FALSE ANTITHESIS: A CRITIQUE OF THE NOTION OF ANTITHESIS IN FRANCIS SCHAEFFER’S APOLOGETIC
Dr. Greg Bahnsen (http://www.comfnow.PA089.htm) is passionate in his beliefs in the value of sound biblical apologetics. Drawing attention to the rhetorical device of antithesis, Dr. Bahnsen extols the necessary employment of this invaluable tool in defending the Gospel against ideas and philosophies that run counter to proper Christian thought. The theory of antithesis can be a potent assistant in dialogue when utilized properly. Antithesis forces a proper examination of contrary positions that may or may not be in direct conflict with one another philosophically or factually. Many who have observed the lessons of philosophy’s conundrums have employed principles that govern the argumentative approach to dialectic.
Examining new applications of ancient theories and practices in philosophical linguistics becomes the focus of the intelligentsia communities, particularly when the discussion becomes associated with distinct schools of thought that have built similar fields of word meaning in order to properly convey research, ideological perspective and philosophical or theological communication. This is Dr. Bahnsen’s focus concerning the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer’s utilization of the term antithesis. While purporting a desire to allow Dr. Schaeffer’s contributions to assist in the defense of the church’s message via apologetical presentations, Dr. Bahnsen regrettably denies an extensive value pertaining to Schaeffer’s diatribes throughout his numerous writings.
This rejection is based on a redefinition of terminology and purported loose application of established norms. Schaeffer, according to Bahnsen, also mishandles the contributory rumination of those Schaeffer criticizes: Hegel in particular. By denying the value of Hegelian dialectic, Schaeffer assumes modern thought took a drastically negative turn through the acceptance of Hegel’s ideas. This determination has been ascertained by incorrectly negating the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis quality of Hegel.
Bahnsen’s rejection is appropriate. Antithesis is not supplanted nor subordinated in Hegelian thought. In the appropriate analysis of seemingly contradictory thoughts, a re-evaluation is a proper means of determination and end-result pertaining to fair and judicious appraisals of the thought process. Hegelian philosophical assumptions do not denigrate antithesis. Rather, antithesis function is simply clarified. This misconstruance is damaging to the legacy of Schaeffer, even going so far as to marginalize the body of work Schaeffer produced. The claim of pre-evangelism over apologetical concerns marginalizes the discrepancies that surface in the inappropriate secondary identification of words such as antithesis, which have a thoroughly historical basis of understanding among those who approach philosophy, apologetics and theology as disciplines with an appreciation of their respective storied past.
