Talk:Greg Bahnsen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

	Calvinism Portal Greg Bahnsen falls within the scope of WikiProject Calvinism, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Calvinism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page so as to become familier with the guidelines.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

[edit] Dominionism

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 reese.org/tapes link - as sadly, it no longer exists. -REM