Customer Reviews

Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Greg Bahnsen's book, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith, a collection of classroom materials and articles, makes many of the difficult concepts of Biblical apologetics accessible to believers who never went to seminary. One of the greatest minds in evangelical scholarship in the twentieth century, Bahnsen interpreted, popularized, and made practical the groundbreaking work of Cornelius Van Til in what is known as presuppositional apologetics. The book under discussion lays the Biblical foundation of apologetics and gives direction for engaging in discussion with unbelievers. The popular view of apologetics suggests that believers find common, neutral ground with unbelievers in order to convince them of the plausibility of Christianity. In contrast, Bahnsen's basic contention is that believers must maintain the same Scriptural foundation in their encounters with unbelievers as they do in all theological discussion.

Bahnsen begins by dispelling the idea that neutral ground exists between believers and unbelievers. When a believer seeks "neutrality," he surrenders "his distinctive religious beliefs" with the result that he becomes "impotent in [his] witness, aimless in [his] walk, and disarmed in [his] battle with the principalities and powers of this world" (4). In contrast, all knowledge and wisdom are found only in Christ (Colossians 2:3), who is the believer's Lord even in the intellectual realm. Believers must have a correct understanding of the thinking of the unbeliever, who "have a vain mind and a darkened understanding" (Ephesians 4:17-18) (12). Bahnsen asserts, therefore, "from the fact that God is the sovereign Creator of heaven and earth, from the fact that the world and history are only such as His plan decrees, from the fact that man is the creaturely image of God, we must conclude that all knowledge which man possesses is received from God, who is the originator of all truth and the original Truth" (24). Thus, neutrality is nothing but a myth.

Bahnsen then addresses common arguments against presuppositionalism. Rather than arrogance, believers must maintain a "humble boldness" when dealing with unbelief (36). Also, while an unbeliever would indeed be totally incapable of knowledge of anything if he were consistent with his worldview, he is actually able to attain knowledge. Unbelievers do have a knowledge of God (which they suppress) and thus are able to understand the world (38). And believers are able to engage in meaningful conversation with unbelievers by virtue of several facts. Because God has created all things, "there is no area in the world, in thought, in word, or in deed which is irrelevant, indifferent, or neutral toward God and His demands" (42). And because all men are created in God's image, believers have a "point of contact" with all men (47).

Bahnsen next gives practical information about how exactly to defend the faith. He outlines two broad directions on how to proceed based on Proverbs 26:4-5. First, believers must not answer the unbeliever according to his foolishness, "in terms of his own misguided presuppositions." Rather "the apologist should defend his faith by working within his own presuppositions" (61). Second, the believer should answer the unbeliever according to his folly. "Pursued to their consistent end presuppositions of unbelief render man's reasoning vacuous and his experience unintelligible; in short, they lead to the destruction of knowledge, the dead-end of epistemological futility, to utter foolishness" (62). In addition, believers must realize that engagement with unbelievers is not conflict between beliefs of just particular aspects of truth but rather between complete worldviews (68). The believer also must constantly keep in mind that success is not dependent on his abilities, but rather that God is the One who gives understanding (85). Belief in God is the foundation of all understanding (88).

The remainder of the book puts these principles into practice. Believers must use reason as a tool, as an expression of God's image in them (113). In pointing out the fallacies in the unbeliever's worldview, he must point out prejudicial conjectures (136), unargued philosophical bias (138), presuppositions which do not comport with each other (141), logical fallacies (144-48), and behavior which betrays his professed belief (148). Bahnsen ends this section of the book by exposing the fallacies of the philosophical objections that Bertrand Russell hurled against Christianity. He also deals with issues like the problem of evil (163-74), anti-supernaturalism (177-91), faith versus reason (193-203), religious language (205-20), and miracles (221-32).

The final chapter of the book is worth the price of the whole book. In it Bahnsen gives a masterful exposition of Acts 17, which is the account of Paul's apologetic for Christianity on Mar's Hill in Athens. He demonstrates that Paul's methodology comports precisely with all the claims of presuppositional apologists. Although Paul appeared before an entirely pagan audience, he still assumes the veracity of Scripture without apology. In all, Always Ready is an indispensable tool for believers as they seek to give a faithful defense for the hope that is in them.

Whenever the topic of pressupositional apologetics comes up, it tends to cause the eyes to gloss over and the mind to immediately assume it is in way over its head. Dr. Bahnsen's works can be some of the most intellectually demanding works of theology one can encounter so it was with some concern when I picked up this book and wondered how it would communicate the topic. Dr. Bahnsen proved that it is possible to boil the topic down into its essential elements for evangelism and make it clear to the average reader and to the philosophy nuts alike. It is a great defense of the methodology as it relates to evangelism and is an invaluable resource for sharing your faith.

It would rather silly for me to recap Bahnsen's argument here, in this venue and at this time.

What you need to know is the following: this is _the_ best introduction to Christian apologetics that exists. It is mightily readable, and yet it is by no means juvenile. Although high schoolers should be able to read this book just fine, it is not written _for_ them (like Pratt's book is). Everyone will benefit mightily from this book. You can read it in just a few days; it is well bound on high quality paper; it is easy to understand; and yet it is incendiary in brilliance.

After this, consider Rushdoony's _By What Standard?_ and then move on to Van Til.

Alternatively, you could buy Bahnsen's tome _Van Til's Apologetic_. I have yet to read this one, but it is an amalgamation of what Bahnsen thought was Van Til's best stuff (in all of his books combined) with non-stop running commentary, introductions, conclusions, and tons of elucidation.

But, back to this one. Just buy it. And buy a copy for everyone you know.

The last hundred+ pages are the best.

As an advocate of presupposionalism and fan of the late Dr. Greg Bahsnen, I greatly appreciate this book, and must also admit that this school of apologetics is widely misrepresented. And one should not be surprised to find an atheist disagreeing with this method. After reading the book and the most recent review below, apparently Paul Doland has failed to evaluate this work as "best as possible." This book is an excellent example of defending the faith in a presuppositional manner. And Dr. Bahsnen is the guy to turn to if one is looking for a man with explanatory skills, and a faithful student of Van Til. In the book he uses this skill and his Vantilian training to do what Donald said he doesn't.

Doland says he just asserts that non-Christian worldviews are self-contradictory, but does not offer proof. But Bahsnen does demonstrate that all other worldviews cannot make sense of ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology; they suffer from arbitrariness and/or inconsistency.

The things that Bahnsen suggests are to be received as "self-evident" (though I don't think he used that phrase) are final authorities. Bahnsen says that one's final authority is self-authenticating, or self-attesting, in the nature of the case. One can't go behind his final authority (A) to authorize it with B: in that case B would be the final authority. So this is a misreading and misunderstanding of Bahnsen's claims. And, by the way, Bahnsen's example of Jesus' word being self-authenticating is both what scripture teaches as well as an example of a self-authenticating, highest authority (scripture, or God's Word).

The quote by Bahsnen on page 63 in Doland's post is true. Christ demonstrated to his followers that they must have a revelational epistemology: they must start with God's revealed word as the self-authenticating [not "self-evident"; there is a linguistic difference], and indisputable starting point. So I'm not sure whether the reviewer's point is a criticism of Bahnsen's exegesis or just simply a piece of ridicule of our Lord's claim.

Doland, Bahnsen, and every person have worldviews that contain presuppositions which are final authorities used for interpreting and interrelating every aspect of knowledge and experience. An atheist's belief in materialism (as well as the Christian's view of Scripture's authority) is a presuppositional claim about the universe which is not established by the methods of natural science.
However, the atheist's worldview, as Bahsnen shows, cannot account for logic, science, morality, etc. The Christian worldview does.

Bahnsen's ultimate claim (from the mass of his work in this area) is that if you want to be rational (and thus salvage epistemology, ethics, metaphysics, etc) you must be a Christian: you must have a worldview that provides the pre-conditions of human experience and intelligibility. So what is amazing is not that Bahsnen has a Ph.D., but that non-Christians hold their terminal degrees.

To many Christians, "apologetic methodology" is something that merely strengthens or weakens someone's arguments. Thus, when speaking of "Presuppositional" apologetics, most will gaze with a blank stare. And if one were to get a response, it might be from an unbeliever who will argue, "Oh, so you're trying to prove the Bible by using the Bible," and then make the accusation of circular reasoning.

However, apologetics isn't so much based on how well we can argue or how smart we are as it is about doing that which glorifies God. "As long as we are bringing the lost to Christ, it doesn't matter how we do it, right?" This is how many approach their encounters with unbelievers, not being aware of how God works in the mind and heart of the unbeliever. In other words, if man is "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness" (Romans 1) as the Bible teaches, then what good will our arguments do? And if God is the one who changes the heart and does the work of regeneration, then shouldn't our method reflect that?

In light of the many challenges that believers face in this day and age of "enlightenment," Greg Bahnsen, in his book "Always Ready," offers a fresh (though not original) look at the issues and how we can approach apologetics in a God-glorifying manner. What exactly does this look like? Well, one thing is for certain; Dr. Bahnsen's approach is certainly one that is derived from Scripture. This is quite the contrary from how many of us have traditionally understood apologetics in the past. Let me explain what I mean.

When I used to approach unbelievers, I always wanted to seek neutral ground with the unbeliever. And what I learned from Dr. Bahnsen is that this approach is not biblical, regardless of how "effective" one might make it out to be. Allow me to provide an illustration through an imaginary conversation:

Mr. Unbeliever: I see no reason to believe that God exists. In order for me to believe, you are going to have to convince me with proof.

Mr. Believer: Certainly! Wouldn't you agree that life is extremely complex? How would you account for this?

Mr. Unbeliever: I would agree, and while science hasn't provided all the answers for the complexity of life, this doesn't mean that we won't in the future.

Mr. Believer: And how do you know if science will ever come up with an answer?

Mr. Unbeliever: They may, or may not. But one thing is for certain: science doesn't work by invoking "god" to explain the unexplainable. If that were so, then science could never make progress!

Mr. Believer: Well, we aren't basing an "intelligent designer" on what we can't explain, but on what we can explain. In other words, since we know that life, as we know it, is too complex to have come about through evolutionary means, then "intelligent design" makes perfect sense!

Mr. Unbeliever: But you are still invoking "god" to explain the unexplainable. I'm aware of the probability arguments used to "prove" that life couldn't have evolved, but all this means is that life "probably" didn't arise via naturalistic processes. But this is not how science works. We don't say, "the theory of gravity is most probably true, and thus the best explanation for why objects fall to the ground." Instead, we argue, "through millions and millions of testing and experiment, we have found that gravity is the only proven explanation for why objects fall, and there has never been anything proven to the contrary." Thus, in order to "prove" God, you'd have to do so through the same tests.

The conversation could continue and go in many directions. And I'm not suggesting that intelligent design advocates couldn't argue their points in a much better manner than the above. But what I wanted to demonstrate is the traditional manner in arguing apologetics. That is, we start with "neutrality" and use the unbeliever's line of thinking and try to prove our point.

The question is, is this the most biblically consistent way to do apologetics? Is this how Paul engaged the unbelievers of his day? Greg Bahnsen would disagree. He argues that the most biblically appropriate manner to engage the unbeliever is to use the Bible! And it is very unfortunate that so many choose to "leave the Bible out of it" in order to argue from a "neutral" standpoint. But Greg Bahnsen argues that this is impossible to do. And rather than appeal to a "neutral" standpoint (which is actually impossible!), why not appeal to your own presuppositions and convictions? What do I mean by this? Well, as believers, we believe that the Bible is the word of God. It is the center of our thinking. Thus, wouldn't it make more sense to engage apologetics as if this were so? The unbeliever is defending his beliefs in light of his beliefs that there is no God and the material world is all there is. So if he can do it, then why can't we?

Thus, we should challenge the unbeliever in light of our convictions and, in turn, challenge the unbeliever's convictions! Here's another conversation, but this time based on a presuppositional approach.

Mr. Unbeliever: I see no reason to believe that God exists. In order for me to believe, you are going to have to convince me with proof.

Mr. Believer: Well, how about the proof that God has spoken to us through His Word?

Mr. Unbeliever: "Through His Word?" Don't you have to prove to me that the Bible is God's Word before making such a statement?

Mr. Believer: How can I "prove" that the Bible is the Word of God? Wouldn't that mean that I'd have to appeal to something higher than God; something greater than Himself, to "prove" that this is His Word?

Mr. Unbeliever: Of course not, because that would be impossible and logically absurd. And that's why "proving" that something is "God's Word" is impossible until we have proven that God exists at all!

Mr. Believer: You seem to have a lot of this figured out. And you speak of things like "logic" and "proof." Thus, aren't you asking these questions in light of your naturalistic/materialistic worldview?

Mr. Unbeliever: Of course! How else would I ask these questions? I've never been shown any proof that God exists, so I have no option than to ask questions in light of a materialistic/naturalistic worldview.

Mr. Believer: This is interesting, because you are doing exactly what the Bible says you will do. Because your mind is darkened by sin and you suppress the truth in unrighteousness, I fully expect you to act as if you deny the God who created you in his image and is responsible for every breath that you breath. And you are fully demonstrating this through every word that you speak.

Mr. Unbeliever: Ok, so because I have seen no evidence that proves God's existence, I am now "proving" that I'm both denying and affirming that he exists? Isn't that like saying I am denying and affirming space aliens because I haven't yet found any proof for them?

Mr. Believer: Not exactly. But because you mention things like "proof" and "logic," I would like to know how to account for these things in an atheistic worldview.

Mr. Unbeliever: That's easy. I ask for "proof" and appeal to "logic" because that's the only way to know anything.

Mr. Believer: I fully agree that we can "know" things via proof and logic. But that's because my worldview can account for these things. In other words, because we are made in the image of God, and because we will think our thoughts after him, then "logic" and "proof" make perfect sense. And the reason it makes perfect sense is because I can account for these things. Just like the fact that love is an attribute of God, so is rationality and logic. And because of this and the other things I just mentioned, I am arguing that you are actually "borrowing" from my worldview when you ask for things like "proof."

Mr. Unbeliever: That's silly. We can have things like "proof" because we are rational beings. You don't have to "presuppose" God or do any "borrowing" to know that.

Mr. Believer: Actually, you do. And its interesting that you affirm a "materialistic" worldview, which states that the material world is all there is. Thus, all that's going on is a bunch of chemical reactions and atoms banging around. And to speak of "immaterial entities" such as the laws of logic, is to go outside the bounds of your worldview.

Mr. Unbeliever: I'm not arguing that "logic" is actually an "immaterial entity," as you put it. Instead, I'm arguing that "logic" is just a process of the mind, which is all material in nature. The laws of logic are just conceptions that arise through the chemical processes in your brain.

Mr. Believer: I agree that logic is a process of the mind. But are you suggesting that logic only exists when human minds are actually abiding by these laws?

Mr. Unbeliever: Of course. And again, logic is only the process of the mind.

Mr. Believer: This is very interesting. So does this mean that, for example, the law of non-contradiction didn't exist until someone declared it to be true?

Mr. Unbeliever: I suppose you could say that.

Mr. Believer: How did that person discover it to be so?

Mr. Unbeliever: Well, that's simple. He looked at the world around him and realized that things can't both exist and not exist at the same time and the same place.

Mr. Believer: Wait, so he used logic to prove logic?

Mr. Unbeliever: That's a rather simplistic way of looking at it, but I suppose you could say that.

Mr. Believer: So you use the laws of logic to prove the laws of logic?

Mr. Unbeliever: That's an absurd question.

Mr. Believer: I would agree. But doesn't this mean that you are engaging in circular reasoning?

Mr. Unbeliever: To some extent, yes I am. But if we didn't assume things like the laws of logic, which are self-evident, then we couldn't even have this conversation! It would be like trying to "prove" that there is such a thing as "proof," or prove that we exist by appealing to our existence.

Mr. Believer: So, you are admitting that there are some things that we have to assume to be true?

Mr. Unbeliever: Well yes, when it comes to our starting point, the things which allow us to even have a rational conversation, like this one, then we have to make these kind of assumptions. But we can only make these kind of assumptions with those things which are self-evident; those things which could be labeled our "starting presuppositions."

Mr. Believer: Great! Then its okay for me to argue with the starting point that God exists, which otherwise, we'd have no basis for rationality and logic. In other words, God exists and the Bible is true because of the impossibility to the contrary. And again, by arguing in a rational manner, you are again borrowing from my worldview and demonstrating that you are made in the image of God; thus, using things that your worldview can't account for.

I realize that this imaginary conversation is a bit lengthy, and perhaps a different way of arguing than what most would be accustomed to. It would be nice to be able to provide an actual "review" of Bahnsen's book, but to do so would require almost a full explanation of the presuppositional perspective. Thus, it was my intention to provide a demonstration to show how a presuppositonalist might argue as opposed to an evidentialist if one were to adopt Bahnsen's approach.

Bahnsen's book is something that every Christian should get their hands on and digest. He offers a full discussion of the biblical nature of the presuppositionalist position and demonstrates it to such an extent that you will be well equipped to take your encounters in the direction that it needs to go, and to do so in a God-honoring manner.

Greg Bahnsen was scholar in residence at the Southern California Center for Christian Studies. He earned his M.Div and ThM simultaneously from Westminster Theological Seminary and did his PhD on epistemology (the theory of knowledge) from USC under Dallas Willard. Bahnsen's mind is razor sharp. He is the foremost representative of Van Tillian presuppositionalism. Sadly, the Lord took him at age 47, due to a heart condition. Always Ready (274 pp) is an excellent introduction to apologetics. Bahnsen spends a lot of time on epistemology and the need for a truly Christian theory of knowledge. He writes, "One must be presuppositionally committed to Christ in the world of thought (rather than neutral) and firmly tied down to the faith which he has been taught, or else the persuasive argumentation of secular thought will delude him. Hence the Christian is obligated to presuppose the word of Christ in every area of knowledge; the alternative is delusion" (5)....God's Word (in Scripture) has absolute authority for us and is the final criterion for truth" (24). The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. This fact is important for believers today as postmodern epistemology can be detrimental to the gospel. Bahnsen argues persuasively throughout the book, showing the only biblically faithful apologetic is presuppositional. God's authoritative, self-attesting Word must be the starting point for all apologetics. Neutrality is impossible, and immoral. The book also has several very practical (and theoretical) examples of how to show the unbeliever the foolishness of unbelief. Following Van Til, Bahnsen argues transcendentally for the Christian faith, showing the impossibility of the contrary. Christian theism is the precondition for intelligibility. Anti-theism presupposes theism.

Quotes:

"In answering the fool a Christian apologist must aim to demonstrate that unbelief is, in the final analysis, destructive of all knowledge" 57

"Effective apologetics necessarily leads us to challenge and debate the unbeliever at the level of his most basic commitments or assumptions about reality, knowledge, and ethics. Our approach to defending the faith is shallow and ineffective if we think that the unbeliever simply lacks information or needs to be given observational evidence." 120

"The proof that Christianity is true is that if it were not, we would not be able to prove anything." 122

For most of my adult life I've considered myself a presuppositionalist, and one of the major reasons for this is the writings and teachings of Greg Bahnsen, as well as those of Cornelius van Til. Years ago when I worked as a videographer for a year, I was privileged to videotape a series of lectures by Bahnsen on presuppositional apologetics. Those lectures, given to college students at a Life Preparation Conference, were nothing short of brilliant!

However, I can only give "Always Ready" 3 stars.

First, the good news. Bahnsen writes clearly for the most part and doesn't typically go over the reader's head. He also gives a pretty good definition of what presuppositional apologetics is all about. When he presents the fact that all of us have presuppositions, exposes the myth of neutrality, and urges us to have the mind of Christ, Bahnsen is at his best. Some of his suggestions for the strategies about how to speak as a presuppositionalist to unbelievers are also helpful. First, we are to understand the unbeliever's worldview and enter into it, but then we are to show how those presuppositions are inconsistent or will lead to consequences the unbeliever can't or won't accept. I'm thankful, as well, that he constantly urges us not only to boldly proclaim Christ and the gospel, but to also manifest a "humble boldness," remembering the grace of God in our lives and that the person we're talking to is made in the image of God.

Unfortunately, there are some downsides to the book. I, and the students to whom I've taught the book, have been left hungering for more details about how to put presuppositional apologetics into effect. Even though Bahnsen does demonstrate this at the end with his discussion of Acts 17, it's not nearly enough. Second, presuppositional apologetics, when presented in this way, will only appeal to and can only be used by a select few. It ends up sounding like a very intellectualist way of presenting the gospel, something that doesn't appeal to very many. He also largely leaves out the fact that it is the whole person who is doing and receiving the apologetics, and not just the mind. Finally, there is an inexcusable amount of repetition. It's proven a very difficult book to teach because Bahnsen says the same things over and over and over again. I'm sure this is largely the result of the process of Bahnsen's material having been edited into this book. But the endless repetition really takes away from the effectiveness of the book.

So read "Always Ready" as a good primer on presuppositional apologetics, but be aware of the deficiencies of the book as well.

How should Christians interface with unbelievers? How should we present "...the reason for the hope that lies within us." (1 Peter 3:15)? This book demonstrates that the believer's method should be dictated and constrained by Scripture. God's word is self attesting and authoritative (pg 70). As such, we should "make a defense" based on the presupposition of the truth in scripture and what scripture says about the unbeliever (Rom 1:22).

If you desire to be faithful to the scripture yet also to present the Gospel in an understandable way, this book is for you. It provides a good starting point to understand the presuppositional apologetic method.

This book is a combination of works written by Dr Greg Bahnsen. As such, the book is basically divided into two parts. Chapters 1-24 are a helpful treatise on presupposing the truth of Christ and His word in every area of Knowledge (pg 5). Next, with this very important foundation laid, Chapters 25 - 34 contain more details how the method fleshes out when confronted with specific questions. The Appendix is a masterful exposition of Acts 17 that is worth the price of the book in and of itself (Bahnsen provides an in depth explanation of some of the philosophies against which Paul was defending. He also demonstrates that Paul's apologetic method was "presuppositional").

Here are some insights that I found especially helpful:
Part 1: Chapters 1-24 (The choppy writing style in this Part seems to indicate the result of a Bahnsen class outline)
- In no uncertain terms, Bahnsen says, "not only is the argument from neutrality wrong, it's immoral!" Ephesians 4:17-18 "So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart"
2 Corinthians 10:5 "...we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ"
- "The Christian who strives after neutrality in his thought is found actually to be endeavoring to efface the fact that he is a Christian!" (pg9)
- The only common ground is to start with God as Creator and His extensive claim upon the created (pg41-43) and follow with the suppression of the truth within them (Rom 1)
- "The non-Christian thinks that his mind is the final court of appeal in all matters of knowledge...[that he is] autonomous" (pg46)
- Take the offensive and challenge the unbeliever's presuppositions
- According to Scripture, if he does not respond, he is a fool (Proverbs 10:8 "The wise of heart will receive commands, But a babbling fool will be ruined and despises instruction" , Proverbs 15:5 "A fool rejects his father's discipline, But he who regards reproof is sensible." Proverbs 28:26 says "He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, But he who walks wisely will be delivered." Proverbs 17:10 "A rebuke goes deeper into one who has understanding Than a hundred blows into a fool") (pg 55-56)
- "The fool does not really want to find the truth; he only wants to be self-justified in his imaginations" (Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding, But only in revealing his own mind) (pg 56)
- "The fool must be shown that his autonomy is hostile to knowledge - that God makes foolish the "wisdom" of the world. (pg 57)
- we learn from Prov 26:4-5 that we are to: (1) refuse to answer in terms of the fool's presuppositions, for they undermine the Christian position and (2) we are to answer in terms of the fools presuppositions in order to show they lead to futility. (pg 61-63)
- "the unbeliever must be taught to renounce his feigned autonomy and submit to God's clear word of authority" (pg 65) This will occur only according to God's sovereign will. Truth will be significant only if the unbeliever has a presuppositional change of mind from darkness to light (pg 79)
- "all religious debate will develop into a question of ultimate authority" (pg 69)
- pit his foolish thinking against the gospel, unmask his pretensions, and show his vain, darkened, ignorant mind. (Eph 4:17-24)
- "Autonomy and understanding are mutually exclusive." This autonomy is the source of the unbeliever's lack of understanding. (pg 84)
- "It is the sinner's intellectual assumptions, operation, and competence which hare on trial in a apologetic encounter, not the revelation of Christ" (pg 84)
- Sadly, many Christian compromise a Christ-centered epistemology "to gain a hearing and to show that compromise between intellectual self-sufficiency and soteriological dependence on God is possible." (pg 84) "Believers will be misled into thinking that whatever they take as the ultimate standard in apologetical thinking must be neutral and agreed upon by beli8ever and unbeliever alike; and from here they go on to make the second mistake thinking that something like "reason" is such a commonly understood and accepted standard." (pg 112)
- "The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord" (Prov 1:7)

Part 2: Chapters 25-34 (this Part is written in a much more fluid style than the choppy statements in Part 1)
- "Reason is not to be taken as some neutral authority in man's thinking. It is rather...a tool to be used in serving and glorifying the ultimate authority of God Himself." (pg 114)
- "a worldview is a network of related presuppositions in terms of which every aspect of man's knowledge and awareness is interpreted." (pg 120)
- "our approach to defending the faith is shallow and ineffective if we think that the unbeliever simply lacks information or needs to be given observational evidence." (pg 120) "professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." (Rom 1:22)
- God wishes for us to be rational and to improve our reasoning ability. Therefore, we should be aware of the following:
-- Prejudicial conjecture - what "seems likely" to them.
-- Unargued Philosophical Bias - precommitments that the unbeliever takes for granted
-- Presuppositions that do not comport with each other
-- Common logical fallacies (pg 144-148)
-- Behavior that betrays professed belief (pg 148)
-- pages 153-160 are a case study of the fallacies of the accusations of Bertrand Russell
- Arguments of the unbeliever against metaphysical reality (pg 176-191)
- the [mis]conception of faith as "blind personal commitment is one of the chief obstacles that stands in the way of unbelievers giving Christianity an honest hearing." (pg 193)
- "a fundamental (logically basic) set of beliefs -a faith- is inescapable for anyone." (pg 197) (here a extrabiblical definition of faith)
- "a faith which in one way or another adopts the ultimate authority and self-sufficiency of the human mind and reasoning. That is irrational "faith", indeed, given the sad and experience and history of mankind..." (pg 201)
- How to react against unbelievers that hold to verificationism and falsificationism (pg 205-219)
- Regarding miracles in the Bible, many skeptics imagine that those who lives before were not critically minded or readily fooled (pg 222) This is not the case either within or outside of scripture. "The denial of the very possibility of miracles is not a piece of evidence FOR rejecting the Christian worldview, but simply a manifestation OF that rejection." (pg 225) It is nothing more than personal prejudices masquerading as modern rationality. (pg 226)
Other works:

I read "Always Ready" for the first time a couple of years ago in seminary, I instantly knew that I whole heartedly agreed with the author's (Greg Bahnsen) premise and his conclusions. "Always Ready" is a book about Apologetics (the defense of the Christian faith). It approaches this discipline from a presuppositional standpoint. Admittedly, this is not a book for beginning theologians. White it is written in an easily understandable fashion, the concepts which Bahnsen introduces are somewhat advanced for the average Christian today.

Bahnsen's basic argument is that apologetics must be conducted in a manner that brings the unbeliever's presuppositions into conflict with the biblical world view. He does so by means of the transcendental argument. This argument states that without a Christian Theistic worldview nothing is possible. In other words, all other world views eventually refute themselves and are even unable to account for themselves. The unbeliever must, in essence, borrow from the Christian Theistic worldview in order to make sense of morality, metaphysics, the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, etc.

This may sound very confusing, so let me see if I can briefly summarize. Bahnsen is saying that every person approaches life with a certain set of unargued beliefs. These unargued beliefs are what allows this person to interpret life. The believer comes already assuming the existence of God, the goodness of God, etc. The unbeliever comes assuming that God does not exist. Both the believer and the unbeliever have unargued beliefs. The job of the Christian apologist is to demonstrate to the unbeliever that his unargued belief cannot account for itself and are self-refuting. For example, the unbeliever may say that he does not believe in moral absolutes in order to justify having an affair, participating in illegal activities, etc. However, when asked about what happened on September 11th, he immediately decries that despicable act of terrorism in moral outrage. The problem is that he does not have a basis for this moral outrage. Having denied moral absolutes, there is no reason for him to be upset about another person's act of terrorism, or murder, or worse. He must borrow from the Christian theistic worldview, where absolute morality is determined by an absolute moral judge, in order to account for his sense of moral outrage at an act of terrorism. Bahnsen is saying that the job of the apologist is to demonstrate how the Christian Theistic worldview is the only one which is able to make sense of this moral outrage. What this means is that it's not enough for the Christian to present a series of isolated facts and hope to somehow convince the unbeliever of the reasonableness of Christianity, what is needed is an all out assault on the unbelievers worldview in order to bring them to acknowledge their need for God and to turn to Christ in repentance.

This is just a small example of the ground Bahnsen covers, but I hope it gives a flavor for the book. In the end this is a book that I would highly recommend to any serious student of apologetics.

The battle that rages for the souls of men is nothing less than a fight between worldviews. The Christian worldview is under attack from many angles and in "Always Ready: Directions for Defending The Faith," Dr. Greg Bahnsen demonstrates that all worldviews, even the attacks issued from them, presuppose and require the Christian worldview (for a recent and expanded application of presuppositional apologetics see: God Does Exist!). Competing philosophical paradigms must utilize the epistemic and moral pre-essentials that only Christianity can furnish (laws of logic, immutables, universals, moral law, mathematics, uniformity of nature, etc.).

Bahnsen's essay in chapter six: "God's Self-Attesting Authority" is worth the price of the volume. Other chapters include:

- The Robbery of Neutrality
- The Nature of Unbelieving Thought
- Revelation as The Foundation of Knowledge
- A Two-Fold Apologetic
- Answering a Fool
- Ready to Reason.

The intelligibility of human experience requires the God of the Bible. Christianity is the only worldview that provides human reason an unchanging foundation for knowledge. All non-Christian systems of thought fail to furnish a foundation for the law of non-contradiction. Thus they cannot provide the footing for knowledge. They can only offer a capricious and incongruous worldview. Unless one believes in God's revealed word, you cannot account for anything in the universe. God is the underlying and infinite ground for all knowledge, proof, evidence, and logic. It is impossible for God not to exist. He is the precondition for all knowledge because all human knowledge requires the use of the laws of logic. The omniscient, immaterial, and unchanging God alone provides the necessary preconditions for the use of immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws of logic. To argue at all, you must presuppose that the true God lives because you must use logic. Non-believing thought cannot supply the necessary preconditions for the laws of reason, thus they fall into futility because of the internal contradictions that entangle them. Therefore the contrary of Christianity is impossible since all non-Christian worldviews fall into absurdity. They are self-refuting. They lead to conclusions that contradict their own foundational assumptions. Without the triune God, there cannot be knowledge, and nothing can make sense.

The author delivers a powerful answer to the problem of evil while integrating pastoral concerns for those personally touched by pain and suffering (pages 163-175). And Bahnsen powerfully and artfully defends the case for miracles as well as the problem of religious language.

Bahnsen's refutation of Bertrand Russell is outstanding and compelling as he demonstrates the Russell fell into numerous logical fallacies and was refuted by his own errors (pages 153-160). Bahnsen argues that the "position of biblical presuppositionalism is an affirmation of the clarity and inescapability of ... revelation" (p. 38). Additionally the unbeliever rationally opposes himself. Furthermore Dr. Bahnsen proves that only the Christian "epistemological position guarantees that unbelievers" can have knowledge (p. 37).

This entry-level presuppositional volume is a remarkable and noteworthy resource to defend the faith and equip the believer to "always be ready."

A marvelous truth to finish this review: Bahnsen quotes Machen: We believe that "Christianity flourishes not in darkness but in the light" (p. 195).
For a New book that refutes World Religions utilizing the Presuppositional approach see: One Way to God: Christian Philosophy and Presuppositional Apologetics Examine World Religions
or
Truth, Knowledge and the Reason for God: The Defense of the Rational Assurance of Christianity