rpavich Loc: West Virginia

From the interactions with certain persons here....it's clear that some think that non-Christians can evaluate "evidence" as an "unbiased" observer....nothing could be further from the truth.

This is an old video and the sound isn't the greatest, but it's a very valuable thing to keep in mind for those who defend the faith.

Dr. Greg Bahnsen: the Myth of Neutrality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwYv94-iSbo

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

There are times when it is hard to be an 'observer'

StanRP

steve40 Loc: Asheville/Canton, NC, USA

This is typical for the TUBE, and there are other times when it is clearly a CR infraction, they let go. But to answer; No it is, and cannot be clear to a non-Christian. That is why they are not Christian in the first place, they have no understanding of Spiritual things.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

here it is again...part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBEehu3oQ2A

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

Hello,

I eventually found a link to view his video. I like the way he lectures.

On the topic "The myth of neutrality" where the origin is assumed (E.G. God exists - or does not exist ) he is correct. However there are other areas - there are cases where one must start out being 'neutral'.

Example: An industrial process has failed. In front of you is the computer that controls the process and the question is "Did this computer cause the failure"?

While one must NOT be neutral about the failure being real - one MUST be neutral in examining the evidence for the computer being the cause. One good way is to use the method proposed by Greg Bahnsen - using Proverbs 26:5.

Assume "yes" and see where it leads.
Then Assume 'No' and see where it leads.

If neither lead to the failure then this shows the wisdom of starting out being 'neutral'.

However, as Greg Bahnsen states: One must always watch out for "assumed facts" being added to the debate.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

The problem is; nobody is neutral about anything, even industrial problems. It's impossible to avoid. We all hold axioms by which all other facts are judged evaluated.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

**********************************
Read what I wrote again:

While one must NOT be neutral about the failure being real - one MUST be neutral in examining the evidence for the computer being the cause. One good way is to use the method proposed by Greg Bahnsen - using Proverbs 26:5.

Assume "yes" and see where it leads.
Then Assume 'No' and see where it leads.

If neither lead to the failure then this shows the wisdom of starting out being 'neutral'.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Read what i wrote, nobody is neutral in anything.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

Scripture disagrees with your viewpoint: Read Acts 17:10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Those in Berea were complimented in being neutral - and checking for themselves.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

That doesn't mean neutral, it means that they checked for themselves. They had their presuppositions just like you and I.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

If one has a presupposition, just like my industrial example: you were saying that there is no reason to check.

You implied this with your answer to my:

******
While one must NOT be neutral about the failure being real - one MUST be neutral in examining the evidence for the computer being the cause. One good way is to use the method proposed by Greg Bahnsen - using Proverbs 26:5.

Assume "yes" and see where it leads.
Then Assume 'No' and see where it leads.

If neither lead to the failure then this shows the wisdom of starting out being 'neutral'.

******
And the reply:

The problem is; nobody is neutral about anything, even industrial problems.

******

My disagreement is the definition "about anything"

Your "They had their presuppositions just like you and I." is, as Dr. Greg Bahnsen put it, a 'Prejudicial conjecture'

StanRP

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Bahnsen would agree with me. Nobody is neutral, even the Bereans...in anything. There is no neutrality at all. The question is; are one's presuppositions worth holding and valid?

As Bahnsen himself says:

"They (unbelievers) aren't neutral, and you (believer) shouldn't be either."

In this transcript of a debate with an Atheist Dr. Bahnsen states it again (that believers aren't neutral either)

http://andynaselli.com/wp-content/uploads/Bahnsen-Stein_Transcript.pdf



I guess this horse is dead.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

Hi.

At least one of the horses is dead. What I have been trying to point out is that the word "neutral' has many applications. If it did not, there is no reason for this word to exist. I have been trying to show some examples where 'Neutral' does apply. Let me give another example. In my vehicle the transmission has a 'neutral' position. While there, the vehicle does not have power to move forward or backward. While it is in that position, it is free to move in any direction the vehicle is pushed. This is why Atheists want you to debate with a neutral Worldview. If you accept this, then debating any "prejudicial conjecture" can be used to give the push. As Dr. Bahnsen teaches - don't go there. ( Shades of Proverbs 26:5-6 :-)

Listen to some of his university debates about God with an Atheist. Listen to how he opens his response, making it very clear that the points that had been brought up by the Atheist are totally irrelevant to the topic under debate.

Coming back to the word neutral. There are applications that inherently exclude the definition of "neutral" and as Dr. Bahnsen states - a 'worldview' is one of them. The Christian has one worldview, an Atheist has another. In debate with Atheists, they may try pushing you into a 'neutral worldview' using real examples where the definition "neutral' does apply. Applying them to a 'worldview' will, in every case, be "prejudicial conjecture" and should be rejected without debate.

The Christian Worldview - that I hold - states that the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross provides the only way to be accepted by God. What some people miss is the wording in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life". While it does apply to Jesus, the "him" in "believeth in him" is referring to God. This covers people like Abraham and Moses. As a friend of mine said years ago - "It is God who decides who is covered by the Blood of His Son Jesus".

Again, thanks for continuing this debate in a friendly manner. We can all learn from each other.

StanRP

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Sure...the word neutral has many nuances but not as it pertains to the original post and subject. Why would we even discuss what neutral means when it comes to anything else?


As for John 3:16; the "believe in Him" refer's to Jesus; the pronoun refers back to the son. "uion". It's the closest antecedent and it matches grammatically and theologically also.

StanRP Loc: Ontario Canada

Hi,

1) Possibly because of the viewpoint being pushed that it is impossible to be neutral on anything.

Re "Believe in Him". Looking the complete sentence:

 16-17 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life for God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

This also matches both grammatically and theologically - both are true.

With scripture broken up into verses, it is easy to stop at the end of one and miss the whole meaning. This, plus the problems of translation and the changing meaning of words with time.

I think that the topic of Atheist vs Christian world viewpoint has run it's course. While, at my age, it has been the subject of debate in the past, the introduction to lectures/sermons given by Dr. Bahnsen and how he debated was refreshing. Dying at age 47, he will be missed by many

In case you are interested - here is a Youtube talk about Greg Bahnsen given by Kenneth Samples. It is IMHO well worth watching.


Many thanks for your comments and input.

StanRP