Bad Arguments for the "Problem" of Evil---Greg Bahnsen
https://youtu.be/T5QKwABjg5w
GB248 Is the Problem of Evil Problematic?GB249 Is God Good?GB250 How to Defend the Faith in the Face of Evil
The Historicity of the Resurrection | Dr. Randal Rauser vs Godless Engineer
https://youtu.be/8781a1zPN28
I posted comments to the following video by Matthew Hartke. I've reproduced those comments below.
Here are my comments:
The weakness of this video is the fact that most scholars agree that both the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts are almost certainly written by the same person [we'll call him "Luke"]. They are VOLUMES 1 & 2," so to speak. However, when we compare the resurrection appearances of Jesus in GLuke, Luke goes out of his way to emphasize the literal physicality and corporeality of Jesus' body. So much so that Luke records Jesus eating fish [and honeycomb in some textual variants] after showing them His hands and feet. It even says that initially the disciples were frightened and startled because they thought the appearance of Jesus was of a ghost/spirit. Then Jesus contradicts that thought by saying, "For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have." Again, Luke is emphasizing the genuine corporeality of Jesus' body by recording all these things that way.
If Luke were fabricating and making all this up whole-cloth, then he would make the appearances to the disciples in GLuke and the appearance to Paul in Acts as similar as possible. EITHER by having both of them emphasizing Jesus' corporeality, OR both of them emphasizing the more numinous nature of Christ's appearance . Instead, the author of Acts makes it clear that they are different in nature. In Acts he's presenting Jesus' appearance to Paul as a glorious theophany in the style of the Old Testament [especially to Ezekiel]. Anthony Rogers explains this well 15 minutes into his debate with Carlos Xavier here:https://youtu.be/WhjC0jRmjmU?t=923
That Jesus' appearance to Paul was of a different kind from the other disciples is clear from not only how it differs from the accounts in Luke, but from the appearances of Jesus in Acts chapter 1. Which are also apparently more on the side of the corporeal. Luke could do both WITHOUT CONTRADICTING himself because there's a long tradition in Jewish thought that goes back to the Old Testament that the same heavenly beings can appear either as ordinary humans or as evidently supernatural entities. That's true of angels in general and also of the Angel of the LORD [i.e. the Malak/Angel of Yahweh, who many Christians like myself believe to by the pre-incarnate Christ].
Luke 24:
37 But they were startled and frightened and thought they saw a spirit.
38 And he said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?
39 See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself. Touch me, and see. For a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see that I have."
40 And when he had said this, he showed them his hands and his feet.
41 And while they still disbelieved for joy and were marveling, he said to them, "Have you anything here to eat?"
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate before them.
So, I would have to disagree with the statement made at 5:45 where Matthew says, "In other words, when we put all the relevant texts on the table we have very little reason for thinking that Paul's conversion experience was a physical appearance of the risen Jesus like the ones described in the resurrection narratives of Matthew, Luke and John which were all composed decades later."
Moreover, it's not the case that Paul merely makes the claim that the risen Jesus appeared to him in a numinous way [probably multiple times]. Anyone can claim a past private supernatural experience. But Paul backs it up by also claiming to perform miracles ["signs and wonders"] like the other Apostles did. Both in his past ministry and continuing ministry (cf. 2 Cor. 12:12; Rom. 15:19); 1 Cor. 2:4-5). That miracles are still occurring in our modern world in the context of teaching about the Jesus of the New Testament suggests, or is an evidential chip in favor of, the truth of Jesus' resurrection and of the Christian religion.
The quote of Strauss at 6:42 works only if one presupposes that Paul never interviewed the other Apostles and if neither the other Apostles nor he himself [i.e. Paul] were able to perform miracles attesting to the truth of their Gospel message. Yet, in the book of Galatians Paul claims to have met some of the other Apostles and to have compared their message and supernatural experiences with his own. It's not a stretch to think it went in the other direction as well such that the other Apostles compared notes with Paul's message and miraculous thaumaturgical feats.
For the evidence of modern miracles see the following books and YT videos by the following authors:
Read Craig Keener's two volume Miracles: The Credibility of the New Testament Accounts [2011]
Craig Keener's "Miracles Today: The Supernatural Work of God in the Modern World" [2021]
Rex Gardner's Healing Miracles: A Doctor Investigates,
and the appendices in Robert Larmer's The Legitimacy of Miracle
as well as Larmer's book Dialogues on Miracle
Paul Manata's response:
Bahnsen’s been dead for 27 years and so obviously he isn’t here to defend himself. But even if he were here, he wouldn’t bother to reply to David Pallman’s demeaning “hot take.” I’ll lower myself, though.
I don’t know what Pallmann means by “particularly brilliant or original thinker.” What is it to be a “particularly brilliant” thinker? Is Kripke one? How many philosophers are Kripkes? Is it just to have a high I.Q.? Does Pallmann know Bahnsen’s I.Q.? Is it being able to put forth controversial views and defend them in academic print for decades against cadres of scholarly opponents, many of whom maintain opposition but recognize you’re a formidable opponent? Is it doing the former but not just in one scholarly area but many, e.g., philosophy, apologetics, ethics, theology? Bahnsen certainly did that.
What is it to be an “original thinker”? Is it to be a David Lewis? How many philosophers are Lewises? Is it to offer unique and updated defenses of extant positions, especially ones which have fallen out of favor? Bahnsen certainly did that. But why is this even a criterion for avoiding young Pallmann’s ire? Not every thinker is a system builder. Some thinkers might be very gifted at spotting flaws. The latter may not be very original, but that talent is nevertheless important - ask engineering firms! Other thinkers may be particularly skilled in defending what already exists, steel manning the traditional view. It’s particularly modern to tie importance or intellect to originality. Sometimes, there’s no need to reinvent the wheel.
So, while I’m not sure what Pallmann has in mind with these loogies fired on Bahnsen’s grave, it may be worth taking a very abbreviated tour of Bahnsen’s intellectual history. Besides being born with numerous health problems, one which would ultimately cause his early demise, Bahnsen would graduate magna cum laude from Westmont College (B.A. philosophy) as well as receive the John Bunyan Smith Award for his overall grade point average. He did this despite doctors finding a severe heart problem during a college medical examination. After graduating from college, Bahnsen enrolled at Westminster Theological Seminary (WTS). There, he *simultaneously* earned two masters degrees, the Th.M and M.Div, as well as the William Benton Greene Prize in apologetics and a Richard Weaver Fellowship from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. After graduating from WTS, Bahnsen went to USC to study philosophy under Dallas Willard. Willard was Bahnsen’s doctoral advisor and Bahnsen earned his Ph.D in 1978, after defending his dissertation, *A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self-Deception*. As the philosopher Erik Funkhouser notes in his recent book on self-deception, this is a very interesting area of research which hasn’t received nearly as much attention as other areas in philosophy. Philosophical analysis of self-deception involves epistemology, philosophy of mind, ethics, etc. Bahnsen taught at the graduate level for a few years, wrote around 8 books in three distinct areas of study, contributed to 4 books, and published a number of articles. He was invited to guest lecture at several graduate programs, and invited by student bodies, radio show hosts, and other groups who sought him out to debate about atheism, theonomy, post-millennialism, Catholicism, homosexuality, gun control, etc. Later, Bahnsen started a study center and also intimately pastored a church. All of this was done in about 25 years, during which he lived with a heart problem which frequently left him tired for long periods of time. He had three major heart surgeries over his career, dying at age 47 after his third aortic valve implant surgery. The Sunday before his death he preached on Philippians 1:21, titled “For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”
Clearly, Bahnsen’s academic interests were wide-ranging. From philosophy, to theology, to biblical ethics, to eschatology, to apologetics, to hot potato issues in American politics, Bahnsen weighed-in with interesting thoughts. Not only that, he was the rare theologian trained in philosophy. So his theological writings were a rare treat as they contained arguments that were presented much more clearly than one finds in a lot of works of theology. In the 2000s, I listened to political debates he had in the 80s and early 90s. He was citing John Lott and others in his debates defending the second amendment. He was debating progressive, homosexual Christians and making arguments contemporary scholars like Gagnon make today. He also held controversial and unpopular views in theology, namely his theonomic approach to ethics and his postmillennial eschatology. He gave some of the best and most thorough defenses of those views up to date. But he wasn’t only idiosyncratic in theological areas. I recall reading his paper on the nature of man and coming across an odd view which I later discovered was something like Russellian substantival monism. That’s where I first learned about non-dualist/non-materialist views of human persons or nature.
Yet, in virtually all of these areas, I part ways with Bahnsen. I’m not theonomic, I’m not post-millennial, I’m not a substantival monist, and at best, I’m weakly-Framean in my presuppositionalism. I still agree with his Reformed Theology and many of his political views. But these academic views were never my primary interest in Bahnsen. What I most appreciated about him was his pastoral heart. In the days when celebrity preachers and mega churches were coming onto the scene, Bahnsen, who was more qualified to teach the flock than virtually any of these super pastors, pastored a very small OPC congregation, and he took his job of shepherding the flock seriously. His sermons were recorded, and you can listen to many of them online at Sermon Audio, which contains about 1700 sermons (and lectures). I have especially liked and profited from many of his sermons exegeting entire books of the Bible and doing practical theology, like his Sermons for the Heart, a series he preached after his wife’s affair. Another good series was his A Call to Consecration, and of course his eerie final sermon. He has series on the book of Hebrews, the book of Proverbs, Calvin’s Institutes, and many, many more.
Whatever you think about Bahnsen and his views, to boil this man down to a dull, unoriginal thinker skilled only in the art of sophistic rhetoric, is to do a disservice to him, and that’s putting it extremely mildly.
Paul Manata posted a few more comments on his Facebook Wall. Here are a few more. I won't be posting all of Manata's comments. Just some highlights.
After a few days of intense thinking about how to reply to my post, Pallmann finally offered this reply (see attached picture). Sorry, son, this ain’t gonna cut it. The point was that, given the credentials, the academic awards, the PhD dissertation on a very original and unexplored topic (cf. Funkhouser’s 2019 comments on the issues involved in philosophical analysis of self-deception, a fortiori do they apply to the 1970’s), the body of work, the respect from dozens of likewise highly credentialed people who *disagreed* with Bahnsen and debated him in print, and all of this with major medical issues that frequently left him tired and unable to perform at peak performance, but who, on top of this, and during this, pastored a church and left us a thousand excellent high-level exegetical and expository sermons, it is * highly unlikely* that he was some dull, unoriginal rube who was only gifted in using sophistic rhetoric. This touches on *exactly* the issue raised by the ephebic epologist.
People don’t want to talk about this, though, they want to talk about “Dillard’s.”
And another one:
After decimating the first part (the “Bahnsen” stuff) of Pallmann’s reply, I said that I was going to reply to the second part (the “Calvinists in general” stuff), but I ended up not doing so because the problems are obvious to any person not lobotomized. Anyway, the fam went to bed early and I’m up, and I’m bored. So I’ll reply to the second part of the freshman epologist’s “hot take.” For context, see the attached picture below before reading.
So Pallmann transitions from his comments about Bahnsen to “the Calvinist community in general.” Said community, in general, is “easily seduced by strong rhetoric which tells them what they want to hear.” Using rough numbers, there’s 800 million to one billion Protestants. One Barna poll said that roughly 3/10 churches are Calvinists. Using ugly math, let’s say there’s 240,000,000 Calvinists. But let’s be generous and significantly reduce this figure by 90%, leaving 24,000,000 Calvinists. No, let’s be more generous and reduce this by half. So, worldwide, we have 12,000,000 Calvinists. Nah, I’m going to be nicer and reduce by 50% again. So we’ve got 6,000,000 Calvinists. Ok, so … wait, I need to be even nicer. Let’s do another 50%. So worldwide, we’ve got 3,000,000 Calvinists.
Okay, so Pallmann made a claim about Calvinists in general. I bet he doesn’t know and hasn’t talked to 600 Calvinists, that’s .02% of Calvinists. I can be generous and allow that he has personally spoken to .03% of Calvinists, that’s 1,0000 individual Calvinists. I don’t doubt he’s talk to Calvinists 1,000 times (or more!), but I doubt he’s personal talked to 1,000 Calvinists. That’s a lot of people! Indeed, I was in *several* Facebook groups with him, and the number of Calvinists interacting with him were no more than 24. Besides that, many Calvinists, like me, who gave him serious pushback, have been blocked. So he self-limits the Calvinists he interacts with, namely those who don’t embarrass him.
Anyway, the point here is that Pallmann clearly doesn’t have the sort of sample size needed to render this sort of judgment about “Calvinists in general.” It’s worse, though. His empirical claim involves a psychological claim about “seduction.” Surely this hardcore “evidentialist” doesn’t have the sort of *evidence* needed to underwrite his claim about Calvinists “in general.” Oh, but it’s worse. It’s not just that “Calvinist in general” are seduced by rhetoric, but “Calvinists in general are *easily* seduced by rhetoric” (emphasis mine). It’s even worse, it’s not just that they’re seduced by rhetoric, or *easily* seduced by rhetoric, it’s that they’re easily seduced by rhetoric which “they want to hear.” I would *love* to see the *evidence* this “hardcore evidentialist” has to make these sorts of claims!
So, let’s all be honest here. Pallmann is *bullshitting* in the Frankfurt sense. He doesn’t know, and doesn’t care if he’s right or wrong, about his claims about “Calvinists in general.”
But he’ll protest. “I cited Calvinist thought leaders!” These “thought leaders” are, according to Pallmann, “very shallow thinkers” who are given to pure rhetoric, which “Calvinists in general” are “easily seduced by.”
Well, a Calvinist approach to matters theological has a very long and storied history, boasting some of the greatest thinkers the church has produced (this is admitted by all sides). Who did the Dillard’s sales associate cite? He cited Scott Oliphint, James White, Paul Washer, Jeff Durbin, and Sye Ten Bruggencate. Oh yeah, he wrote “etc” too, but everyone knows that’s just more bullshit.
Okay, so let’s think about this list. I mean, wtf?! This is so stupid, but I’m going to address it. First, wth is Oliphint doing here? It’s no secret that I’ve strongly disagreed with Oliphint on several matters. But he’s a genuine scholar with a PhD from a legitimate institution (Pallmann is getting an undergrad at an a school which is not affiliated (accredited) with any regional or national accrediting agency). He’s been invited to participate in scholarly works engaging with scholars such as Tyler McNabb and Tim McGrew. I once expressed my disapproval of choosing Oliphint to represent a certain view, but both McNabb and McGrew stuck up for Oliphint. This is highly strange on the Pallmannian hypothesis that Oliphint has nothing to offer other than sophistic rhetoric which easily seduced Calvinist dupes. While I disagree with Oliphint on many matters, he’s struck me as a scholar and a gentleman. That leaves the remaining four: White, Washer, Durbin Ten Bruggencate. Of these, only White has a PhD, and I *think* it’s from an unaccredited school. Others, like Ten Bruggencate, are personalities who gained fame from online stunts and gimmicks. Washer, a preacher, probably isn’t in this category, but I don’t know much about him other than some clips I’ve seen from him, many of which he says some true things and seems sincere.
Anyway, yeah, that’s the list. I mean, in a world where we have “Calvinist” scholars like: Calvin, Vermigli, Turretin, Van Mastricht, Edwards, Hodge, Machen, Vos, Bavinck, Shedd, Berkhof, Murray, Kline, Frame, Bignon, Anderson, Welty, etc, we get names like “Jeff Durbin” and “Sye Ten Bruggencate. Note, my “etc” is legit. Look at recent top-ranked exegetical commentaries. Calvinists dominate this field. I’ve also left of several Calvinist analytic philosophers, theologians, etc. It is beyond a doubt that Calvinist scholarship suffers from an embarrassment of riches. Scholars like Tom McCall and Jerry Walks are very much anti-Calvinist, but they would admit the existence of great Calvinist scholars.
None of these thinkers are cited. Why? Because Pallmann hangs out in the extremely small ecosystem of “very online” Calvinist hacks. The extremely sub-culture he’s involved with, comprised of uneducated, loud, anti-intellectual hacks, forms his opinions. From what I’ve heard, any Calvinist who detail a more sophisticated Calvinism or even presuppositionalism than, say, “Jeff Durbin” or “Sye Ten Bruggencate,” get blocked. Pallmann is content to deal with people panned by actual sophisticated Calvinist scholars, in order to make his unsubstantiated claims about “Calvinists in general.”
I’m in this community. I know far more Calvinists than Pallmann does. Far more. Most aren’t even on social media. And the overwhelming majority cite thinkers like Calvin, Turretin, Edwards, Hodge, Bavinck, Machen, Kline, Clowney, Carson, Schreiner, Moo, Anderson, Welty, &co. These men are not “shallow thinkers,” as many non-Calvinists would attest. These are the thinkers the *majority* of Calvinists are reading. I get that the hacks Pallmann likes to confront cite the “hacks”
Pallmann listed. But his list is just strong *evidence* that he doesn’t engage Calvinism in a scholarly reputable way. It’s like me panning Arminianism and evidentialism by citing people like Ray Comfort, Leighton Flowers, and David Pallmann, instead of, say, Abasciano, McCall, Walls, and Keathley.
See also Kenneth Gentry's article: Appointed for the Defense of the Gospel: The Life and Ministry of Greg L. Bahnsen
I haven't been a Catholic since the 1980s, but I appreciate Catholic apologist Trent Horn as clear thinking and great debater. Here's a video of his on the topic of atheism:
One question atheists can’t answer
https://youtu.be/D8Dnm6gqKDs
Christian philosopher and apologist Dr. David Wood vs. Atheist influencer Tom Jump.
