Goodness Gracious, Dr. Bahnsen's son was a bit upset

**+Donny** · 08-20-2004, 09:54 AM

http://www.christianculture.com/cgi-...&id=1092951468

Of course, I can't say I blaim him. I obviously don't know anything about the conference, but it looked like he defended himself quite well. Apparently people do read Mr. Phillips' blog.

I also think Travis may be interested in this, as it seems that both Greg and David Bahnsen advocate(d) voting Republican and the lesser of two evils.

There were a few articles on the right of the home page (www.christianculture.com) which were relevant. Here is a funny quote from one of them (I realize this was posted earlier in this forum, but oh well http://www.christianculture.com/cgi-...&id=1090644361):

At the January 2001 Chalcedon board meeting, when Rushdoony opined, as only he could, “I voted for Howard Phillips!” Johnson wryly quipped, “So you’re the one.”

**+Donny** · 08-20-2004, 04:31 PM

Okay, they must have moved the article or something, because it was on the main page of www.christianculture.com earlier. Try this link:

http://www.dlbthoughts.com/Articles.aspx?IDCol=64

Ah, okay, Doug Phillips edited his negative comments toward SCCCS out of his blog.

Travis · 08-22-2004, 08:23 PM

What were they?

**+Donny** · 08-22-2004, 09:00 PM

Read the dlb link.

http://www.dlbthoughts.com/Articles.aspx?IDCol=64

Phillips had made an offhand, unfounded remark that the SCCCS people, at the conference, aside from his friend whasthisface, had gone against the their late founder's (Greg Bahnsen) beliefs. This, of course, made David Bahnsen quite a bit angry, since he was the coordinator of the conference. He promptly showed where Phillips was wrong and actually said that his father had supported voting Republican and viewed third party votes as throw away votes, directly in contrast to Phillips' own beliefs and implications from his comments. In short, he proved Phillips dead wrong, and Phillips removed the comments from his blog.

Jas de F · 08-22-2004, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by +Donny

He promptly showed where Phillips was wrong and actually said that his father had supported voting Republican and viewed third party votes as throw away votes, directly in contrast to Phillips' own beliefs and implications from his comments. In short, he proved Phillips dead wrong, and Phillips removed the comments from his blog.

his father, to my knowledge, wrote rather extensively. one would think that in all his writings Dave Bahnsen would be able to find at least *a* quote or two supporting his claim that Greg Bahnsen supported voting GOP and opposed third parties. I noticed that Dave Bahnsen, in his rather lengthy article, nowhere actually quoted his father to support that claim.

**+Donny** · 08-22-2004, 09:43 PM

He is his son, I think he knows what his father thought and who his father voted for. It's not like me, reading Bahnsen's writing and saying what he thought; David was his son and was taught by him personally. He knows.

Travis · 08-23-2004, 11:15 AM

The question, Donny, isn't whether David Bahnsen knows what his father believed, but rather, whether he's being truthful in what he's reporting. Hardcore theonomists have been criticizing David Bahnsen for a long time for going away from what his father taught and trying to act as though his father agreed with him.

And other sources who knew Bahnsen well in a more academic setting have said otherwise:

"Bahnsen would counsel against voting for any candidate who did not advocate a basic biblical agenda--regardless of party affiliation. Bahnsen would also counsel against the 'lesser of two evils' approach to voting..." (Kevin Clauson, "Ruler of the Nations," in The Standard Bearer: A Festchrift for Greg L. Bahnsen, p141)

Soon I will purchase a series on political ethics by Bahnsen. Perhaps he will address this specifically in that.

**+Donny** · 08-23-2004, 11:32 AM

Does Clauson cite any support of this?

Furthermore, in the article he states that Bahnsen voted for Bush Sr. even after publicly speaking about the '91 Iraq war.

Still, I if the question comes down to David's word against others who Bahnsen have taught, I am highly inclined to take his word.

Travis · 08-23-2004, 11:38 AM

No, that's the problem: Clauson doesn't cite a lot of sources. That's why I'm going to need to listen to those political lectures in order to be sure. At this point, though, given his misrepresentations in the past, I am not inclined to take David Bahnsen's word over Clauson's.

**+Donny** · 08-23-2004, 11:49 AM

What misrepresentations?