Is Human Reasoning Autonomous?

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today

I'm going to be having Seth Bloomsburg, I think it has have on the thumbnail there.

I don't have a thumbnail in front of me It was some other name, you know the thing with the internet people have like 12 different names

So I don't know why maybe he could explain it to me as to why his name was different there

I didn't have time to to edit my YouTube thumbnails and now he's gone and screwed everything up.

So thanks a lot, man But today I'm gonna have Seth Bloomsburg on today to discuss the issue of autonomy and Neutrality and these is these terms are very important Not just for apologetics in general, but of course presuppositional apologetics more specifically as you know

I have called in the past the ideas of neutrality and autonomy the twin poisons. I called them the twin poisons of Reasoning they are the things that are kind of baked into all non -christian thought categories and it's actually

Because of the lack of understanding that presuppositional is deny autonomous reasoning that many of the criticisms that are launched against the presuppositional method fall flat because Critics fail to see that we reject

Autonomous categories now you might be tempted to think that this is kind of an abstract and vague and unimportant topic

However, I really want to get Seth's thoughts on why this is such a practical thing to understand namely that Autonomous reasoning is really not a thing.

It's impossible and it's unfaithful to Christ. But what are the practical? outworkings of this idea of Autonomy or the denial thereof for the

Christian life, you know How does this reflect our intellectual commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ? We're gonna unpack that.

I'm hopefully in some detail and hopefully you guys will will be benefited from this discussion. Um, I Cannot overstate this enough the issue of autonomous reasoning is a central issue within discussions on presuppositional apologetics and Rationality epistemology all these sorts of philosophical categories

And so hopefully you guys who are listening are paying very close attention because I think this is going to be very beneficial and clarifying

With respect to understanding the presuppositional approach to apologetics, so Without further ado.

I'd like to bring Seth on to the screen and he will give an account He will give an apologetic as to why his name was different on Facebook and messed up my whole

YouTube thumbnail Hello, how are you Eli? I'm doing well

Well, I can explain what the situation was there. So I won't give you the details.

But basically I had a Situation where I was had had a concern about doxing and Lukens is actually a family name.

And so I Changed it Temporarily to that and then I realized that Facebook doesn't let me change it back for 60 days

So I had a you weren't the only Facebook friend who was very confused about who I was for a while I was like,

I'm inviting this guy on my show and it's probably like a hacker who's like I have like some random guy, you know who doesn't know anything about apologetics coming on and ruining the live stream.

Thanks a lot, man No worries. No, I'm the real Seth Bloomsburg, but I am I'm sitting down though.

So, okay. All right, very good Now you said you were concerned with doxing. What's that? yeah, so doxing is when somebody if you say something typically online like on Twitter or Facebook if you say something that Somebody decides they don't like like, you know, boys can't be girls

Which is a controversial point nowadays, which is just astounding to me People will often try to take as much information about you like even things like your street address or your social security number and publish it online and try to get as many people to do mean and nasty things to you and For my profession.

I'm actually in cyber security I Like to think I'm a little more self -aware about how much information is out there about me and how to protect myself from that kind of thing, so yeah, it was just a

Well a little bit of a precautionary measure. Sure. Okay, so you're in cyber security. That's pretty intense.

Okay Is it as cool as it sounds it is the one thing

I should warn you about though is that it is almost always done Really really poorly in most movies

I Remember, I think it was an episode of NCIS or something where they had this situation where you know, the computer was being hacked

And so this girl hacker who was on the good side started, you know apparently just randomly typing on a keyboard and you know, this computer scoomer was flashing and Doing all sorts of things and then apparently they needed to hack twice as fast

So the other guy got his hands on the keyboard and started doing things and it's like no, that's not that's not a thing

That's not how it works In fact, some of the worst cyber security incidents are things that happen over the over a period of several weeks.

So, okay So the movies get it wrong. Yeah, the TV show that has gotten it the most correct is

Mr. Robot, actually I've actually watched it and they actually use real terminal commands and as far as I can tell it's it's pretty accurate to real life

And oddly enough even in some parts of the matrix were pretty accurate too. Okay Within the study of time the philosophy of time

I think William Lane Craig said that the movie that got it the closest correct correct With respect to time travel was

Bill and Ted's excellent adventure Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

Yeah, these movies you least you least expect it's like they got it, right? That's actually pretty cool All right, well the philosophy of time is definitely an interesting topic and totally not the topic of this episode so Why don't you tell folks a little bit about how you got into apologetics?

Okay in general then presuppositional apologetics more specifically and who have been your your strongest influence and I would imagine most people who

Get into presuppositional apologetics are influenced by the person. I think you're gonna say but maybe maybe

I'm wrong Or if I'm right, you can go into details. It's always cool to hear what people have to say with respect to Yeah, that dr.

Bonson has had on many of us. So yes. Well, dr. Bonson is Very much an influence. He's more of a secondary influence though So I grew up in Moscow, Idaho, and I went to which is where Doug Wilson has his

Church and you know, he started Logos school and he started a new st. Andrews College I actually went to Logos from preschool through 12th grade.

Cool. I actually did not end up taking the 12th grade apologetics class for credit, which

I was thinking about it the other day and I was like I couldn't remember why I don't know if it just didn't seem interesting at the time or I was also taking college classes

So maybe it got in the way of the scheduling But I actually kind of hated reading books up until about a year after I graduated high school okay, but I've always been really intellectually curious and I I've been recently doing some history interviews with my family and one of the things that they told me that was you know as a as a young child of three or four or five years old that was a little obnoxious was how often

I asked the question why and You know, you can do it by what standard that would

That's the second most often asked a question I had. Okay, but um My aunt has this funny story about how you know,

I was asking why questions about the you know, you know we have we have property up in Coeur d 'Alene Lake and They were asking me

You know, I was asking how you know How does the water level go up and down and they would give me these reasonable explanations and finally my uncle just told me well

There's there's a giant bathtub plug at the bottom and that's why and somehow that satisfied my curiosity so I've always

I've always been intellectually curious and You know, and obviously once you get to your teenage years the college years people start really questioning, you know, how do

I know? How do we know what we think we know and you know, of course, well, how do I know that other religions are wrong?

How do you know the other worldviews are wrong? And it was kind of a gradual process that I just started realizing that I didn't know nearly as much as I should sure

The first book that I picked up specifically on apologetics was one by Lee Strobel and I believe it was the case for Christ Yes, and there was stuff in there was like, okay.

I'm kind of on board with it, but there was always Something in the back of my mind where I just thought

The way he does apologetics is kind of strange to me, but I could not put my finger on exactly why okay and the thing that really fascinated me about presuppositional ism is they actually answer why and I gave very answer good answers as to why

Approaches that strobel takes and others take like Sproul don't really actually answer the questions properly, but I'll get into that later

Okay. Yeah, that's interesting. We can explore that a little bit. Yeah but my first exposure to apologetics really, you know in a way that I really grabbed to me was when

I when Doug was debating Eddie Tabish Eddie Tabish came to and Moscow and they debated at the

University of Idaho and I can't remember if I was at his debate with Dan Barker or not I remember

I'd listened to it and I may have been there a long time ago Yeah, that would have been I think that Dan Barker's that's just a year.

I think that was a year after Dr. Bonson passed away a year or two. Yeah, if it was that early then

I probably wasn't there You're probably like Apollo who you and yeah,

I didn't care about I would have been maybe 10 years old If that's what I'd have to check exactly when it was, but if it was yeah

I remember listening to the debate between Doug Wilson and Dan Barker and the moderator at the beginning said that Greg Bonson was scheduled to debate

Dan Barker like a year ago, but then he passed away. So Gotcha, yes, then in that case.

No, I was not present for the debate, but I I Was definitely there for his debate with Eddie Tabish Okay, I it was it and you know, obviously

Doug is he's really good at what he does He actually did a conference with Bonson back in the 90s and studied van

Til's works So my interest came from just watching Doug pretty much and then

I Didn't have the sophistication to really know that there were different methodologies. I didn't really study it and it was around 2010

I think it was where I finally decided you know what I'm gonna learn this stuff for myself. So I think I What what

I did was I got onto Doug's blog and he has a blog post from like 12 years ago at this point

I think where he talks about his most his biggest influences and I recognized some of the names like Francis Schaefer Greg Bonson corneas

Vento and I know I wanted to study all the names on there But I thought the first thing I want to study is apologetics.

So I got ventils defense of the faith That's the very first book on presuppositionalism that I read and I'm I've been told that that The impression

I get from many people is that that was probably a bad idea. Oh, yeah this guy here this

People like hey, you know, what book should I start reading and I'm like you see this book right here Not that one.

Yeah Make that like the textbook that you're reading. Yes My opinion if you're going to start with Vantil if you're gonna start with him in my opinion

This one's the best place to start in my opinion. It's a small. It's a shorter one I mean, he's got like some little pamphlets here and there that might even be easier

But in my opinion, I thought this was this was manageable Educated layperson

Yeah, but defense of the faith you might want to skip that one until you get a grasp on on some of the issues

But good Yeah, it was I found it kind of dense. I could understand most of it, but there are some passages, you know

I talked about Conti and metaphysics and I was like Yeah, okay. Sure But I I slogged through it and then

I just I kind of just went from there I read Greg Bonson's always ready. I started it was around the time

I started listening to his lectures as well Because I figured you know, I may as well Get now get it both ways.

Sure So gradually I I just learned more and more I ended up reading

Vantil's Apologetic I read mere Christianity Read CS Lewis's book on miracles, you know,

I started reading a lot of CS Lewis And finally when I ended up graduating new st.

Andrews College in 2016 I actually wrote my thesis as a response The title was the failure of Richard Carrier's atheism and Richard Carrier is a somewhat famous atheist

And basically I just took one of his books read through it and my thesis was simply a presupposition list response to it

I'd love to read that if you still have it. I love I love reading these. Well, yeah

Yeah, I can send it to you I was I was actually pretty proud of myself You know Doug's always such an encouraging guy where guys like actually it was my best work.

I mean, you know Yeah, I sent it to Doug and he's always so encouraging where I was like he the weird thing is like When I tell

I think if I said that Doug is sometimes too nice almost no one would believe me But he really is that way, you know, as long as you do something, right?

He's like, oh, yeah, you know the good job This is great His He has a reputation for his class and his classes being kind of notoriously easy

But but I did send it to John frame and John frame was pretty impressed with it So I was like, okay, I got

I got approval from somebody who doesn't even know me. That's awesome Well, John frames an awesome guy. I had the pleasure of meeting him some years back

I remember the first my first time seeing him his body was hidden behind a stack of books on his

And We had a great conversation and he was a super nice guy now every now and then

I try to message him and he's so Generous with his responses, but he's really annoyed these days because he's retired.

He's like I'll take quick questions, but like I don't want to get into a long, you know back and forth

So I I try not to message him anymore because I feel like yeah, he's trying to enjoy the good life now.

So yeah Well, it's not surprising. I mean for almost any question he gets asked he'd probably be like well, yeah

I read a 300. I wrote a 300 page book on this exact question 40 years ago. So why don't you just go read that?

well, he um, I Asked him a question and he says I'm only gonna give you a short answer

I don't want to get into a long back and forth and then he gave me the wrong answer and then he says in the Answer he goes there you went you you made me go deeper than I want

So I think that was the last time I said, thank you You got you got to squeeze as much of the juice out of the lemon until it's too late

I mean these guys great thinkers they're getting they're getting up there in age and yeah, you know So I'd love to meet him someday.

He and I have exchanged emails before But yeah, he's one of those people where I'm like, I just wish I could have like, you know

Maybe if I find like myself with a week of extra time, which you know, of course might never happen But I'd love to just fly down and you know interview him for like an hour

I mean, I would just love to be able to do that. That's awesome but I'm Yeah, good.

Oh, yeah, so that's what I did for my thesis and I and that was yeah,

I graduated about five years ago So, yeah, my my initial interest in apologetics was

Doug's debates But I I've probably learned the most and learned the most technical detail from Bonson himself and ventil

And the more the more I've read on the topic the more I'm I've become very very convinced that it's it's an extremely important topic

I think every Christians should study it and You know,

I've often thought if I was dealing with a new Christian what and they wanted to know what should I study?

Well, the the very first thing if you have no idea what to study, I mean study your Bible, but Secondarily study apologetics, you know, we can have debates over baptism or pre -mill versus on mill or many other things

But the primary, you know, my first concern is getting you in the kingdom And making sure you know why you're there so you can explain it to other people right very good.

That's awesome Well real quick. I want to say I want to give a quick shout out to some former students of mine I won't mention their names to protect their identities

But guys, thank you so much for joining the live stream. Miss you guys, too Hope you guys are doing awesome.

And I hope you like your new teachers. I have no idea They're awesome, so I just want to give them a quick shout out

All right, well, let's jump into the the details the nitty -gritty if you will and so I kind of entitled this

Episode is human reasoning autonomous why don't you define for us what autonomy is and Neutrality those are kind of popular buzzwords within the

Presuppositional apologetic methodology and and why these ideas are important and are often brought up Within the discussions between the different apologetic methodologies.

Mm -hmm Okay, so I would define it before I define autonomy. I'd have to make a quick distinction and I've the more

I've studied the more I found that this is one of the most important distinctions to make into apologetics and that's the difference between a the ultimate source of knowledge and approximate source of knowledge

And then till would always use the analogy of a diving board if you stand on a diving board There's a sense in which the diving board is keeping you up but there's also a sense in which the concrete is keeping you up in the more ultimate sense and Invent Hill talks about in his books

Okay Obviously everyone knows that there's a sense in which you start with just your own knowledge you start with your own sense perception your own

Reason, but the question is what is the ultimate foundation that makes that knowledge intelligible? I mean if if the ultimate reality is that everything's chance.

Well, then my sense perception doesn't tell me anything You know, it's just a chance universe my reason doesn't tell me anything then because the laws of logic aren't actually existent

They're just random. So the question is not do we do we use our own mind to reason?

Everyone uses their mind to reason but the question is what is the ultimate standard by which we use our reason? And so autonomy is using any ultimate standard besides scripture.

I think that's probably the quick quickest and Simplest way to to define it scripture or God So someone says

I start with because this this gets into an issue of people bring it up And I know they're gonna be some sharp people who are listening to like, oh, wait a second there set so so why don't we dive into this issue of what do we mean when we say we start with Scripture or we start with God or what are we starting with?

Proximate the ultimate starting points and with respect to the ultimate starting point You said that autonomy is when we start so to speak with something other than Scripture, do you mean scripture like literally scripture or do you mean the

God of scripture? Why don't you unpack that for us? Well, yeah, I can adjust that. I would say the worldview of scripture

Okay, because it's not like you can't you know, if you know, I mentioned earlier we have debates about baptism

I wouldn't say that somebody who's credo Baptist, you know, it doesn't have the preconditions of intelligibility or somebody who's pedo

Baptist Doesn't either, you know, you can have debates about the interpretation But the the overall worldview is is what's important and I can't remember which book it is

But there's there's a passage in which van Til says explicitly it really doesn't matter whether you start with the biblical

Idea of God or whether you start with scripture itself because they're both involved in one another, you know

You can be starting with the package Yeah, you start with a package deal, but not simply a conceptual package.

You're not starting with an abstract Philosophical system you're starting with the assumption of the re the ontological reality

Of the triune God of scripture. Yeah, it's not just a generic idea of God It is the triune

God that you're starting with. It's not just some scripture It's specifically the Old and New Testaments that you're you're starting with.

Okay, and so That's that's what it what autonomy is and Neutrality comes in when basically

No matter what no matter what everyone has a worldview. They may not be familiar with the terminology

They may you know, if you talk to them about metaphysics, they might say I don't know what that means But everyone has a worldview and everyone lives in terms of whatever worldview they have so it's you know, somebody's saying well, you know,

I can You know, I don't have to understand what worldviews are I don't you know, I don't have one Well, that's kind of like somebody saying

I I don't care whether I have a heart or a liver or kidneys or not You know, I just live my life well

You couldn't walk around and be alive if you didn't have those internal organs and they were functioning properly at some level point

Well taken. Yeah so and So people can't be neutral now

You can talk, you know It might take me a little while if I'm talking to somebody to find out what their ultimate stance is, but there's a one book in which

I thought this was pretty clever that Mantel's basically said you can't be neutropenia

Being pro neutrality is basically a contradiction in terms You're saying you're going to be neutral within your pro being neutral as opposed to being against neutral So even it's almost like even the concept of being neutral is is a contradiction in terms

So everyone and everyone ultimately starts with you know, they either start with presupposing

God's existence or Presupposing that he does they either presuppose he exists or they presuppose that they don't even if they claim that they're being neutral So so when you say you're neutral You can't neutral since the claim to neutrality is an inherent bias against positions that say you can't be neutral Exactly and that's one of the there's another section.

I think it's in survey of Christian Episcopal I Can't remember which book it was it starts with survey.

I think it's survey of Christian Epistemology something like that. Okay, where van

Till talks about how you know, if somebody says they're agnostic like well Who knows if God exists, you know,

I'm not sure that maybe there's evidence for maybe there's evidence against even that Supposedly neutral position is definitively anti theistic because one of the things that Romans one says

Is that all of creation reveals God and it's clear So if somebody looks at any fact in creation and says that that fact isn't clear that's a

Definitive statement that the God of the Bible doesn't exist because the God of the Bible is clearly and unambiguously revealed in creation

So if you even claim that it's not clear That's a definitive statement, but that God doesn't exist

Hmm, okay now We see this idea of neutrality and autonomy with respect to secular mindsets secular philosophies

But of course as you know, and you will be debating a brother in Christ on this topic

There are Christians who encourage autonomous reasoning and reason as a test

Or a standard to judge the truth of the Christian faith How would you address a

Christian who stands on Scripture apparently and argues that no like we do need to be we we should encourage the autonomous use of Reason as a tool to validate truth claims with respect to Scripture.

Mm -hmm. Well the the problem is Now I understand why some people might initially think that neutrality is possible because somebody might say well

We all agree that the laws of logic are true, right? Well Yes, and no there are lots of people and one of Antilles famous slogans was

Unbelievers can count but they cannot account for their countings. So when I say that Unbelievers aren't neutral, you know, nobody can be neutral.

Nobody should be neutral I'm not saying that Unbelievers can't count, you know unbelievers have done some amazingly

Good things and sometimes they have an amazingly sharp use of logic that really puts

Christians to shame one of my favorite Philosophers in fact is David Hume. I've I feel like when

I read David Hume I learned a great deal about how to reason properly and consistently like it was Especially his dialogues of natural religion where he was critiquing some of the theistic arguments.

I was Absolutely shocked at how amazingly good Hume was at reasoning

You know, he had some good point on my you're such a compromise But part of the problem is

When it comes to brothers who who argue that way one of the things that I point out to them and there there are a couple different ways to approach it once I've explained what

I mean by neutral and what I don't mean my neutral part of the problem is that You're almost encouraging

An unbeliever in his unbelief if he thinks that there's any area of life that isn't transformed or doesn't reveal

You know transformed by God or doesn't reveal God's The existence of God he has, you know a neutral standing point

Well, if he can get along perfectly neutrally in this area, why not every other area? Sure You know

God is creator of all things, you know One of Kuiper's famous quotes is there is no square inch of creation where Christ does not cry mine you know what we're after is a is a

Essentially a total conquest where everything is brought under the dominion of Christ and God's Word So if you if you allow non -christians to be neutral What you're allowing them to do is

You're you're you're functionally saying God's reign doesn't matter here and that's

I You know if I if I studied history more I think I could you know I might be able to give historical examples of how this has gone badly like with you know

Natural law theory and things like that, but it really does have real -time consequences in people's lives and in the trajectory of nations when

They think that there are some areas that You know God That you know, there is no

God here. I mean just look at some of the things being taught in public education now there's a reason we're being taught insane things like Men can menstruate.

I mean we got there somehow You know and it's you know, it is because No boy, well, they weren't saying it about two years ago, but now they're saying it and you know all the trans craziness

We got there somehow and it's because I think of evolution, you know, if anything can transform into anything else

Well, then men can transform into women. I mean we transformed into humans from pond to scum pretty much

So it's just time and chance before we can, you know, switch back and forth our genders So there it has real -time consequences and people's beliefs about themselves social policy science

So it really isn't just an academic Dispute it's it's a dispute that has you know ideas have consequences

So now okay, so let's let's kind of make some practical application here Okay, how is it when you're interacting with an unbeliever or even a believer?

What are some clues you look for? to identify when the assumption of autonomy is present

How do you identify it and recognize it within the context of a conversation with someone? So say for example, let's let's talk with the atheist who says, you know, there's no evidence for God You know, you guys just believe on blind faith.

What is it that you know, you know how it goes, right? Yeah What is it that some atheists or some other any unbeliever says that kind of?

Hints you to the fact that there is an assumption of autonomy going going on in their reasoning and hence

It's important for us as apologists to point that out and exploit that exploit the weakness of that assumption

Well, actually just you know, just using that example I can I already can already tell the kind of hostility he has towards God just in in that statement

I would start out by saying What would count as evidence, you know, if you will, you know from my perspective, you know

I think what the Bible teaches is that all of creation every fact every law Reveals God's existence and the atheist comes along and says well

You know, I don't I don't think there's good evidence for it. It's like okay. Well, what would count as evidence? At that point we're getting immediately into his presuppositions about right, but you know

Presuppositions in your world you affect how you interpret evidence or even what counts as evidence or what counts as a fact?

in his worldview, so He's kind of already You know showing his cards at that point if he if he asked that if he made that kind of a direct statement

Sometimes you have to interview on somebody a little more to get them to reveal what their worldview is, but But yeah, just up front

I would say well, you know, what what counts as evidence in your world How do you know what's true? How do you know what evidence can prove?

So now I had an interaction with an atheist. I won't mention his name private discussion that's that's how a

Online apologetics work. You have all this. Yeah, you have the online discussion then you have like the secret private message

People But here's what here's what he said as we're getting into the topic of the existence of God.

Mm -hmm He says I'm just gonna he's you know, I told him, you know, where does he want to start with the topic?

He wants to discuss and he says I'd like to start with epistemology. He says quote Rational belief is a degree of belief that maps to the degree of the relevant evidence

Wouldn't you agree in other words? Rational belief is intrinsically gradient for things assessed

Inductively does that make sense to you it makes sense and I I always try to agree with somebody as much as I can and I I don't think

I would disagree as With what he stated so far. Sure You know induct you can you can prove truth through induction.

I don't think that that excludes deduction I don't think it excludes transcendental reasoning

But of course it all depends on how you're defining your terms when you talk Exactly.

Exactly. So, um what I Identified there because we're talking about the existence of God I tried to anticipate where once I agree with that standard

He now wants to press me to that standard as we are applying it to God Which I do not apply that standard to God since yeah, we argue for the transcendental necessity of God.

And so You know, he writes Let me say he says belief is not binary when you have a question in front of you you explore the evidence and Proportion your degree of belief to the balance of evidence, right?

Well, it depends. Yeah what you're talking about Yeah, and at that point I would

I would bring in Bonson talked about the Quines book the web of belief.

Sure. That's a fair point. You know, not every belief is exactly the same I mean I have he talks about how you know, our beliefs are kind of in the web

There are central presuppositions that you know, they really are binary either God exists or he doesn't certain other peripheral questions.

You like What would be a good example I mean something really peripheral might be something like, you know, you look at your you glance out your window and you think of a bird flew by and Well, maybe it did maybe it didn't or maybe it was like a you know a toy

That's a peripheral belief it doesn't really have in worldview changing impact, you know, you could maybe it was maybe it wasn't

So that's a very peripheral belief that you can you know, you can have that or you cannot have it But something really central like, you know, are the laws of logic objective and valid everywhere or does

God exist? Questions like that. Well, they really are binary I mean and depending on what your answer is you can it's going to have enormous impacts on the rest of your beliefs

Sure. So I as I was anticipating that he was gonna then apply that standard of God. I responded Here's a statement when you have a question in front of you

Which I would presume that he's gonna he's about to ask he's about to use the idea of the question of God Right as to whether he exists or not

He says when you have a question in front of you You explore the evidence in proportion degree of belief to the balance of the evidence, right?

And so I respond this is true with regards to some things But when we are discussing meta level issues like the existence of God who within my paradigm is the ground of all being

It does not apply furthermore I assert that the knowledge of God is innate and not presented as a question quote in Front of us to be answered by the use of autonomous reasoning calibrated to the evidence

My position is that unless the God exists categories of reason and conceptions of evidence would be unintelligible

What what do you think that response? Alright, I think it's fair. I think the only thing you know,

I would add it's hard to get into lots of Technical jargon and in Facebook messages and sometimes, you know, just have to leave stuff out

But one of the things that I I like to point out to atheists is that is not not only does your world view determine?

What's evidence and what isn't? You know both van Til and Bonson would talk about how

God isn't simply yet another fact in a series of facts but he's his

He's the ultimate fact that makes sense of all other facts so You know all evidence points to God if it's interpreted from you know

It was a correct world view and if it's not interpreted from the correct world view, you can't prove anything anyway All right, well very good so When we talk about neutrality and autonomy, this is going to be an issue with debate you're having coming up in May, I believe

Yeah somewhere in there With a fellow Christian who just loves he just loves presuppositional apologetic.

Oh, yes Actually, he has a sort of vendetta against it

I mean has their their issue with some topic that they find interesting to Interact with you know, we can't

I mean we have we have issues with classical apologetics and evidential apologetic thing But some are more passionate about it than others

At least I know where he stands, you know, some people you can't get them to really articulate what their beliefs even are

So at least with David, I know what he's what he's coming in believing, right? so so why don't you unpack just in a thumbnail sketch like what is his what's his problem with presuppositional apologetics and You know, what's your response to what he perceives to be a problem?

Okay So a couple things first of all, I think the problem really comes in that classical apologists

They define autonomy differently. And when I read Sproul's book on classical apologetics

I actually got kind of excited at one point because he had a whole chapter on The proximate versus the ultimate source of knowledge distinction and I was like, okay, you know, this is good

They're you know, they're actually, you know, they're actually giving us a try and then page after page.

He completely misconstrues what it even means Because time after time what classical apologists will take the term autonomous reason to mean is just your

Just your reasoning like well, I'm going to use my autonomous reason to you know

Use my sense perception to determine that the floor in the kitchen is dirty and needs to be swept or something

And they they just say oh, well, you know, you're using your autonomous reason. It's like no You're just using your your reason

Autonomous reason is something different You know, you can't always talk about the foundations of a house

But the foundations are always there and they're either good foundations or bad foundations But the fact that you can walk on the floor that doesn't mean that you know

That doesn't mean that your reasoning is Autonomous or not so There is kind of a category

You know a different definition a category Distinction that isn't quite agreed on there

So that was when I read Sproul's book. I was a little disappointed that they did that Because what they say that well if it's not autonomous reasoning then you're starting with God Well, only

God know has God's own knowledge and that's not what we mean at all When we talk about the ultimate foundation your knowledge we're talking about something that you can know the worldview of Scripture, right?

Now they can assert that we we are mixing Ontology and epistemology.

Yes. Yes common criticism. Someone's asking here But by the way with respect to people asking questions, by the way

Thank you for asking questions in a way that is easily discernible in the cup in the comment

So if you have a question, we will be going we will be taking questions at the towards the back end of the episode But right question before your question so that I could differentiate your question from You know random comments, but not random.

They were nice comments in the in the comment sect By the way, I'm very happy with the comment section on my channel people interact for the most part very respectful

So I don't get a lot of trolls Sometimes but very little and I really

I do appreciate that But yeah if you do have a question right question and then type out your question and we will

We will we'll cover it. So I Lost my train of thought. Well, where was I going with that? Oh, yeah ontology and epistemology, right?

this is this is an issue that RC Sproul had with The presuppositional methodology

Norman Geisler didn't like it too much John Warwick Montgomery I don't know if he brought up this issue, but he definitely brought up the issue of circularity

Things like that our wonderful friends I think his name is Jacob Brunton Cody They are basically recycling

RC Sproul's objections to positionalism What what gives man?

I mean, how would we respond as presuppositional is really trying to interact with some of these important issues? How might we respond to the various objections posed by our fellow brothers in Christ?

So about that objection specifically of Intel, you know again, that's all I'm going to tell He Wrote about it.

Yeah Stuff already. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay question specifically. I wasn't sure.

Okay. I didn't know that by Literature you can have these ant these questions answer. Go ahead.

I'm sorry So what what then tell talks about is you can only talk about one aspect of your worldview at a time sure

But that doesn't mean that it's not a worldview. So you have a metaphysics and an epistemology

You have a view of what's real and a view of what's true You have it simultaneously and they coordinate with one another but you can only talk about one aspect at a time

That's that's probably the first thing that I would talk about when it comes to metaphysics and epistemology. The other thing is

It's a misconstrue of what it's a misconstrue of what we're even saying. So when we say that You know bond bonds quote about how

The only proof for God's existence is that without God you couldn't prove anything He is obviously not saying if God didn't metaphysically exist we couldn't reason well

Okay, everyone agrees with that because we wouldn't exist to reason What he's saying is that if you don't believe in God, you don't have a basis for proving anything else

It's an epistemol. It's an epistemological issue If you don't if you have a worldview that doesn't believe in God, it destroys your ability to prove anything else

And yes, I've explained this to people I know many many many times I'm sure that people will still have that objection for many many decades and hundreds of years to come because people don't read

Vantel so It's it's it's hard to read that's why

I like Bonson Bonson the good and I in my opinion, I think Bonson was the best interpreter of Vantel Yeah, I agree.

He he makes I don't know who said this but some some famous person once said that Bonson understood

Vantel, but isn't Vantel understood himself Yeah, but yeah, that's it's a common objection it's very easily dealt with work, you know

Obviously, we're talking about what your belief system is if you don't have a Christian belief system It destroys your ability to prove anything else.

Mm -hmm Alright, very good now um When when we talk about our ultimate foundations, right?

We're relying upon the revelation of God the innate knowledge of God that we have as Christian apologists positionalist

We want to acknowledge that even the reasoning process depends upon ultimately the context of the ontological

Trinity, right? What about those folks who kind of hold to a different view?

Maybe maybe folks who hold to like a foundationalist view where they'll say something to the effect Well, you don't necessarily need to start where the presuppers are starting because they're problems and we of course we get to respond to those

Problems, but what would you say to our foundational foundationalist friends? Um, why is foundationalism an inadequate

Foundation As opposed to say kind of a presuppositional framework Okay.

Um, I actually struggled struggled with that question for a while because I you know for a while I thought well foundationalism

You know primary basic beliefs, isn't that pretty much synonymous with presuppositions?

And again, depending on how you define it it kind of is and it kind of isn't I remember reading

And this is going back a couple years. So forgive me if I get this wrong, but I believe it was

Wolterstorff and Plantinga who wrote the book faith and rationality And they talk about this foundationalist, you know classical foundationalism and the problem actually ironically

Plantinga had a really good Transcendental argument as to why it doesn't work because he said that I'm trying to remember what the criteria he had for something being a foundational belief

But basically it was the foundationalist Epistemology was was self -refuting because the foundational questions

I think it was if it couldn't be verified by sense perception or it couldn't be verified by logic

I think I think there was maybe one other criteria, but but then you point out well then the classical foundationalist criteria you can't know that it's true and therefore should reject it because it obviously can't be verified by sense perception and Claiming that it could be verified by reason is circular

In in the vicious sense of circularity because then it's the question of like well, we're trying to define what's what's even rational

So Plantinga's refutation of it was I thought very good It's you know, it's just like any other philosophy or epistemology if it's not based on scripture.

It's self -refuting. Mm -hmm So, okay. So why don't you okay, so you're gonna pack that just a little bit. So how is it self -refuting?

I didn't catch that part. Oh, so Again, I'm reaching back a couple years

But I I seem to remember that what Plantinga was saying he was Presenting the classical foundationalist position and the two criteria that he had for a foundational

Belief was it either had to be verified by immediate sense perception or by the laws of logic

But that criteria cannot be verified by one of those two means which means according to the foundationalist

Epistemology itself. Therefore. We can't know that it's true Okay, and how he built and how he how foundational to build on their beliefs is like well

Once you have the foundationalist believe the foundational beliefs. Well, then, you know, if something's implied by it

Then you know that can be another be another belief of yours But it's not a foundational belief

But once you get down to the foundations, they have to be verified one of these two two ways Plantinga said the criteria itself

Cannot be verified by the one of those two methods, which means by its own standard It cannot be verified and we shouldn't believe in it sure now, okay, so the laws of logic would be properly basic, right?

Yeah, yeah, I believe so. Yeah. Okay, so terminology so when us preceptors say something to the effect of you know

The proof of the Christian God the Christianity or Christian worldview is that if it were not true You couldn't prove anything at all like knowledge would be impossible.

We say this kind of in popular parlance Yeah, and you know, what do you say when someone says well, that's ridiculous I know that the laws of logic are valid because of the impossibility of the contrary to deny it

I have to assume it so there I know the validity of the laws of logic without you know Assuming you're a

Christian God. I would do it. There's a sense in which that is true I mean that goes back to Aristotle Aristotle used what we would now call a transcendental argument because of course if you

Affirm the laws of logic then there then you believe them. They're true Deny them then you're implicitly admitting that they're true because you're denying that they're true

So there's a difference between denying and asserting The question is though is what's behind it?

I mean, we still have to deal with other questions besides that specific question How do we know that they're true at all times, you know before we you were born at all times

That you don't personally experience. They just aren't and we have to start with them. We can't not start with them

Why does there have to be something behind it bro, you know Well part of it is that if you want to fill out an actual epistemology, you have to be willing to ask

Questions like that. Okay, so, you know if somebody just doesn't want to play the game as it were that play the knowledge game

They can just kind of believe whatever they want. They can just arbitrarily assert things whether they're true or not, but if you want to Determine which worldview is true just not talk about individual facts or individual laws

Then you have to be willing to ask questions. Well, how do I know that it's true? They were true 20 years ago

Well, you have to actually answer the question if you want me to believe your worldview. Sure.

Okay all right, so let's take a look at some two major schools of epistemology and and deal with their

Inadequacies because of their assumption of neutrality. Okay. So how would you right now

Seth? refute for me an autonomous Understanding of empiricism

Okay for those of you who want to get a good if you've already studied presuppositional ism, and you want a good chance to kind of You know sink your teeth in a really good example of this.

You should read Bertrand Russell's problems of philosophy Hmm because he actually starts out he had different positions on the issue

Okay, you know he he was empiricist for a while he had different philosophies throughout his life, but he was a he was an empiricist when he wrote that book because he starts off in the very beginning and Pretty much just says outright.

Okay, the only true foundation we have for knowledge is sense perception okay, and the problem is that claim

Cannot be verified by sense perception. If your claim is the only knowledge we can have is knowledge by sense perception.

Okay. Well You can't verify that by means of sense perception

Which means you have to reject it and then you're left with nothing. So if it's true if it's true, it's false

It's a self -referentially false statement. Exactly. Now we can salvage sense perception

In the Christian worldview we can make it We can make it a useful means of knowledge because you know

When man was put in the garden, he was clearly Expected to use his sense perception to look at animals and distinguish distinguish them

I think it's in the Psalms where it says he who he who made the eye does he not see he who made the ear

Does he not hear so the Bible talks about how man's sense perception and abilities can actually Ascertain truth, you know, you couldn't obey do not steal unless you could perceive

Something being yours versus it being somebody else's sure. So the Christian worldview presumes that we can obtain truth

By means of sense perception, but sense perception itself is not its own foundation. It's all based on the scriptural worldview

Okay, and so just for folks who have no idea what a empiricism is

It's a it is a an epistemological position that knowledge comes through sense perception and experience.

So correct You know knowledge comes through look and see touch smell taste, right?

Yeah, and you can't know anything else. That's right. Everything else is uncertain. That's right So anything you think you know, if it's not based on your sense perception, you don't really know it you could be wrong about it

You don't have a foundation for that. Okay, so um, so that's an that's an in pair of an empirical position

So if you hold to the position that all knowledge comes through sense experience But you did not come to know that truth

Namely that all knowledge comes to sense experience through sense experience And if that statement is true all knowledge comes to sense experience is true

Then it's false because you didn't know that through sense experience. All right, that's very good. Okay, what about Rationalism so we have empiricism as an epistemological position and you have rationalism as an

Epistemological position and of course, we're going through this quickly. So we know and a Seth I'm sure is aware that empiricism as an epistemology has variations of Responses they might give to the things that you've said so, um, you know, there are different shades of rationalism

There are different shades of empiricism, you know You kind of have like a very kind of a brute empiricism where it's like all knowledge comes through Sensation there are some empiricists who would argue that only some knowledge comes through empiricism

So you've kind of a hard or soft position with respect to empirical empirical knowledge, but rationalism.

What is rationalism and What's the issue with? rationalism that assumes

Human autonomy the autonomy of the reasoning process So rationalism, I think in most cases would basically just be defined as all knowledge is

The only true knowledge we can have this knowledge by means of the laws of logic Okay, and you you asked about it an autonomous

Viewpoint on it or yeah, so autonomous, you know when you take it if you're a rationalist if you hold to the position of rationalism

And not within the context of kind of a biblical perspective. You're kind of assuming the self -sufficiency of the rational process you can actually

Use logic and make certain deductions and things like that What's the problem with an autonomous understanding of a rational philosophy?

Yeah. Well It's interesting that you're asking both of these questions because Bonson debated

Eddie Taubos and who was basically an empiricist and he also debated Gordon Stein who's basically a rationalist and the interesting thing that he pointed out in his debate with Stein is

Stein is kind of on the horns of a Of a dilemma dilemma because if he says if he tries to establish that all knowledge

Can only be known by means of logic. He's simply begging the question, but if he tries to use some other standard

Then rationalism is no longer the standard. So he's either self refuting or changing his position

But those are those are the only two options, you know, somebody says that laws of logic can produce truth

Well, I don't disagree with him, but I have a worldview context in which that makes sense we have a rational God who rationally controls all of reality and reality control our reality follows the rational laws that God causes it to follow but if you're just a rationalist and you don't believe in God Well, how do you know that the laws of logic apply everywhere at all times and you know?

Why why take that position in the first place if you try to establish it with reason you're begging the questions hmm, all right, so When you're dealing with the autonomous man, though He just say, you know,

I know that it's universal because of the impossible Can you use kind of a localized transcendental argument?

Well, he can try but at that point again, I would just ask him well, yeah,

I agree it I agree with you as far as it goes, but It's it would be kind of like saying

You Know I can't build a house without a hammer That's true.

But that also doesn't prove that hammers exist Right. Okay, so he can't he's saying, you know,

I agree with you that you can't prove things without reason but that doesn't prove that Reason exists or can be made to be an intelligible concept

He has to have the the God presupposition or in order for it to make sense, right? We're asking for the the context out of which something like reason and logic makes sense

So so I think he's a positionalist who are committed to a non -neutral stance and a non -autonomous position

If the unbeliever desires to be autonomous and says well, I believe the laws of logic We want to ask him what is the metaphysical context out of which something like logic even makes sense?

Yeah, and if he doesn't know that metaphysical context, how can he truly understand logic?

Because in order to understand it you need a context in which you could understand it. Yeah, exactly. Okay. All right.

Very good You're doing good. You're doing good You pass I'm just kidding.

All right. Well, we're we're coming to the top of the hour I think a good opportunity to to take some questions that perhaps some of the questions will produce further conversation

That's the beauty of this stuff You know, you don't have to plan all this stuff out Sometimes people ask super interesting questions and we get into some interesting side conversations that are

Relevant and related. Okay Well, someone says here is human reasoning autonomous.

No if we had answered that quickly then we'd have we wouldn't episode. So yeah Good I was just gonna say this person might might be following the the title of my debate with David I I will have to explain my answer because Because he is asserting that yes human reasoning is autonomous

I'm asserting in that specific Form of the debate. I'm asserting. No, it's not autonomous

Of course, it also depends on which human are you talking about? You know If you're a saved if you're if you're a

Christian then your reasoning isn't autonomous if you're not then your reasoning is

Autonomous and can't prove anything. So Yeah, is it a yes or no question? Well, again, it depends on what your worldview is whether your reasoning is autonomous or not.

Yeah. Well, I'm wouldn't you agree though? That when someone says well, no, I reject your

God. So my reason reasoning is autonomous Wouldn't we also say that their reasoning isn't autonomous.

It is a pretended autonomy. They're not actually autonomous I mean they need God to even make sense out of their expression of their own self autonomy

Yeah, I agree with that as far as it goes. I mean all autonomy is pretended autonomy, you know reminds me of Van Til's Metaphor with you know

The young girl who's sitting in her father's lap the only reason she can reach up to slap him is because she's sitting in his lap

So right she's pretending to be to autonomously slap him But she can't act she couldn't actually do it on her own.

Hmm. Okay Very good. Mr. C says shouldn't the question be is human consciousness

Autonomous is that is that an appropriate way to frame the question? You could depending on what you mean by human consciousness

But of course what human consciousness is is going to depend on your world view Yeah, is it is it is your mind ultimately dependent on God or is it just matter in motion, right?

Now would you say that the consciousness? From the Christian perspective it you

Are we as individual essences a collection of our thoughts? Are we equivalent to our thoughts?

How do we differentiate ourselves and our thoughts? Does that if that if that question makes an answer it in 30 seconds?

Yeah Wow well Well, we're up. There's a sense in which obviously we're more than just our thoughts.

I mean we have physical bodies where you know It can be easy for reformed people to just think of their physical bodies as those things that You know carry our minds around to get where they need to go

So Yeah, there's there's more to us than our consciousness and I I think there's

Yeah fair enough. All right. We're a big question there. Okay, let's let's scroll down. We got some more here

Uh, let's see here someone says Seth was never a

Mormon were you ever a Mormon? No, no Never been

Mormon. I've talked with a lot of Mormons. Actually. I kind of accidentally fell into a Situation where anytime

I visit this hasn't happened the last couple years But it seemed like for a while anytime I visited Moscow There was always a

Mormon who somehow had my phone number and wanted to talk to me So I've talked with a fair number of Mormons, but no,

I've never been one Okay, good. Maybe you have a Mormon look to you. I don't know Could be there's a lot of Mormon in my family background.

So My grandma escaped the Mormon Church back in the early 1900s, which was a very

Impressive feat especially for the day Wow interesting. Yeah, let's just see continues I don't know if this is us.

I guess it's a statement. He says you people start. What do you mean you people bro? Because I'm brown

I understand it's okay It's a whatever mr. C. Okay, so you people start with a

God well actually yes We start with the Christian God so it's easy to defend your beliefs I started with pain and suffering so a

God cannot be defended. I don't even know if that's an intelligible Series of statements there.

Yeah. Well, I mean, I know what he's getting at I mean the hardest question I think for any Christian to answer is the problem a problem of evil which is related to the problem of pain and what it comes down to is, you know as Well, I only have maybe a minute or 30 seconds or so, but fundamentally.

Oh, you have as long as you want. No worries At the top of the hour so that we can but we can go over.

Yeah. Well, you know the problem of pain You see us Lewis I think it was actually the first book he wrote

I'd recommend that book to just about anyone But basically what it comes down to is pain and suffering isn't meaningful unless God exists

I mean if if all we are is matter in motion, it's just it's a dog -eat -dog world You know you you're born you live you die and then you rot in the ground and anything that happened to you is not ultimately

Meaningful, but if you look at Jesus's own crucifixion He still had his wounds after he was resurrected

His wounds had ultimate meaning for all of humanity and I think the same is going to be true

For for the pain and suffering that we endure In our own lives on earth

He also says here. I started with pain and suffering so a God cannot be defended And I think the only way that that's true is if there is a logical contradiction

Exactly mean the our conception of God and there being pain and suffering in the world or evil if you want to call it

And I just want to let people know if anyone's familiar with the philosophical literature on this

Logical problems of evil are almost dead in philosophical circles that they're not really defended most people atheist philosophers affirm that there there is no logical contradiction between a

Good God all -powerful God and the existence of evil and that's why they've formulated more probabilistic problems of evil or emotional problems of evil or things of that sort so Say that a

God cannot be defended because of pain and suffering really is to affirm a form of the problem of evil

That's really not a problem even for atheistic philosophers. So I would encourage that person to look into some responses there

But there's definitely an emotional problem But the emotional problem as important as it is We don't minimize that has no bearing as to whether God actually exists or not.

So it really isn't it does not make Defending the existence of God an impossible task.

So it's one of my Urban reformed up a podcast,

I think that is Ricky he says the wackness of neutrality the urban edition. So maybe maybe we should have made this episode the wackness of Neutrality True.

Yeah, Ricky's an awesome guy had him actually I think I had him on the previous episode and Could take a look at that that episode if you know

Me on his podcast. Yeah. All right. I got to check that out, too By the way, I didn't mention it if you guys haven't subscribed we are let me see something we are

I'm super excited. I mean the channels not huge but I am

Very excited of the fact that we have let's see here if I go here and click that We have 2320 subscribers, that's awesome.

I'm I'm super excited and appreciative of that it's not a huge channel, but it's growing and Getting a lot of positive feedback people are benefiting greatly from the content and so I very much appreciate that and I definitely appreciate the subscriptions and Some people were generous enough to write some really nice comments and giving positive reviews on iTunes

So if you're finding the content helpful, uh, yeah do that. I definitely appreciate it

All right. Let's let's move down the list here. How are you doing Seth? You're good. I'm good. Okay Let's see.

I never tire of talking about apologetics. Yes Do I and I had coffee so there's that?

all right, so Revealed apologetics question. Can you comment on 1st Corinthians 2 16 with the focus on the last part of the verse in what sense?

We have the mind of Christ and how does it relate to the first part the word but okay, let's let me see

There's a grammatical issues in the question there, but let's let's take a look here. Yeah, I Got my

Bible here First Corinthians 2 Let's see who's more saved who gets it first.

Oh, I'm there. I'm there already. I'm going straight to hell. All right All right, first can let me let me a little

Bible study here, let me find it first I think 1st Corinthians is in the New Testament. Is that is that where it is?

No, it's in the intertestamental period. Oh darn it. I don't Get the apocrypha in the other room.

Okay, so 2 16 Which says

Okay Okay, I'm read from 15. So the spiritual person however can evaluate everything yet He himself cannot be evaluated by anyone for who has known the

Lord's mind that he may instruct him But we have the mind of Christ All right, so I guess he's asking

Can we comment on it with a focus on the last part in what sense do we have the mind of Christ?

Well the sense in which we have the mind of Christ it's interesting to me I'm trying to remember which passive it is but It's interesting that in the writings of Paul He seems to kind of switch back and forth

I Think it's in Galatians where he talks about how he says the scriptures preached the gospel to Abraham now, of course technically

Technically, is that correct? Well, no the scriptures weren't written down and at the time of Abraham but it's it illustrates what is something about Paul's thinking that It's not that you get

Omnipotence by reading the Bible But the Bible is so identified with the mind of God that if you read the scriptures

You're reading the mind of God in in a sense, you know Otherwise, it wouldn't make sense for him to say the scriptures preached the gospel to Abraham Well, obviously

God did it's God's revelation. So it really drives the point home that it you know, this isn't just The Bible doesn't just contain the

Word of God. It's not just something that happens to be true. It's the breath of God It's that you know, you are reading

God's finite communication to you and so we have it and it's it's interesting to me that actually earlier in the verse where he talks about how

You know No one comprehends the thoughts of God except the spirit of God and then he goes on to say and we impart this in words

Meaning yeah, it's not just You know ideas out there. It's not even oral tradition.

It's the written words of this document here. That's the mind of God. That's Those are the thoughts of the spirit of God.

That's right. And we have the spirit of God Within us exactly coupled with and guiding us

As to how to understand the written propositional thoughts of God in Scripture Mm -hmm, so we have the mind of Christ in the sense that we've been spiritually reborn

We have the spirit of God indwelling within us and we have the propositional revelation of God in the written word

Exactly. Okay. I hope that answers the question Aziz. Thank you very much Okay Mr.

C says I have a binary question. Who would you say, you know better your spouse or Jesus?

I think I know I think I know where he might be Because we have an innate knowledge of God Yeah, right and we're certain that God exists, you know

Are you more certain of the existence of God than you are of the existence of your wife? Huh, I mean there's a sense in which that's true.

I mean, is it hypothetically possible that you know, she Forged her

Social Security card and her birth certificate and she's you know, actually a Russian spy, but she's just So in that sense, you know, do

I have more certainty of the existence of God Yes, of course

You know again, I couldn't make sense of things like espionage and and deception and you know people faking documents would

I be I couldn't make sense of that unless I believed in God and knew the difference between What's true and what's false?

So yeah in that sense, you know Jesus Better than you know your spouse In a sense, there's a sense in which that's true in a sense in which it's not you know

What sense you're meaning there, all right, thank you very much for that. Mr. C This is not a question.

It's a statement pre -supposed and classicalism and drools. Okay. All right, I'll take it.

I'll take it Aziz asks a question. What was RC Sproul's problem with presuppositional apologetics now that question should be formulated as problems

Yeah, many problems with the presuppositional Apologetic approach now before you try to take a stab at that Seth I would like to draw people's attention to the fact that there has been a wonderful Biography of RC Sproul.

I think it's called RC Sproul a life that was recently written That is an excellent excellent summary of the life and ministry of RC Sproul.

I highly recommend it I have it on on on my Kindle and on an audiobook. So where we disagree with RC Sproul here

He is definitely a hero of the faith in my opinion. I'm an excellent teacher of scripture and theology.

And so Please don't take the fact that we do not share his apologetic sentiments as Rejecting, you know everything he's ever done because I think he's an excellent one of the great teachers in modern times

I agree. And actually when I read his book on classical apologetics, I very much appreciated the section that he had on the

The three aspects of saving faith, you know, there's oh I won't be able to do it on the fly, but it's

Saving faith is knowing the facts of Salvation believing them and also trusting them.

Mm -hmm. No Tidia. I Forget the other two Latin words, but a Fiducia Ascensia.

Oh, yes fiducia fiducia Ascensia and no Tidia. That's right You know your mantel, but do you know your sproul?

Yeah, and that section was honestly very very good but the sections where he talked about, you know circular reasoning and You know autonomy

Those just were not very good So, yeah, we've already discussed some of his problems of it

But I think one other problem is he didn't he believed that some of the theistic arguments Worked and didn't have the logical flaws that presuppositions point out that they do have

Now I do I do want to point out that you can see the traditional proofs cosmological teleological argument moral argument

Ontological arguments those arguments you can see as completely valid and that's not inconsistent with a presuppositional approach

The arguments could be good now. There are presuppositional is to criticize that argument those arguments

But you have classicalists that will criticize certain versions of those arguments. So It's not either you're a presuppositionalist and you reject these arguments or you're a classicalist and you embrace there

You can embrace the validity of those arguments and their usefulness as a presuppositionalist. So that's not really an issue of methodology, it's really gonna boil down to how you use them a

Presupposition can appeal to those arguments if done within a consistent presuppositional biblical framework exactly

Yeah, and actually I'm Bonson in his book and tells apologetic. He actually reformulates I think it's the cosmological argument is the example he gives and he basically says here's how you would use it

Validly as a presuppositionalist because it's the way it's typically Presented it's not a valid argument.

All right, okay Let's see here. We do have some more so This is a silly one a throwaway question, but it's okay

It gets up on the screen. Is it true that you have to be precept to go to the highest level of heaven?

Well, of course, that's right obviously Obviously as he's asked the question, is it correct to state we are what we think or in other words

We are our thoughts and that was kind of related to it. Uh, I would I would say no there's more to us than what we think and one of the things that Bonson always pointed out is that you can you should never accept what the unbeliever?

The unbelievers interpretation of himself because he thinks of himself as autonomous He doesn't think of himself as made in the image of God.

He doesn't think of himself as You know, his reasoning is reliant on God's existence he doesn't think of himself that way so if you take that one fact and Compromise on it and just I think

I lost your breath All right, well back.

Oh, yep. I can hear you skipping a little bit. Don't worry I'm a pro. I've learned not to have an emotional breakdown when my guest freezes up like what am

I gonna do? I can't the screens too small. I can't People, you know, I've had it's panicking now.

Yeah. Yeah. No, no, it's all good. All right, so go ahead Why don't you continue your line of reason? Yeah, so Yeah, basically you shouldn't if the unbeliever can interpret himself correctly.

Why can't he interpret everything else? Correctly without a change of worldview and without believing in God Mm -hmm.

Okay. All right. Here's the next question. I think is a good one. Can logic exist without a mind?

Mm -hmm. No That's right. And to say that it can is to insert

Some kind of platonic understanding of logic is kind of an abstract. Yeah, you know

Numenal thing right that exists as an abstraction without a context.

There's no context there. You have a completely Impersonal context for For the laws of logic and I think that would be philosophically problematic.

Yeah. Yeah And it also comes down to which mind are you talking about? Does logic exist without my mind in your mind?

Well, sure, it doesn't it doesn't exist without God's that's right. That's right. Okay Aziz asked the question again.

Do you think after many years? the church will come to a position of identifying presuppositional apologetics as Orthodoxy, I'm not sure what you mean by that if you mean do

I think that the church will come to in a Majority sense come to accept it as kind of the apologetic approach

Beats me. I mean, these are hotly debated issues So I don't I don't think there's gonna be some sort of consensus in the near future

But what do you think Seth? I don't I don't think it should ever become a test of orthodoxy

But I'm just think you know because I'm post -millennial I mean, I remember one lecture where Bonson talked about how you know, eventually denominational walls will fall

I mean if I think it's an Ephesians where it talks about how the church Yeah is and ought to be working towards being of one mind well

Verified there he says I meant as part of orthodoxy like truths of Christology Trinity. Yeah.

No, I I I would object if people started doing that I mean you can

I mean many of the greatest theologians in history have been Classical apologists, so I don't think it should be a test of orthodoxy in that sense

And I don't think it ever it ever should be but I you know Obviously whatever is true and biblical and correct

I think will eventually win out because the Spirit will the Holy Spirit will influence his believers and and Teach them to believe what is what is true?

So I think there will be overwhelming Consensus over time in history on what the

Bible means and what it says and what it teaches Which will include things like views on apologetics views on baptism

You know views on the spiritual gifts and things like that. Yeah now I have a question a random question

I just made it up on the off the top of my head because I was thinking about it just randomly because I'm weird Okay, will there be?

Okay, when when we're resurrected right we're living in the new heavens in the new earth, there's no sin no anything like that, right

Mm -hmm. We're not going to be omniscient correct, and there will be people in heaven who know more than other people and so people in heaven will not always agree on certain things and And so in heaven in heaven there will be we could say philosophical theological biblical discourse

So will there be in a sense? Apologetics in heaven if it's not against another unbeliever, maybe kind of an internal.

Hey, we're in heaven You're my brother, but I'm not sure you have that understanding. We have kind of this perfect Sanctified discussion of disagreement building rational arguments for positions we hold or we just be like get

Jesus here Like what are you guys arguing about? What do you think? it reminds me of a lecture that Bonson had where he he

I think was actually his his debate with Sproul where he said he said that you know when we're dead and we've gone to heaven we're going to laugh at all the all the mistakes that my opponents made and So, yeah,

I'm sure there's going to be debate and discussion and in heaven Otherwise, I you know people like you and me would probably find it kind of boring

That's right. But because we'll see Jesus face to face He we could just and we can just call the lifeline right and he can and settle the debates

I don't know. There's a real question. But okay, is this a valid argument if God doesn't exist, then why does he exist so much?

Reminds me of Stephen Colbert once asked a guest If God doesn't exist, how did peanut butter get in my chocolate?

That's awesome, let's see here Okay, I think I skipped down too quickly here.

Okay, let me go back up Wow, I skipped down a lot. Okay Did it do?

Okay good. So let's remove that Are we still got some questions here? Good that you like this stuff as much as I do since we can continue on Okay, so Gavin asks, what is the difference between ontology and epistemology?

How are they related and Because Seth is frozen again, perhaps

I will answer this question Hope he comes back Ontology deals with being the nature of existence

Right when we're talking about the ontology of God, we're talking about the nature and being of God the ontology of human beings

We're dealing with the nature of what it means to be human so ontology deals with being

Epistemology deals with knowledge. How is knowledge gained? Okay, so You know on top an ontological question would be something like what is the nature of reality?

Alright, there we go. An ontological question would be something like what is the nature of reality an epistemological question would be you know

How do you know? Not just how do you know the nature of reality? How do you know anything? That's an epistemological question.

And of course they go hand in hand since the nature of reality Okay, and how we know the nature of reality is very much closely related so ontology deals with being epistemology deals with knowledge ontology deals with What is real epistemology deals with how do we know?

All right. So did you want to add anything to that? No, I mean you explained it just fine ontology and metaphysics are pretty much interchangeable terms

Okay. All right. Um, this is not a question, but let's address it I think this this comes up a lot possibly

I did like the movie blah blah blah the matrix Could we be brains in a vat? How would you respond to someone say?

Well, maybe we're a brain we're a brain in a vat, you know So for all we know Christianity is not necessarily true We could be a brain in a vat and your brain could be stimulated to believe this religion.

We call Christianity There are a couple different responses. First of all, my response might be well

If Christianity is true So what you know, like if if we are being controlled by machines and yet the gospel still being preached

Well, then it's still true So part of me would be like, well, what difference does it make?

You know Christianity is true. It's true And hopefully at some point we'll get released from our you know prisons from you know the matrix machines the other response would simply be

I Questions have answers but doubts don't So if somebody asks, how do

I know that the Trinity is true? Or how do I know? that there's archaeological evidence for You know the existence in Jerusalem.

I mean there you can you can answer questions like that, but just doubts Like well, what if what if God doesn't exist?

Well, what if he does? It's just a doubt. That's not really a question. I Would say that to suggest that we may be brains in a vat is an external an

Attempt that an external critique of the Christian worldview being the ground of knowledge So I wouldn't even grant the possibility of it.

Basically you're asking me Is it possible that the Christian understanding of reality is false? My answer as a transcendental presuppositionalist is no

Yeah, you're asking me a question that would

That would make me sneak in concepts of autonomy because now now what is standing at the

Foundation of my worldview if I grant the possibility of brain in a vat Yeah, it's not the ontological necessity of the

Triune God of Scripture rather. It is contingency the possibility of Christianity being false

We are in fact in brains and vats would actually sneak in contingency as being more ultimate standing over the existence of God himself

So I would reject that I would actually highlight the fact that that's an external critique and I would reject it flat -out

It's not even a possibility on my position And yeah, if you grant that it is a possibility then you undercut the possibility of knowing of knowing anything because that is

One of those skeptical sorts of arguments, you know If that if that position were possibly true and it undercuts knowledge

Then that's self -refuting since to even make the claim would require you to know certain things Yeah, that's a better answer than I gave but It's also, you know

It's it's not a question that only came up when the Matrix movies came up because because you know people have met

You know, it's it's fundamentally similar to asking well Some people hallucinate.

So what if all Christians are all of the witnesses to the resurrection? What if they were all hallucinating?

Well Okay, if you know just the same critique that you were saying Let's say that's true that undermines the

Christian worldview in which case you can't know that it's true. That's right. All right, very good

Let's see here. Another question in what sense the incarnated sons reasoning in what sense?

You got to make sure you type it out in a way where all the words I'm so sorry.

I'm trying my best in what sense is the incarnated sons reasoning?

The same as ours and different from ours I would say it's the same in that, you know

All the early creeds affirmed that Jesus has a soul in the exact same sense that we do.

It's a it's a reasonable rational soul And so there are even things that because Jesus had a human nature.

He claims he didn't know you he did He says he didn't know You know when when the second coming was going to be sure, you know, well, okay

Yeah, that's that that's it. That's a limitation that his human nature had just like it also has the limitation that he had to eat sometimes

So there and of course you could say well, what about is his Divine nature.

Well in a sense, I would say it would it would be kind of like Knowing it that there's a cup in the cupboard and just never deciding on purpose to never open it to see what it is

I mean, could he access that knowledge due to his divinity? Yeah, I think there's a sense in which he could you know his personhood could but he simply

Chose not to in his human nature for a little while who's made lower than the angels, right? His divinity is veiled in certain respect

So it's very important to understand the two natures of Christ, right that Christ is truly Divine and truly human being without sin of course

Then you get into the issue though of the attributes of the divine nature being co -equal with that of the father and so that that would require him to be omniscient and for Christ to be omniscient with respect to his divinity means that the nature of God's reasoning as omniscient is not discursive and You know moving in kind of a chronological order of like one thought and then another thought is produced

He would know all things simultaneously in one fell swoop of Intuition so with respect to his divinity his reasoning is not the same as ours because we reason discursively and chronologically

God in his omniscience does not however with respect this as Seth said with respect to his human nature.

Yeah, it was the same He had he was existing within time. And so his reasoning would have been temporal and would have

Logical deduction and inferences and things that were occurring within the context of time and space so Very very good question and nice nice Christological question

So I hope that that that answers the question there. All right Here's a question specifically for you from Scott Does Seth think sense perceptions are brute facts or or do even our?

Perceptions require appeal to the Christian worldview. I know I don't I don't think they're brute facts

Probably the most extreme example I could give is the Hindu worldview I've read the Hindu Upanishads when

I was you know after I studied apologetics for a while because I wanted to see what other worldviews actually taught and one of the things that the

Upanishads teaches That they teach is that all reality is an illusion so This you know, these computers here.

These are all illusion Eli's an illusion. I'm an illusion You know this iPhones an illusion. Everything's an illusion.

So there are still Presuppositions or pre -theoretical Commitments that you use to interpret reality.

They're not brute facts in the sense that there's a neutral way to to interpret them

And of course van Till was known for saying that brute facts are mute facts

Exactly not speak for themselves. They do not have meaning Independent of a broader interpretive context of which they're apart.

So yes, that's very important always thinking in terms of worldview context what's helped me is

Thinking in terms of individual words within a sentence So words have meaning in a sentence given the context of the sentence the paragraph, right?

So in order to understand what a word means You need to understand the context in order to understand what a fact means

You need on you need to have a context for that a worldview context If you have the wrong context the wrong worldview, then you're not really truly understanding the nature of that fact

So we do not believe that sense perception exists in a vacuum Our rational faculties logic things like that don't exist in a vacuum.

They always exist within a context that gives them meaning exactly Let's see here.

There's a good question here a nice practical question to perhaps suggest some resources for people Kenneth says

I found that many books on presuppositional apologetics focus focuses mainly on the methodology rather than arguments against Worldviews I agree

Or resources would be good to learn actual arguments. The best thing that I can recommend is listen to debates

Because the I think it's correct that many apologetics books just focus on methodology That's one thing that I found, you know, you can't say everything in a book

I actually was kind of disappointed when I read Van Til's Do the Defense of the Faith and he really didn't refute any non -christian worldviews

He just explained the methodology. So it just comes down to you. You're going to have to read other other sources, so Bonson's debates are all very very good.

Doug Wilson has some good debates, especially his ones his collision with Christopher Hitchens There was also written

Books That are written in this kind of in this vein trying to remember The name there was somebody who graduated

New St. Andrews College and wrote a book as a presuppositional refutation to Buddhism Michael Colander, I think that's what his name was

I've never I've never met him, but I believe his his senior thesis was on it. My senior thesis was on Specifically refuting

Richard Carrier's version of atheism and not all atheism is the same So there there are books and resources.

You just have to look around Debates are really good because it's it's very specific worldviews, you know, this worldview versus this worldview

That's probably the first thing that I would I would recommend and also Jeff Durbin has a lot of good material

Where he's engaged with Mormons. He's engaged with atheists. So it's all out there It's just a matter of doing the homework and it really depends what you mean by actual arguments because are you talking about kind of?

rigorous like Syllogisms laid out or are you talking about just in popular parlance?

How would we argue for the position? So it really depends what you mean. I you can't go wrong with with Greg Bonson I highly recommend

Bonson's books, but I even strong in a more stronger sense recommend his lectures Yeah, a lot of people around I sit around reading, you know all day

Vance van Til's apologetic, but by the way, this is my favorite apologetics book in existence. This is my favorite one

Dan tells apologetic but most of the presuppositional apologetics that I've learned

Have not been through reading like 90 % of it has been listening to that and Bonson was such a gifted teacher that when you

Kind of like when you're reading a book when you're reading a book long enough when you're reading a specific author you kind of learn

The language that he's using you learn the cadence of how he explains things and the speed with which you know the the tone of you begin to adopt that make it your own and then contextualize it once you start understanding the line of reasoning of the of the author or The audio lecture that you're listening to then you can textualize it in bed information to the specific context that that you're in Right, so I would highly recommend because Bonson again high -functioning philosopher

But he was really down -to -earth in a lot of ways You can definitely check out the Bonson project if you check out sermon audio

There is a the Bonson project in which all of dr. Bonson's lectures are made available for free

And so spend a couple of weeks months Listening to lectures and you're gonna see things are gonna begin to click and complement that with some reading you know, if you're just beginning read always ready by Greg Bonson or against all opposition which was put out by American vision where it was really a transcription of lectures that dr.

Bonson gave the high school students So, you know read through that material listen to the audio

Listen to debates and you know what get out there and start sharing your faith, you know We're really wasting our time if we're just you know, sitting behind our cameras and talking about this all day and we're never actually

You know, yeah So we want to be careful about that and kind of just go out and use it now the next question then becomes well

How do I use it? You know, how do I get good at this stuff? Well, here's the thing and hopefully this will encourage you and hopefully scare you at the same time both

I think and needful You get better at it by doing it

And then that sounds weird, but I learned from a good friend of mine Matt slick You guys probably know who he is from from karm

He his mentality is trust and go just trust God and go you'll be amazed Of how well you will do in many respects.

So just trust God go you're gonna mess up a bunch of times Don't worry. That's perfectly normal.

No one does even people who are seasoned Apologists mess up So if you're just getting started and you're trying to build up the courage to go out there and and start sharing your faith and defending

It just know ahead of time. You're gonna mess up and that's part of how you get better So how you get better includes not just doing your due diligence in your studies, but also you're gonna get better by failing

Right exactly. Oh, I would I would want to mention two other sources CS Lewis he had some inconsistencies, but he had a very in that many ways.

He had very much a presuppositional apologetic, especially miracles And Francis Schaefer is also a really good resource because world views affect everything including art

He worked in in that area where he he talks about how world views affect art and then he critiques those world views

And so that's another another really good resources. Sure. Absolutely Question do, you know good materials for explaining apologetics and presupp apologetics for kids book series or articles?

Why don't you speak to that Seth and then maybe I'll give my my tooth my two cents or maybe not

Seth froze again It's alright He's just um, oh, no Okay To be honest

I have well, I I'm here to answer but my answer is

I don't really have any answers I'm not I I know of material that's like high school level

I know I know Bonson talked about doing this kind of thing for for kids But I don't I honestly just don't know of many materials that Now you froze again

Okay, so we'll wait till Seth comes here He's partially coming back. He's got the robotic voice thing.

Okay There you go My answer is read Narnia Okay, all that to say just read

Chronicles of Narnia you'll be good The definitely definitely helpful you got some nice little nuggets in CS Lewis Um, this is an area that I think is lacking greatly.

I wish I can write a book Covering that topic. I have started writing a book, but I've just been something being a parent is super hard It's really like it's finding the time to to sit down and type and then doing all the other stuff so I have a book that is

I Wrote a little bit of it and it's kind of cast to the side for now until my schedule opens up So I haven't forgotten about it

It's not a kid's book But I want to see if I can get some guests on in the future that will address that specific topic

How do we take these ideas and teach it to our children because listen William Lane Craig A world -renowned

Christian philosopher and an apologist, you know, whether you like him or not Regardless, no one could deny the fact that he is one of the most influential

Christian thinkers right now today. Okay He's got a children's book

Okay, I have one of them Well, it's little red bears and get a little geese and these little kids are talking about apologetics now in these books he teaches little kids about Cosmological arguments moral arguments, you know there's even one on the omniscience of God, of course, he gets his little

Nolan ism in there, but but the reality of Apologetics whether you're a classicalist or a priest up these things can be taught to children

Okay, bonds even spoke of the toothpaste proof for God's existence proving God's existence by appealing to toothpaste

You know and taking biblical concepts and the presuppositional principles within them and just teaching them to your kids

You know, there's a Bible verse in the book of Psalms, which says in his light we see light It's all talk to your kids about how

God Makes sense out of everything in the light of his word. We could understand the world around us

You know and you can use little examples that would kind of be Imprinted upon your child's mind so you can take biblical principles or presuppositional principles that you know

Maybe you haven't read a book that addresses this But if you have a little knowledge in presuppositional apologetic methodology and the biblical basis for it take those biblical

Those biblical principles and apply them to your children. What does it mean to that the That the fear of the

Lord is the beginning of knowledge talk to your kids about how? You know only when we submit in reverence to our

God the one who gives us wisdom and knowledge Do we have true understanding of the world around us? You know use those biblical principles, you know, my wife is good

I'm I believe it. I'm not I'm not really good with the little little kids It's really hard for me to find words because I tend to be more technical and analytical in my thinking but my wife's really good

At teaching my kids some biblical truths. It can be done But granted it is an area that we need to develop a little more

But hopefully we can do that in the future You know, I'd recommend if you want to pursue that topic out I think you've had

Doug on your podcast Doug Wilson, correct? Yeah. Yeah, okay Get Nate on here.

He would be able to give you all sorts of wisdom on that because he's he's a children's book author All right that that actually maybe

I can get him back on could talk a little bit about that Mr. C asked would you prefer an hour with Jesus personally or an hour in prayer to Jesus?

Okay, well, why don't you share your thoughts and then I'll share mine I Feel like that's kind of like asking whether I like breathing in or breathing out

Like well, do you want food or water I'd like both yes, this is good.

Yeah, I think prayer is I Mean perhaps he means with Jesus like physically

Because I think prayer is personal Unless in terms of I mean if I had to take my choice

I wouldn't I mean, I'd love to see Christ face to face, but I but the fact that I don't see him face -to -face Doesn't affect the fact that I I know with certainty that he hears my prayers and yeah

I relate to him in a personal way Although not in the same exact way that I will relate to him when

I see him face to face. So Those are my thoughts there. Gotcha. Okay, let's see here

Okay, if on guard and classical apologetics we're about to burn up in a house

Okay Anyway, okay if on guard and classical apologetics

We're about to burn up in a house fire and you only had time to grab one. How quickly would you grab?

I'd grab it with both hands And my feet You know from reform folks and presuppositional list they give dr.

Craig a bad rap. Hey, I have strong disagreements with dr Craig but I've learned so much from him So I would

I would grab vantils apologetic and I probably kick with my feet So at least I can try to get it out of the house, you know on guard and classical apologetics

Fair enough All right, I think that that was the last quite a little wow we ended on such a epic note there

That's the final question This has been a lot of fun. I'm Appreciative that you took the time to come on.

Yeah, thanks for having me on I I hope it was as good as good for you as it was for me

It was it was very entertaining, especially that last question. Yes, very good So hopefully

I could have you back on we could talk about some other interesting topic folks. Remember Human autonomy is a myth.

It really is. It really is. I like Santa Claus. That's right. That's right It is only upon the firm

Foundation. Oh, I'm being I'm being noted to a super chat. Oh Okay.

I see you Okay, urban reform podcast $5 super chat. Woohoo.

I haven't gotten a lot of super chats in a while I thought people were kind of abandoning abandoning me, but thanks a lot urban reform podcast

Here's a question here or yes There's a question since we know that autonomous reasoning is not possible in God's reality

Do you guys agree that unbelievers are engaging in rebellious reasoning? Yes, they are.

I think it's in Proverbs or it says that God God hates the unbeliever every day or something like that And yeah

His his wrath rests on him because every every act of reasoning is is in a sense an act of rebellion against God Yeah, he's angry with sinners every day.

I think that's the okay. Don't make God seem like such a meanie. He hates All right, thank you so much

I suppose that's Ricky so thank you so much Ricky That's a good question and rebellious reason

I think this is important because when we speak of neutrality We're really speaking of pretended neutrality. No one's really neutral.

Yeah, exactly of autonomy We're speaking of pretended autonomy And I think the job of the presuppositional list is to expose the fact that when they appeal whether Christian or non -christian

Appeals to autonomous reasoning. It's our job to point out that they are not actually autonomous

And here's why we give our line of reasoning as we give the critique. This is an this is awesome

This might be an idea worth pursuing the toothpaste argument for God for kids

Maybe maybe I mean that could happen. It could happen. It's not impossible That that's awesome.

Okay somewhat Kyperion Burian Says there is a book by Richard Pratt every thought captive that I think is for students

Yes, I have that book that is an excellent book for beginners Actually, by the way,

I should have I should have Suggested that one. I think that's even more Introductory than some of the ones rested.

So everything I've heard of it. I Haven't read it though. I have it somewhere here. Maybe give me two seconds

Let me see if I could find it because then I can kind of give a quick little shout -out to that book one second Okay, so Do I have that look you guys are awkwardly seeing me search

I've never done this before while we're going live Oh, I did find something really nice. I'm gonna show it to you in two seconds

Okay, I'll just we'll put this one up No for folks vomit

I have This book is a good one We destroy our arguments by Stephen Feinstein.

I actually like this one. It was really good. Okay, so I've never I've never heard of him Now now if you can get your hands on one, it's out of print, but if you could find one

The portable presupposition list. Oh The cool thing about this is the first half of the book gives you a history of presuppositional thought in Bantill and then the rest of the book are quotes from Bantill bonds and frame and a bunch of other presuppositional

Apologists And it has categories where it would say for example, let me see

Okay, so the Word of God, okay, so there'll be quotes By presupposition list as it relates to the

Word of God. Very cool or what do presuppositional to say with respect to? Knowledge and It'll have a bunch of quotes on What Bantill has said it was a really good

Reference tool if you were gonna write an article Or even a book you can use this because all the quotes are kind of categorized for easy use and then towards the back of the book are transcripts of Presuppositional list debates and so there's bonds in transcript here

There's the debate with Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens some transfer of their cross -examination sites and Brueghan Kate's in here

Cool it's really really great book. I don't know why it's out of print. I mean if you find it online It's probably super expensive, but I got it back when it was pretty cheap

And it used to be available on On Amazon as well like in a digital format

I might as well take the time to here's a book that I was given by a pastor Bill Shishko who knew

Greg Bonson. They were friends. He knew Bantill as well Give me this book presuppositional ism a biblical approach to apologetics.

That's by Paul Nelson mm -hmm so you might want to try to pick that one up Oh now look at this the end of that everyone's gonna be fast -forwarding to the end so they can get all these cool references here

Let's see if I can find another Mm -hmm No, that's

Josh McDowell. You guys don't want that. Okay. I love Josh McDowell, too This was a good one too,

I don't know if you've read this biblical apologetics Advancing and defending the gospel of Christ this he this guy takes a sort of presuppositional approach.

Okay, pretty thick one a lot of Quotations from classicalist and then he kind of gives some critique.

So this is really a big one on like Methodology and the differences between the views with a heavy emphasis of presuppositional approach

Let's see here This is fun,

I should do like a whole tour of my little library here People might find it actually very helpful

There is a good defense of presuppositional Argumentation here and a new systematic theology of the

Christian faith by dr. Robert Raymond this systematic theology and actually follows the format of the

Westminster Confession of Faith in its laying out of the table of contents This was actually

Highly recommended by dr. James White not personally, but I've heard him mention it on his show and there is some exegetical notes of the

Greek with important words as it relates to certain doctrines, so excellent resource a new systematic theology of the

Christian faith by Robert Raymond Okay, let's see. Let's see.

Am I going to find? Am I going oh, here we go for Bonson fans this is the standard bearer a

Festschrift to Greg for Greg Bonson and it has multiple chapters written on various topics that were of interest to dr

Bonson and there is a excellent article by Michael Butler who was dr. Bonson's I guess teaching assistant

Yeah, he wrote in a very lengthy article on the transcendental argument, which I think is excellent

So this is I would highly recommend this as well Let's see here, how are you doing

Seth you mind if I quickly go through these I think you know, it's fine Let's see here.

Oh, oh, oh my pride and joy my pride and joy. This is my defense of the faith signed by Cornelius van

Til Whoa, how did you get a hold of that? Wouldn't you like to know?

I have to pretend so I'm not accused of idolatry. I have to pretend it to like like it's not a big deal Yeah, you know, but in reality when

I turn the camera off, I'm like I'm just kidding. So I said before I had a friend pastor

Bill Shishko. He knew dr Bonson and he knew van Til and when he visited van

Til at Westminster, they walked along the campus and van Til took him into His his room

I guess he had like a back room with a bunch of books and he gave him a copy of defense of the faith now the beautiful thing of this one is not only is it signed by van

Til but Pastor Shishko my friend actually has all of his his highlights

And his markings, so it's not those markings It's Bill Shishko his markings, but he's a pretty sharp guy and that makes the job easier

So I don't have to like Marty. He's already marked up all the important parts. So So there's an old version of the defense of the faith

All right This one is super easy If you just want to pick something up and kind of read very casually how to defend the faith by Riley For us

I think and it's a very easy read I mean look at this and it's kind of like laid out as like a pamphlet

So if someone like doesn't have time to read all the technical stuff This actually goes into how do you argue with an atheist or a

Buddhist or you know different people from different perspectives? So it's literally called how to defend the faith a presuppositional approach by Riley for us.

All right, very cool all right, okay, so there's more but I think

I will leave it at That I can't find the

The Richard Pratt one Okay, that's it. I hope I hope people found that helpful.

I kind of had the geek out there for a second I got some good recommendations. Oh, yeah, go for it.

Yeah, people. Oh, no, I meant I meant I was getting them from you. Oh Okay, all right, all right, very good

Let's see here and I think that is It Okay, that's it.

Okay, dude, thank you so much for coming on I greatly appreciate it and I'm I'm glad to have gotten to know you a little bit better.

I think we had some Some chatted a bit before yeah, I tried it a little bit.

Oh, there's another super chat two dollars and twenty nine cents Thank you. We take we take every penny.

You're welcome Thank you very much Jim send them

I don't know no, it's it's two pounds and 29. Oh I don't know how to read that.

How much is that like real money? We're just we're just stupid Americans Like gibberish to me

I would I just you know, I just anything that glows green or red like I know it's a super chat

So I just plop it in there. Maybe there's someone's gonna comment. Does anybody know anybody know anybody know how much did

I have? No, I think I think quid is is like a slang term Like it's technically you should say like two pounds or you can say two quid.

You know, like how we say two dollars versus two bucks Okay. Yeah, twenty twenty nine pence.

I think I don't know. Yeah. Well, thank you so much Kenneth I really do appreciate it Again, I have some old students in the live chat.

I want to give a shout out to Jeremy cordero Thank you for he's probably going crazy right now.

He's like My former students think I when

I told him I had a YouTube channel, they thought I was famous. I'm like, no, I'm not But if you want me to shout you out, there you go.

Let me get a little shout out to Jeremy Thank you so much, man Here is another question. So before closing out there's some questions still coming in Let's take one more and then we'll wrap things up.

Okay. All right, so Question, is it correct that humans start to have illusion of autonomous reasoning after eating from the tree?

I thought it was a joke question, but I think it's a real question. Okay, you never know on the live chats

There are all sorts of craziness that comes. Yeah, okay Is it correct that humans start to have illusion of autonomous reasoning after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil?

How does it directly or indirectly relate? I would say that it happened beforehand actually and I think

Vantil talks about this at the beginning of the defense of the faith where Eve's reasoning actually paid became autonomous

Beforehand because what she should have done is is rested in you know made God's Word her starting point

You know the command to not eat of the tree What she did instead is she put set herself up as the judge between God's Word and Satan's Word She's the judge she gets to decide, you know,

I'm going to test the evidence I'm going to look into this, you know it So she in effect denied the creator creature distinction

She put herself on God's level and God on her level. So she got to decide beforehand, which one was was correct.

So I'm not sure that you could say that the fall was like a You know a mathematically exact point in time

You know, did it happen when her teeth actually went into the apple

But her reasoning became autonomous beforehand sure sure so so you have as Bonson laid it out

You have if I if I were Eve here is here is her autonomy, right? You have

God's hypothesis. If you eat you will die The serpents hypothesis if you eat you will be like God and so Eve says she should have relied on God Eve says

God has hypothesis the serpent has a hypothesis, but I will see for myself

Exactly, and she becomes the judge. She becomes the judge and that is the example of autonomy

That is what sneaks into all non -christian thought categories that do not take

God as the ultimate Context out of which all things make sense Basically what we mean what

Seth said at the beginning Autonomy is when we do not have God as our metaphysical ultimate context, right?

He's not that foundation where he talked about proximate starting points and ultimate starting points and things like that Okay. All right.

Someone's saying it's two dollars and seventy two cents if it's euro according to Google Someone googled it.

Oh, you're right I think that was the symbol for euro not the symbol for British pound. We're just uncultured

American swine I don't know any of it, you know, there's someone from Japan. They give us like yen I'm like, I don't even know if whatever, you know, but I do appreciate it

Thank you so much guys a one last thing if you and I've said it before if you have not subscribed, please subscribe to reveals apologetics on YouTube check out the

The podcast as well leave a positive review. I'd be greatly appreciate that and share the content

Totally if you find this information useful and helpful and beneficial Share it on your

Facebook page or whatever I do want to grow this channel more and more as it is my great desire to promote what

I see as a biblical approach to the defense of the faith and The more the content gets out there. Hopefully people will appreciate it and their

Mischaracterizations will be corrected in some regards. And of course, I also welcome criticism as well

I'm trying to always refine my my own thinking in these issues. And so I greatly appreciate positive and negative feedback so With that all said

Seth, would you like to say anything before we we sign out? No, I'm good to go.

I've said all you need to say I think Okay, I do the end of the epic forest gump and that's all

I got to say about All right, well, thank you so much guys for listening and and plowing through a one hour and 56 minute episode if you are a

Listener to the podcast I will be converting this to audio within the next day or two