Yes, Bahnsen NEVER argued that it was “sinful to appeal to the evidence for the resurrection” as the man said in the video. Bahnsen argued against using evidence as the end-all-be-all for apologetic argumentation with the unbeliever. He contends that because of our worldviews governing what constitutes evidence, it would be futile to endlessly compile more historic data. He argued that evidence can be appealed to (as did his teacher Van Til), just not apart from challenging the unbeliever’s autonomous foundation that inevitably leads to a misconstruing of the evidence.
👍
Wildly inaccurate representation of Bahnsen at 9:40
Can you expand?
Yes , please expand
Yes, Bahnsen NEVER argued that it was “sinful to appeal to the evidence for the resurrection” as the man said in the video. Bahnsen argued against using evidence as the end-all-be-all for apologetic argumentation with the unbeliever. He contends that because of our worldviews governing what constitutes evidence, it would be futile to endlessly compile more historic data. He argued that evidence can be appealed to (as did his teacher Van Til), just not apart from challenging the unbeliever’s autonomous foundation that inevitably leads to a misconstruing of the evidence.
how can I get the free ebook and how do I get notifications for these sessions