority in itself? How can an atheist ever make a moral judgment if morals are merely a sequence of atoms smashing around in his brain that produce a stimulus in the body that causes a reaction? The answer is obvious. One must begin with the Christian worldview, and then adopt atheism from that standpoint, which leaves the unbeliever without consistency—he is a walking contradiction.
The most difficult thing for me to grasp in this book was where Bahnsen focused on the topic of metaphysics. I strove to understand what he was speaking about, and did catch much of his points, although a few times I shook my head and just continued on. What I did get from that section was, again, his ability to expose the fallacious thinking in the unbeliever. Regarding the naturalist who rejects anything metaphysical, he notes, “The very denial of the possibility of knowledge transcending experience is in itself a metaphysical judgment� (183). These types of observations are priceless, and have caused me to consider my own method of thinking and how I too can be “always ready� to defend the faith.
The book has short chapters to start with, which make the reader feel like he is accomplishing something great, and although these small bites are very repetitive, this repetitious manner is actually quite helpful. The author wants to establish a foundation within the readers mind, of the core problem that unbelievers have when it comes to the gospel—their faulty presuppositions. It is from this starting point that Bahnsen attacks, and it is a marvel to behold as he uncovers layer after layer of epistemological fallacies that spring forth.
Throughout the book, Bahnsen incorporates a kind of mantra that keeps bringing the reader back to need to establish the source of authority. He rightly questions the unbelievers desire to start on level ground, and exposes this common error of apologetics. There is no common ground between believer and unbeliever, and this must be brought into the light if any headway is to be made. The unbeliever is in darkness, and although he knows of God and His righteousness, he suppresses the truth. This point that continually arises throughout the book was most helpful in seeing the lie behind neutrality. The reason and logic that the unbeliever points to as an authority, is in itself totally corrupt apart from the new birth, and even in an unregenerate person, it is part of his fallen nature and is never a place to start.
The highlight of the book was not a particular chapter or section, but the theme throughout of questioning the unbelievers propositions and exposing them as inconsistent with that person’s particular worldview. This was so helpful, and something that Bahnsen was a master of. His ability to point out the inconsistency of the atheistic worldview provides the reader with concrete examples of how to put this into practice. How can an atheist point to his own reason as the final arbiter of truth, when that very reason comes from a random universe which contains no meaning or authority in itself? How can an atheist ever make a moral judgment if morals are merely a sequence of atoms smashing around in his brain that produce a stimulus in the body that causes a reaction? The answer is obvious. One must begin with the Christian worldview, and then adopt atheism from that standpoint, which leaves the unbeliever without consistency—he is a walking contradiction.
The most difficult thing for me to grasp in this book was where Bahnsen focused on the topic of metaphysics. I strove to understand what he was speaking about, and did catch much of his points, although a few times I shook my head and just continued on. What I did get from that section was, again, his ability to expose the fallacious thinking in the unbeliever. Regarding the naturalist who rejects anything metaphysical, he notes, “The very denial of the possibility of knowledge transcending experience is in itself a metaphysical judgment� (183). These types of observations are priceless, and have caused me to consider my own method of thinking and how I too can be “always ready� to defend the faith.
June 29, 2022
This book is dense, it’s basically a textbook, but it is one of the most insightful, helpful books full of wisdom and precise articulation of deep truths. I have grown a lot in my understanding about worldviews, presuppositions, understanding about human nature, and God has taught me a lot through Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Definitely recommend this to all Christians and to those who want to understand how to communicate with people of different worldviews. Excellent resource to have on your shelf and read through.
February 20, 2020
Time and again Greg Bahnsen has proved himself to be one of God’s most useful tools in my theological/apologetical journey. It was 5 years ago now that I was introduced to presuppositional apologetics by a mentor of mine through Bahnsen’s 1985 debate with Gordon Stein, I was blown away. Since then I have benefited from the skills and knowledge of many other individuals in the presuppositional camp (Douglas Wilson, James White, Joe Boot) but often find myself returning to Greg Bahnsen for his brilliance and eloquence.
There is no doubt that Bahnsen is a gargantuan intellect, but the concision with which he articulates himself in Always Ready makes it not only possible but enjoyable for the layman to get a grasp on complex theological topics and philosophical systems. He begins at the outset by laying the groundwork for presuppositionalism - that groundwork being the myth of neutrality and how the secular or “neutral� philosopher is robbed through vain philosophy and deceives himself. All treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. Bahnsen proceeds to outline the reality of the the apologetic conditions (two fundamentally antithetical worldviews in collision with one another), the apologetic task (exposing unbelieving thought as foolish and irrational), and during all of this implores the believer to demonstrate humble boldness in their defence of the faith.
Not only does this book train the reader to establish the fundamental groundwork (ie. presuppositions) to Biblically and responsibly defend their faith, within the pages of Always Ready Greg Bahnsen offers practical methods to employing these presuppositions, razor-sharp answers to common apologetic challenges, and thorough responses to traditional criticisms of presuppositionalism. However, it is not lost on Dr Bahnsen, nor should it be on the reader, that the true source of apologetic success is not the apologist himself but rather God’s efficacious grace working in the unregenerate heart: “Since it is He who determines the destinies of all men, He it is who also determines whether our apologetic witness will be fruitful or not.�
For anyone who wishes to explore apologetics for the first time, strengthen their existing apologetic, or revisit the roots of the most Biblically-based apologetical methodology - keep Always Ready on your shelf.
There is no doubt that Bahnsen is a gargantuan intellect, but the concision with which he articulates himself in Always Ready makes it not only possible but enjoyable for the layman to get a grasp on complex theological topics and philosophical systems. He begins at the outset by laying the groundwork for presuppositionalism - that groundwork being the myth of neutrality and how the secular or “neutral� philosopher is robbed through vain philosophy and deceives himself. All treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ. Bahnsen proceeds to outline the reality of the the apologetic conditions (two fundamentally antithetical worldviews in collision with one another), the apologetic task (exposing unbelieving thought as foolish and irrational), and during all of this implores the believer to demonstrate humble boldness in their defence of the faith.
Not only does this book train the reader to establish the fundamental groundwork (ie. presuppositions) to Biblically and responsibly defend their faith, within the pages of Always Ready Greg Bahnsen offers practical methods to employing these presuppositions, razor-sharp answers to common apologetic challenges, and thorough responses to traditional criticisms of presuppositionalism. However, it is not lost on Dr Bahnsen, nor should it be on the reader, that the true source of apologetic success is not the apologist himself but rather God’s efficacious grace working in the unregenerate heart: “Since it is He who determines the destinies of all men, He it is who also determines whether our apologetic witness will be fruitful or not.�
For anyone who wishes to explore apologetics for the first time, strengthen their existing apologetic, or revisit the roots of the most Biblically-based apologetical methodology - keep Always Ready on your shelf.
June 6, 2011
A famous saying of Dale Carnegie is that "a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". This says far more than I think is often realized. What it says is that there is something deeper than intellectual assent that must be regarded when attempting to persuade. In addition to the mind, the will must be moved and the will has to do with pre-commitments, also referred to as pre-suppositions or pre-knowledge.
Greg Bahnsen is well known for perpetuating the legacy of Cornelius Van Til's presuppositional method of apologetics and making it more accesible to modern day readers. The pre-suppositional apologetic starts by admitting that there is no philosophically neutral ground, everyone has to start with some foundation and framework for what they believe. This is their worldview and it determines the way that data will be interpreted and the sorts of conclusions that will be arrived at.
It is important for Christians to do more than just find common ground to build upon with non-Christians, the foundations of unbelief must be shown to be faulty and demolished. What is more, it must be pointed out that while many people speak as if they held a non-Christian worldview, they cannot avoid living like the Christian worldview is true in regard to their epistemology (i.e. many people assume that objective truth can be discovered through certain laws of logic while they hold a worldview that does not account for laws of logic and objective truth) and ethics (the same phenomenon applies when there is the assumption that absolute moral laws exist without a worldview that accounts for how they could exist)..the Christian worldview makes the most sense out of human experience because it is in fact true.
Greg Bahnsen is well known for perpetuating the legacy of Cornelius Van Til's presuppositional method of apologetics and making it more accesible to modern day readers. The pre-suppositional apologetic starts by admitting that there is no philosophically neutral ground, everyone has to start with some foundation and framework for what they believe. This is their worldview and it determines the way that data will be interpreted and the sorts of conclusions that will be arrived at.
It is important for Christians to do more than just find common ground to build upon with non-Christians, the foundations of unbelief must be shown to be faulty and demolished. What is more, it must be pointed out that while many people speak as if they held a non-Christian worldview, they cannot avoid living like the Christian worldview is true in regard to their epistemology (i.e. many people assume that objective truth can be discovered through certain laws of logic while they hold a worldview that does not account for laws of logic and objective truth) and ethics (the same phenomenon applies when there is the assumption that absolute moral laws exist without a worldview that accounts for how they could exist)..the Christian worldview makes the most sense out of human experience because it is in fact true.
January 23, 2021
Good conceptual and practical material about making the case for Christianity using presuppositional apologetics. Unfortunately, it isn't presented well; the book is a compilation of materials produced over several years, not a cohesive single book. This causes the chapters to feel a bit disjointed rather than building effectively on each other, and also results in the book being somewhat repetitive. The summaries that appear after every few chapters are helpful.
The appendix gives an example of presuppositional apologetics in action: Paul speaking with Greek philosophers in Athens (recorded in Acts 17:22-34). Bahnsen summaries the presuppositional approach this way:
Revelation as the Foundation of Knowledge
A Two-Fold Apologetic Procedure
Answering the Fool
Don't adopt the unbeliever's incorrect presuppositions for the sake of argument, but instead show the unbeliever that their presuppositions undermine facts and laws (Proverbs 26:4-5).
The Ultimate Starting Point: God's Word
The Heart of the Matter
"The proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything."
There's no rationale for laws of logic, uniformity of nature, human dignity, or ethical absolutes without God.
The task of apologetics is to show unbelievers that they've known God all along, but have suppressed that truth, and that knowledge of anything would be impossible without God.
Tools of Apologetics
When someone objects to miracles, ask, "Do you know that all nature operates in a law-like fashion? That there can never be exceptions? That's a lot to know, including the nature of reality and the metaphysical limits of possibility."
Point out tensions and contradictions in unbeliever's assumptions
� Ethical tensions (e.g., person says, "You only live once, so enjoy it," yet is upset by perceived injustice).
� Epistemological tension (e.g., person says, "We can only know what can be observed," yet that belief itself can't be observed).
� Metaphysical tension (e.g., person says, "Free will is illusory; our actions are determined by nature or nurture," yet attacks you for thinking, saying, or doing what you do).
� Tension between epistemology and metaphysical (e.g., person says, "Only the physical universe exists; nothing non-physical exists," yet also says, "Laws of logic determine truth," and laws of logic aren't physical.
The Problem of Knowing the "Super-Natural"
The claim "there can't be a non-empirical source of information about reality" itself lacks an empirical basis. It undermines science, argumentation, and reason, since it precludes knowledge of uniformity of nature, criteria, logical relations and rules, etc.
Scientists frequently infer unobserved causes from observed effects, so why are Christians told that only what's empirically observable can be real?
The Problem of Faith
To defend God's existence based on God's revelation of His existence is no more circular than defending the use of logic based on laws of logic.
The Problem of Miracles
Definition of miracle: "An extraordinary and awe-inspiring event which in its character (or sometimes in its timing) cannot be explicated by known natural principles or controlled by mere human beings. That is its super-natural quality."
Miracles aren't violations of "laws of nature," because there are no impersonal mechanical, autonomous laws of nature; God directs all events (Ephesians 1:11).
Miracles aren't God working more directly or immediately than usual; Biblical miracles involved varying degrees of "natural means."
Satan and his minions can perform genuine miracles (Matthew 7:22-23; 24:24; Exodus 7:11-12; Deuteronomy 13:1-2; Revelation 13:13-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:9).
The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens
When Paul spoke with Greek philosophers in Acts 17, he rejected their assumptions, rather than attempting to find common beliefs or "neutral ground," and educated them about the truth of God. He reasoned from Scripture, as he did with Jewish audiences (he didn't take a different approach with Jews and Gentiles).
The appendix gives an example of presuppositional apologetics in action: Paul speaking with Greek philosophers in Athens (recorded in Acts 17:22-34). Bahnsen summaries the presuppositional approach this way:
In motivation and direction Paul's argumentation with the Athenian philosophers was presuppositional. He set two fundamental worldviews in contrast, exhibiting the ignorance which results from the unbeliever's commitments, and presenting the precondition of all knowledge—God's revelation—as the only reasonable alternative. His aim was to affect an overall change in outlook and mindset, to call the unbeliever to repentance, by following the two-fold procedure of internally critiquing the unbeliever's position and presenting the necessity of the Scripture's truth.Notes
Revelation as the Foundation of Knowledge
The man who claims (or pursues) neutrality in his thought does not recognize his complete dependence upon the God of all knowledge for whatever he has come to understand about the world.The Foolishness of Unbelief
The Christian cannot forever be defensively constructing atomistic answers to the endless variety of unbelieving criticisms; he must take the offensive and show the unbeliever that he has no intelligible place to stand, no consistent epistemology, no justification for meaningful discourse, predication, or argumentation.When answering an unbeliever, demonstrate that unbelief is destructive to all knowledge.
A Two-Fold Apologetic Procedure
It is wholly irrational to hold to any other position than that of Christianity. Christianity alone does not crucify reason itself …The best, the only, the absolutely certain proof of the truth of Christianity is that unless its truth be presupposed there is no proof of anything. Christianity is proved as being the very foundation of the idea of proof itself." —Cornelius Van Til in The Defense of the FaithYou must show an unbeliever "the necessity of Christianity as the precondition of intelligibility."
Answering the Fool
Don't adopt the unbeliever's incorrect presuppositions for the sake of argument, but instead show the unbeliever that their presuppositions undermine facts and laws (Proverbs 26:4-5).
The Ultimate Starting Point: God's Word
This presuppositional method of apologetics assumes the truth of Scripture in order to argue for the truth of Scripture. Such is unavoidable when ultimate truths are being debated. …One must presuppose the truth of God's revelation in order to reason at all—even when reasoning about God's revelation. � [this] does not nullify his argument, but rather illustrates it.Effectively Encountering the Varieties of OppositionCritique the unbeliever's position/argument, showing that its assumptions inevitably lead to self-contradiction.
The Heart of the Matter
"The proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything."
There's no rationale for laws of logic, uniformity of nature, human dignity, or ethical absolutes without God.
The task of apologetics is to show unbelievers that they've known God all along, but have suppressed that truth, and that knowledge of anything would be impossible without God.
Tools of Apologetics
When someone objects to miracles, ask, "Do you know that all nature operates in a law-like fashion? That there can never be exceptions? That's a lot to know, including the nature of reality and the metaphysical limits of possibility."
Point out tensions and contradictions in unbeliever's assumptions
� Ethical tensions (e.g., person says, "You only live once, so enjoy it," yet is upset by perceived injustice).
� Epistemological tension (e.g., person says, "We can only know what can be observed," yet that belief itself can't be observed).
� Metaphysical tension (e.g., person says, "Free will is illusory; our actions are determined by nature or nurture," yet attacks you for thinking, saying, or doing what you do).
� Tension between epistemology and metaphysical (e.g., person says, "Only the physical universe exists; nothing non-physical exists," yet also says, "Laws of logic determine truth," and laws of logic aren't physical.
The Problem of Knowing the "Super-Natural"
The claim "there can't be a non-empirical source of information about reality" itself lacks an empirical basis. It undermines science, argumentation, and reason, since it precludes knowledge of uniformity of nature, criteria, logical relations and rules, etc.
Scientists frequently infer unobserved causes from observed effects, so why are Christians told that only what's empirically observable can be real?
The Problem of Faith
To defend God's existence based on God's revelation of His existence is no more circular than defending the use of logic based on laws of logic.
The Problem of Miracles
Definition of miracle: "An extraordinary and awe-inspiring event which in its character (or sometimes in its timing) cannot be explicated by known natural principles or controlled by mere human beings. That is its super-natural quality."
Miracles aren't violations of "laws of nature," because there are no impersonal mechanical, autonomous laws of nature; God directs all events (Ephesians 1:11).
Miracles aren't God working more directly or immediately than usual; Biblical miracles involved varying degrees of "natural means."
Satan and his minions can perform genuine miracles (Matthew 7:22-23; 24:24; Exodus 7:11-12; Deuteronomy 13:1-2; Revelation 13:13-15; 2 Thessalonians 2:9).
The Encounter of Jerusalem with Athens
When Paul spoke with Greek philosophers in Acts 17, he rejected their assumptions, rather than attempting to find common beliefs or "neutral ground," and educated them about the truth of God. He reasoned from Scripture, as he did with Jewish audiences (he didn't take a different approach with Jews and Gentiles).
October 29, 2019
Extremely insightful book from a theologian who has clearly spent copious amounts of time not only considering the issues but also practicing them in real-world apologetic situations. The overarching idea of presuppositionalism is that non-believers will not be won over by appealing to facts in nature and history, as their presuppositions will always dictate how the receive and interpret the facts. Neither will they be won by an apologetic that appeals to them on the basis of their own philosophy and fundamental assumptions, as this would only confirm them in their error. No, only a challenge to completely abandon their unbelieving worldview, their wrong way of thinking and repent of their suppression of the truth is the way forward.
The book is filled with gold, and I imagine I will return to it. I especially appreciated the appendix dealing with Paul’s encounter with the Areopagus council in Acts 17.
This book is highly recommended to any Christian willing to do the work of studying these important issues. It will indeed be work, thinking the issues through, but it will also be worth every moment of effort.
The book is filled with gold, and I imagine I will return to it. I especially appreciated the appendix dealing with Paul’s encounter with the Areopagus council in Acts 17.
This book is highly recommended to any Christian willing to do the work of studying these important issues. It will indeed be work, thinking the issues through, but it will also be worth every moment of effort.
March 25, 2013
While this book is sort of a compilation of lectures and articles, the editors did a good job pulling things together and organizing them. If you are already convinced or mostly convinced of the presuppositional method of apologetics, most of the first sections can be skimmed, though they provide a good foundation for thinking through the reasons why this model is best and being able to defend it over other models that give ground to unbelievers; most clear is that there is no neutral intellectual ground, one either presupposes the God of the Bible and can therefore found his arguments on something solid, or he cedes the God of the Bible and has already lost. Later chapters are helpful for practically answering a few common objections to the Christian worldview, especially as you see the common thread of showing that without Christianity any foundation for morals, thought, reason completely unravel.
September 18, 2007
So far 'Always Ready' has been as excellent as everyone has always promised me it would be. It has not been an easy read for me by any stretch of the imagination, but very helpful. It has given me a better understanding of the importance of Presuppositionalism. ie Christians having their minds rooted in Christ and presupposing the truth of His word in all areas of life. It has also better instructed me on the importance of humbly, yet firmly defending His gospel and ''destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God...'' 2 Corinthians 10:5. I am greatly looking forward to finishing this book that I may be better equipped to follow the command of 1 Peter 3:15, ''But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.''
December 28, 2007
This book was an eye-opener for me as far as Christian apologetics is concerned. Bahnsen does an amazing job of getting the Christian to think Biblically about the way he defends his faith. I was convicted from the very first chapter and had a difficult time putting the book down. The way he dealt with the "problem of evil" in one of the later chapters of the book was by itself worth the price of the book. I would recommend this book to any Christian who is wishing to understand his faith more, and especially to those who want to know the starting point on how to defend the Christian faith.
September 7, 2017
Finally a presuppositional apologetics book that I understand! Bahnsen was very clear, and scripturally explains the ins and outs of apologetics (why, how, what, etc). The first half of the book is extremely easy to read and smoothly explains each aspect of presup. apologetics. It opened my eyes to see how the Bible even determines how we reason our faith in an effective way. The 2nd half of the book is practical, going over issues in apologetics such as the problem of evil, the presuppositions the other side brings in, and etc. Definitely recommend this book.
February 1, 2020
This was a most excellent book as to how the Christian should be ready to defend the faith and I think it's the only way to expose the "intellectual schizophrenia" that is within every non-Christian and that is at the core of their world view, which is a network of their presuppositions. The whole problem with an evidence based apologetic is that there is always room for a probability that it may not be true, which God never grants us as an option in scripture.
August 13, 2012
As far as I'm concerned, this is one of those books that every Christian should be forced to read right after the Bible.
August 7, 2013
As a Lutheran, I am also a big fan of Reformed presuppositional apologetics. The late Dr. Bahnsen was a master in this area. Highly recommend.
December 31, 2013
One of the, if not the, best books I have read on Christian apologetics. This book should be read by every Christian. I will be reading this book again.
September 7, 2024
THE POSTHUMOUS SUMMARY OF THE FAMED CALVINIST'S APPROACH
Greg L. Bahnsen (1948-1995) was a Calvinist philosopher, apologist, Christian Reconstructionist, and skilled debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. He wrote many other books, such as 'Van Til's Apologetic,' 'Theonomy in Christian Ethics,' 'No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics,' 'By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today,' 'Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism,' etc.
The Editor wrote in the Preface to this posthumous 1996 book, "This volume is a compilation of materials produced by Dr. Bahnsen over several years and is intended to introduce students to important foundational concepts essential to biblical apologetics."
He outlines: "1. ... man's knowledge of the truth depends on God's prior knowledge... and requires submission to God's word. 2. Philosophy which does not presuppose God's word is a vain deception... 3. Endeavoring to take a neutral stance between presupposing God's word and not presupposing it is an immoral attempt to serve two lords. 4. ... The Christian who strives for neutrality unwittingly endorses assumptions which are hostile to his faith. 5. ... the believer's thinking ought to be ... submitting to His epistemic Lordship rather than the thought patterns of apostate pseudo-wisdom... 6. The alternatives are then quite clear: either ground all your thought in Christ's word ... or follow the dictates of autonomous thought and be thereby deluded and robbed of a genuine knowledge of the truth. 7. Therefore, God's word (in Scripture) has absolute authority for us and is the final criterion of truth." (Pg. 23-24)
He asserts, "there is NO NEUTRAL GROUND between the believers and unbelievers, but ... there is ever present common ground between the believer and the unbeliever. What must be kept in mind is that this common ground is GOD'S GROUND." (Pg. 43) He states, "Paul indicates [in 2 Tim 2:23-25] that what the unbeliever needs is not simply additional information. Instead he needs to have his thinking completely turned around... a genuine or sincere knowledge of the truth---a SAVING knowledge---can ONLY come with conversion." (Pg. 65)
He presents his major argument, "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience. To put it another way: the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were NOT, we would not be able to PROVE ANYTHING." (Pg. 122)
He asserts, "The problem of evil is thus a logical problem for the unbeliever, rather than the believer. As a Christian, I can make perfectly good sense out of my moral revulsion and condemnation of child abuse. The non-Christian cannot. This does not mean that I can explain why God does whatever he does in planning misery and wickedness in the world. It means simply that moral outrage is consistent with the Christian's worldview... The non-Christian's worldview ... cannot account for such moral outrage. It cannot explain the objective and unchanging nature of moral notions like good or evil... Unbelievers would be required to appeal to the very thing against which they argue... in order for their argument to be warranted." (Pg. 170-171)
He adds, "The problem which men have with God when they come face to face with evil in the world is not a logical or philosophical one, but more a psychological one. We can find it emotionally very hard to have faith in God and trust His goodness and power when we are not given the reason why bad things happen to us and others... the Bible calls on us to trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which can be found in this world, but it does not tell us what that sufficient reason is. The believer often struggles with this situation, walking by faith rather than by sight." (Pg. 173)
While it is tragic that Bahnsen passed away during heart bypass surgery, this well-edited collection serves as a monument to his powerful method of defending the faith. It is "must reading" for anyone even remotely interested in presuppositional apologetics.
Greg L. Bahnsen (1948-1995) was a Calvinist philosopher, apologist, Christian Reconstructionist, and skilled debater. He was an ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church and a full time Scholar in Residence for the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. He wrote many other books, such as 'Van Til's Apologetic,' 'Theonomy in Christian Ethics,' 'No Other Standard: Theonomy and Its Critics,' 'By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today,' 'Victory in Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism,' etc.
The Editor wrote in the Preface to this posthumous 1996 book, "This volume is a compilation of materials produced by Dr. Bahnsen over several years and is intended to introduce students to important foundational concepts essential to biblical apologetics."
He outlines: "1. ... man's knowledge of the truth depends on God's prior knowledge... and requires submission to God's word. 2. Philosophy which does not presuppose God's word is a vain deception... 3. Endeavoring to take a neutral stance between presupposing God's word and not presupposing it is an immoral attempt to serve two lords. 4. ... The Christian who strives for neutrality unwittingly endorses assumptions which are hostile to his faith. 5. ... the believer's thinking ought to be ... submitting to His epistemic Lordship rather than the thought patterns of apostate pseudo-wisdom... 6. The alternatives are then quite clear: either ground all your thought in Christ's word ... or follow the dictates of autonomous thought and be thereby deluded and robbed of a genuine knowledge of the truth. 7. Therefore, God's word (in Scripture) has absolute authority for us and is the final criterion of truth." (Pg. 23-24)
He asserts, "there is NO NEUTRAL GROUND between the believers and unbelievers, but ... there is ever present common ground between the believer and the unbeliever. What must be kept in mind is that this common ground is GOD'S GROUND." (Pg. 43) He states, "Paul indicates [in 2 Tim 2:23-25] that what the unbeliever needs is not simply additional information. Instead he needs to have his thinking completely turned around... a genuine or sincere knowledge of the truth---a SAVING knowledge---can ONLY come with conversion." (Pg. 65)
He presents his major argument, "the fundamental argument advanced by the Christian apologist is that the Christian worldview is true because of the impossibility of the contrary. When the perspective of God's revelation is rejected, then the unbeliever is left in foolish ignorance because his philosophy does not provide the preconditions of knowledge and meaningful experience. To put it another way: the proof that Christianity is true is that if it were NOT, we would not be able to PROVE ANYTHING." (Pg. 122)
He asserts, "The problem of evil is thus a logical problem for the unbeliever, rather than the believer. As a Christian, I can make perfectly good sense out of my moral revulsion and condemnation of child abuse. The non-Christian cannot. This does not mean that I can explain why God does whatever he does in planning misery and wickedness in the world. It means simply that moral outrage is consistent with the Christian's worldview... The non-Christian's worldview ... cannot account for such moral outrage. It cannot explain the objective and unchanging nature of moral notions like good or evil... Unbelievers would be required to appeal to the very thing against which they argue... in order for their argument to be warranted." (Pg. 170-171)
He adds, "The problem which men have with God when they come face to face with evil in the world is not a logical or philosophical one, but more a psychological one. We can find it emotionally very hard to have faith in God and trust His goodness and power when we are not given the reason why bad things happen to us and others... the Bible calls on us to trust that God has a morally sufficient reason for the evil which can be found in this world, but it does not tell us what that sufficient reason is. The believer often struggles with this situation, walking by faith rather than by sight." (Pg. 173)
While it is tragic that Bahnsen passed away during heart bypass surgery, this well-edited collection serves as a monument to his powerful method of defending the faith. It is "must reading" for anyone even remotely interested in presuppositional apologetics.
May 5, 2023
From the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in God, I don't find Bahnsen's approach to apologetics at all compelling. If I read William Lane Craig, or other rigorous defenders of the faith I feel challenged and must think carefully through my commitments to respond. By contrast, it seems like I have many straightforward responses available to Bahnsen's claims.
Bahnsen often presents his arguments as complete and inescapable refutations of all worldviews without God. He does not seriously interact with opposing worldviews. For example, in Chapter 28 he presents the following case: "(4) Tension between one’s epistemology and one’s metaphysic: Imagine that you have a colleague at work who graduated from college and fancies himself somewhat intellectual about matters of religion. According to him, there is no God and no spiritual realm (or spiritual events, spiritual forces) whatsoever. This physical world is all there is to reality. Moreover, this colleague finds it intellectually impossible to accept the Christian outlook because it contains what he deems logical contradictions within itself (say, that God is one yet three, or that God is loving and all-powerful but there is evil in the world). According to him, we cannot know anything to be true which conflicts with the laws of logic. The veiled problem in the thinking of your colleague is that his view of reality (metaphysic) does not comport whatsoever with his view of knowledge (epistemology). He cannot simultaneously and consistently be committed to the laws of logic and the view that reality is solely physical in nature. And the reason is obvious: the “laws of logic”are not physical in nature. You cannot touch or taste a law of logic; nor could you identify one with a sophisticated instrument devised by a physicist. Laws of logic are not physical, and thus given your colleague’s perspective, laws of logic are not real anyway."
In this example, Bahnsen presents believing in the laws of logic as being in conflict with physicalism, and asserts that this is obvious since the laws of logic cannot be detected by scientific instruments. There are several possibile responses from an atheist/agnostic, such as:
-Physicalism is committed to the existence of all entities posited by physics. This is not limited to "material" items like things we can smell and observe with scientific instruments, it also includes the laws of nature, mathematical entities, and physical entities like time, gravity, and electromagnetic fields, which cannot be measured directly but are posited after observing their influence on other objects. Belief in laws of logic as real entities poses no threat to this view.
-There are no gods, but there is another realm beyond the physical, such as those described by neoplatonism.
-The laws of logic are physical, and they are instantiated within physical reality in the Aristotelian sense of universals
-The best ontological account of the laws of logic is nominalism, which is compatible with physicalism
All of these responses are available as responses to Bahnsen's challenge, but Bahnsen spills no ink discussing answers to his questions from serious worldviews that do not contain the Christian God. He often gives a single counterexample to views that are misrepresented, or else presents non-Christian worldviews without any justification and accuses them of question begging.
I can understand why someone who is already a Christian would be strengthened by reading this, or think that it's a good apologetic strategy to use with nonbelievers, but from my perspective as a nonbeliever I did not find it at all challenging to my worldview. If you are a Christian, do not assume Bahnsen's caricatures of nonbelievers are accurate among those who have seriously considered their beliefs.
My recommendation for nonbelievers: If you want to understand how presupppsitionalists think and why they do apologetics the way that they do, I recommend reading this book, it is readable and short. If you want to learn about Christianity and read a strong case that will cause you to think deeply, look elsewhere.
Bahnsen often presents his arguments as complete and inescapable refutations of all worldviews without God. He does not seriously interact with opposing worldviews. For example, in Chapter 28 he presents the following case: "(4) Tension between one’s epistemology and one’s metaphysic: Imagine that you have a colleague at work who graduated from college and fancies himself somewhat intellectual about matters of religion. According to him, there is no God and no spiritual realm (or spiritual events, spiritual forces) whatsoever. This physical world is all there is to reality. Moreover, this colleague finds it intellectually impossible to accept the Christian outlook because it contains what he deems logical contradictions within itself (say, that God is one yet three, or that God is loving and all-powerful but there is evil in the world). According to him, we cannot know anything to be true which conflicts with the laws of logic. The veiled problem in the thinking of your colleague is that his view of reality (metaphysic) does not comport whatsoever with his view of knowledge (epistemology). He cannot simultaneously and consistently be committed to the laws of logic and the view that reality is solely physical in nature. And the reason is obvious: the “laws of logic”are not physical in nature. You cannot touch or taste a law of logic; nor could you identify one with a sophisticated instrument devised by a physicist. Laws of logic are not physical, and thus given your colleague’s perspective, laws of logic are not real anyway."
In this example, Bahnsen presents believing in the laws of logic as being in conflict with physicalism, and asserts that this is obvious since the laws of logic cannot be detected by scientific instruments. There are several possibile responses from an atheist/agnostic, such as:
-Physicalism is committed to the existence of all entities posited by physics. This is not limited to "material" items like things we can smell and observe with scientific instruments, it also includes the laws of nature, mathematical entities, and physical entities like time, gravity, and electromagnetic fields, which cannot be measured directly but are posited after observing their influence on other objects. Belief in laws of logic as real entities poses no threat to this view.
-There are no gods, but there is another realm beyond the physical, such as those described by neoplatonism.
-The laws of logic are physical, and they are instantiated within physical reality in the Aristotelian sense of universals
-The best ontological account of the laws of logic is nominalism, which is compatible with physicalism
All of these responses are available as responses to Bahnsen's challenge, but Bahnsen spills no ink discussing answers to his questions from serious worldviews that do not contain the Christian God. He often gives a single counterexample to views that are misrepresented, or else presents non-Christian worldviews without any justification and accuses them of question begging.
I can understand why someone who is already a Christian would be strengthened by reading this, or think that it's a good apologetic strategy to use with nonbelievers, but from my perspective as a nonbeliever I did not find it at all challenging to my worldview. If you are a Christian, do not assume Bahnsen's caricatures of nonbelievers are accurate among those who have seriously considered their beliefs.
My recommendation for nonbelievers: If you want to understand how presupppsitionalists think and why they do apologetics the way that they do, I recommend reading this book, it is readable and short. If you want to learn about Christianity and read a strong case that will cause you to think deeply, look elsewhere.
January 14, 2024
I was recommended this book due to my doubts about truth or the assumption of Christian truth. I thoroughly enjoyed Bahnsen's work. His intellectual curiosity and deep reflection on epistemology, particularly the nuanced aspects within it, stood out to me. In his chapter 'The Problem with Evil,' Bahnsen openly acknowledges the difficulty of the topic and presents a decent conjecture. While I am familiar with the topic of objective morality as a debating point, I plan to delve into more secular viewpoints on the question of morality, along with religious beliefs, to gain a better understanding of each opinion. Other chapters were great, too, but this on stood out to me. A couple of specific points stood out to me that gave me much respect for Bahnsen. 1.) He doesn't denounce the knowledge of unbelievers (being anyone non-Christian) outright but does state that their knowledge is muddled and confused. However, it doesn't mean that discovered insights about the universe are discarded simply due to the fact that the discovery was made by the unbeliever. 2.) He urges the believer to have meekness in their approach to debating or disputing the unbeliever (like Paul in Acts 17 at the Areopagus), refraining from harsh words or outlandish insults. These points show me that Bahnsen is sincere in his approach to discussing epistemology with the non-Christian.
The presuppositional argument, a focal point of his work, proves to be a significant challenge, demanding the challenger to be confident in their convictions. The difficulty arises from assuming the correctness or truth of one's presupposition and discerning potential fallacies in others. The reasoning can/could appear to be deflective or circular to some. With all of that, I can say that this book disclosed my intellectual laziness regarding my own concluded assumptions based on biased information.
The presuppositional argument, a focal point of his work, proves to be a significant challenge, demanding the challenger to be confident in their convictions. The difficulty arises from assuming the correctness or truth of one's presupposition and discerning potential fallacies in others. The reasoning can/could appear to be deflective or circular to some. With all of that, I can say that this book disclosed my intellectual laziness regarding my own concluded assumptions based on biased information.
December 18, 2024
"For from Him and through Him and for Him are all things" (Rom 11:36).
God is the foundation & highest authority of all knowledge & wisdom. His Word which is breathed out from Him has the same authority.
God & His Word are inseparable.
His Word being Christ (John 1:1-10).
As humans prior to knowing Christ, our knowledge of God is darkened & we grope for an understanding of ourselves in partially true but ultimately false & subjective philosophies.
(Ephesians 4:18-24)
Therefore, as it says in Romans 5:12-20, we're either in Man or in Christ - there is no neutrality in this life.
Everyone's worldview, when questioned enough, lead to a singular ultimate foundational assumption that is the interpretive spinning-web of one's identity in life, facts of life, and the narrative of history.
Either you're thinking the thoughts of men after you or the thoughts of God after you.
Either you're presupposing the thoughts of men after you or presupposing the thoughts of God after you.
Either you're in the Christ-centered worldview or the man-centered worldview.
"Appeals to fact will be arbitrated in terms of the conflicting presuppositions held by the two philosophies; the debate between the two perspectives will thus eventually work down to the level of ones ultimate authority." Pg 68
"There is no reason to think that theology would be intellectually required to be built upon the foundation of human sense experience, unless someone were presupposing in advance that all knowledge must ultimately derive from empirical procedures." Pg 187
"He (Paul) set two fundamental worldviews in contrast , exhibiting the ignorance which results from the unbelievers commitments, and presenting the precondition of all knowledge - God's revelation - as the only reasonable alternative." Pg 276
God is the foundation & highest authority of all knowledge & wisdom. His Word which is breathed out from Him has the same authority.
God & His Word are inseparable.
His Word being Christ (John 1:1-10).
As humans prior to knowing Christ, our knowledge of God is darkened & we grope for an understanding of ourselves in partially true but ultimately false & subjective philosophies.
(Ephesians 4:18-24)
Therefore, as it says in Romans 5:12-20, we're either in Man or in Christ - there is no neutrality in this life.
Everyone's worldview, when questioned enough, lead to a singular ultimate foundational assumption that is the interpretive spinning-web of one's identity in life, facts of life, and the narrative of history.
Either you're thinking the thoughts of men after you or the thoughts of God after you.
Either you're presupposing the thoughts of men after you or presupposing the thoughts of God after you.
Either you're in the Christ-centered worldview or the man-centered worldview.
"Appeals to fact will be arbitrated in terms of the conflicting presuppositions held by the two philosophies; the debate between the two perspectives will thus eventually work down to the level of ones ultimate authority." Pg 68
"There is no reason to think that theology would be intellectually required to be built upon the foundation of human sense experience, unless someone were presupposing in advance that all knowledge must ultimately derive from empirical procedures." Pg 187
"He (Paul) set two fundamental worldviews in contrast , exhibiting the ignorance which results from the unbelievers commitments, and presenting the precondition of all knowledge - God's revelation - as the only reasonable alternative." Pg 276
March 23, 2025
Interesting apologetics that is not going on the defensive, rather Bahnsen gives us reasons to stand on our views about God as the world does not know the truth and thus does not have the truth as their side by default; no that is us.
The book is, however, a bit difficult, both in language and how the topic at hand is laid forth - and it also makes claims that I am not as fast to accept as Greg L. Bahnsen is - as I think we still need good reasons for holding our views, better than what is presented here sometimes. Also I find his leaning on Van Til too partial, even if Van Til was a great one, there are other greats too. It just gave the vibes of being in one corner of the Christian apologetics world rather than considering it all.
That said, there is a lot here - and you will be challenged and you will learn.
The book is, however, a bit difficult, both in language and how the topic at hand is laid forth - and it also makes claims that I am not as fast to accept as Greg L. Bahnsen is - as I think we still need good reasons for holding our views, better than what is presented here sometimes. Also I find his leaning on Van Til too partial, even if Van Til was a great one, there are other greats too. It just gave the vibes of being in one corner of the Christian apologetics world rather than considering it all.
That said, there is a lot here - and you will be challenged and you will learn.
October 28, 2023
This book has excellent content, describing and explaining presuppositional (Van Tillian) apologetics. It is a posthumous collection and assembly of Dr. Bahnsen's notes, which probably explains its difficult and somewhat disorganized structure. This is a very important book and topic for all Christians for understanding basic apologetics principles. One key theme is that there is no neutral position with regard to the gospel (or the authority of the Bible, or one's relationship with God, etc.). I think that most Christians do not understand this, if they even bother to consider it.
Please wrestle through this book, or at least read other works that explain and apply the presuppositional approach.
Please wrestle through this book, or at least read other works that explain and apply the presuppositional approach.
February 24, 2019
Every Christian (and non Christian!) will benefit from reading this text, but I especially recommend it to teenagers and young adults. I was raised in the public school system and attended two public Universities for both undergraduate and graduate work - and man, do I wish I had read this text before embarking on those adventures! I approached so much of my time in high school and college as a smart-aleck Evidentialist, and although I am hopeful God used that (and certainly uses evidentialism!), this book is a solid and convincing argument for pre-suppositionalism. Moreover, it has many practical points for public apologetics while likewise strengthening the reader's faith in God.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 120 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.