Talk:Greg Bahnsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
WikiProject Christianity / Calvinism (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as Low-importance).


If the {{Dominionism}} article is to be used, the article needs to actually say he advocates this theory. It also needs to cite reliable neutral sources. Otherwise, the template needs to be removed from here (and him removed from it). From a Google search, I see potential for sources (e.g. raw hits), though I haven't yet found an appropriate one myself. This is why haven't yet removed the template. -Rob 15:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

In Bahnsen's preface to DeMar's work The Debate Over Chritian Reconstruction (published by Dominion Press), he wrote:
The recent "debate" over Christian Reconstruction has been going on for over ten years now. The debate in contemporary Christian circles could actually be pushed back to the early 1970s, with the publication or general recognition of certain probing theological works by R. J. Rushdoony. (Of course, to the extent that Reconstructionist theology is true to God’s Word, the debate has been carried on throughout redemptive history, since the time of the fall!) The active and open criticism of Reconstructionist dis-tinctive as such, however, surfaced about a year following the publication of Theonomy in Christian Ethics (1977) – and ironically, surfaced within the context of that theological tradition which has given historical impetus to the Reconstructionist perspective: the circles of Presbyterian and Puritan conviction. [. . .]
Of the many pastors and teachers who are publishing materials written from a "Reconstructionist" perspective today, our finest author is, in my opinion, Gary DeMar. His books and articles are clearly written, soundly researched, and politely expressed. For these reasons Mr. DeMar’s publications have proven to be the most helpful summaries of Reconstructionist thought we can offer to those willing to learn about the position. He pursues cogent theological polemics, rather than creative innovations and im-aginative interpretations; accordingly, he has gained a reputation for reliability. He expresses himself in a well-tempered fashion, which has brought him a reputation as a Christian gentleman.
Therefore, those wishing to study "Christian Reconstruction" seriously and carefully are advised to read this and other works by Gary DeMar. (ix-x).
In Rushdoony's foreward to the first edition of Theonomy in Christian Ethics (reproduced in all subsequent editions), he wrote:
The man who is being progressively sanctified will inescapably sanctify his home, school, politics, economics, science, and all things else by understanding and interpreting all things in terms of the word of God and by bringing all things under the dominion of Christ the King. (xii)
Likewise, Bahnsen, in the text of the work, wrote:
Obedience to the law of God is so integral and significant to the development of the kingdom of God that to expect its renunciation in the epoch of the New Covenant, where the Messianic Kingdom is established with power, is scurrilous and incongruous. God's "kingdom" means nothing if it does not mean that He exercises dominion in every aspect of the lives of His subjects (3rd edition, p. 198, emphasis original).
Bahnsen definitely held to the view described as "Dominionism" even if he never used the title as a title (though he may well have, his writings are so voluminous I have only read a small portion, and even that includes two 500+ page technical works). --MonkeeSage 22:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely correct. He never did use the title "Dominionist" and "Dominionism", but if the term "Theonomist" and "Reconstructionist" is a part of that, then he would be part of the Dominionist. Then again, I'm not sure if "Dominionist" was the term used at the time when he (Bahnsen) began his works "Theonomy in Christian Ethics." But in all intents and purposes, he was a Reconstructionist and Dominionist, in the Theonomistic sense.
Sad such a great man died when he was still young. I never got to meet him, and he was one of my favorite Apologists, right next to Van Til. This article does him justice. Great article, by the way.--NWalterstorf 15:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link - as sadly, it no longer exists. -REM

I'm not sure how to do it, but the link to the Credenda article clearly says that the portion about Bahnsen was written by Douglas Jones. And based on what was said there, it clearly was. Wilson never had an issue with Bahnsen, that I know of, while Jones did. Someone who knows more about correcting this stuff should fix that. -JHJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirjake (talkcontribs) 13:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding name to article[edit]

The consensus is that the name David Arnold shouldn't be added to the article as there are no references for this, and it may therefore be viewed as libellous. Despite this, there appears to be a number of (mostly anon IP) editors that re-add the name. Please, either provide a reason in your edit summaries, or here, or kindly stop as your edits are viewed as vandalism. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 10:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

New Book written[edit]


Greg Bahnsen wrote a book when he was in his early 20s that was found about a year ago. It has been edited and published under the title Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended. ISBN is 9780915815555. Published by American Vision.

All of this info doesn't need to be added to the page. I am submitting this for addition mainly for the Books authored section. More info if necessary can be found here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jawillde (talkcontribs) 16:25, 22 August 2009

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Stein Reply hearsay[edit]

The "Later life" section currently says, "...Stein later conceded he had been unprepared for but to which he subsequently developed a reply." A reference is provided to a May 1996 newsletter by Jeffery Jay Lowder in which he claims to have had a telephone interview with Stein saying, "he now has a refutation of the argument." I don't believe this meets Wikipedia's standards for a citation since it is hearsay, not an actual reply to the debate (see (Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves). If anyone would like to defend this citation, or provide a link to an actual refutation of TAG by Stein, please do so; otherwise, I will delete that phrase and the hearsay reference, or rewrite it to clarify that a decade after their debate, and the year after Bahnsen died, allegedly Stein made a mere claim that he had a reply.--Funhistory (talk)

I agree that it doesn't meet the standards for inclusion as it is. I would remove it. A rewrite will probably suffer from being poorly and indaquately sourced also. -- HighKing++ 19:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)