Fine without the Bible!

All right, well, hello everyone. My name is Eli Ayala and welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics.

Today, I'm going to be diving into an interesting topic that often comes up in discussions about the necessity of the biblical worldview.

And again, when we talk about presuppositional apologetics, for example, we often make the claim that the Bible or the biblical worldview provides the necessary preconditions for knowledge, intelligibility, science.

In other words, basically we often make the claim as presuppositionalist that the biblical worldview is really the only worldview that can make sense out of anything in human experience.

And so that's kind of wrapped up in how we kind of argue for the truth of the Christian worldview. Again, obviously, there's more details in that, right?

For example, one common objection that often comes up is, you know, is baked into the observation that many people who do not have access to the

Bible seem to get along just fine, right? They live their lives, they make decisions, they navigate the world without ever reading a single verse.

And then how, from that, how can we then claim that the biblical worldview is essential for making sense out of anything like, you know, things like logic, knowledge, truth, and so forth.

And so people seem to be just fine without the Bible, then what are we talking about when we talk about the

Bible's necessity and things like this? So that's kind of what we're talking about today. But before we jump in,

I want to give folks a heads up. I just want to throw it out there, and I often throw this out there at the beginning of my shows.

If you have a question or a topic you'd like me to address, please email me at revealedapologetics at gmail .com.

Okay, I do read my emails. So if you have a topic you'd like me to cover as a video, you know, you could send your questions, your topic suggestions through the email there, okay?

If you want to support Revealed Apologetics, that'd be greatly appreciated. You can go to revealedapologetics .com and find the donate button there, and you can donate if that's something you feel led to do.

The link to that donate page is, actually, I think in the description of this video.

And a really big way to support Revealed Apologetics is signing up for one of my courses. I have two courses available.

One is a five series, a lecture series on Introduction to Biblical Apologetics, which is kind of like a beginning slash intermediate introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics, and my newest course is

Presupp Applied. And so the links to those are also in the description of this video as well.

So multiple ways to support what I'm doing, of course, just showing up and watching and sharing and subscribing, all those sorts of things are super helpful as well.

All right. Now, you might be noticing, like, well, Eli, you usually come on in the evenings, but just recently,

I've just been popping on just as I catch the time. So I've been doing a couple of morning live streams. And so hopefully, you know, that's—that doesn't throw people off if they're expecting to watch something a little bit later on.

So I anticipate that many people are probably working now, okay?

So I have no idea how many people will hop on to watch these morning live streams, but please, get back to these videos if you miss them in the middle of the day and watch them in the evening or listen to them in the evening.

Now, I promise—I absolutely promise— to update my podcast. I keep saying that.

I've been getting messages, hey, do you do the podcast anymore? I do. It's just that it takes time.

I have to upload, write the description, the links, and I do all this stuff by myself. And so I just haven't had the time to do that.

So I promise— my goal is by the end of the week is to podcast dump. So I'm going to update, download all of the recent ones, and just throw them on there so they're all available so you can kind of go back and listen to it.

I've been spoiled because for a while, I've had YouTube premium, which allows you to listen to YouTube videos while your phone is off.

And so I, you know, not everyone has that. So sometimes, you know, it's difficult to listen on YouTube because you got—you can't turn your phone off.

You don't want to waste your battery. You got commercials coming in, things like that. So I got to remember there is a podcast audience as well.

And so I'm going to try my best to update that, okay? Now, before I jump into the specific topic

I'd like to address today, if you have any questions— so if we do happen to get some people listening in in the middle of the day, and there's a question you'd like me to address,

I will try my best to address them. And if you happen to stump me this morning, I have no problem just looking at your question, popping it up on the screen, and saying, hmm, good question.

I have no idea. So I will try my best if you should have questions. And remember to preface your question with a question that helps me out a lot, okay?

So let's jump right into the topic for today. The title of the video is

Fine Without the Bible. I am fine without the Bible, okay? As I mentioned before, people live their lives.

They make decisions. They navigate the world without ever reading a single passage in Scripture. How then can we claim that the biblical worldview is essential for making sense of anything, okay?

That language we tend to use that the Christian worldview provides the necessary, okay, precondition for intelligibility.

What does that mean? This is all kind of fancy philosophical theological talk. Let's see here.

When we talk about something being the preconditions for something else, right? Pre - before conditions.

What must be the case in order for anything else to make sense? What must be the case in order for something else over here to make sense?

That's all we're saying. And what we're saying is that the Christian worldview being true is the necessary precondition.

It's what must be the case in order for things like science, logic, knowledge, and truth, and so forth to even make sense.

That's basically what we're arguing for, okay? And so the the assertion is often brought up.

Well, I don't, you know, I've never read the Bible, but I get along just fine, okay? And so how do we, as Christians, as presuppositionals, how do we understand, how do we understand that?

That's true. It seems like unbelievers seem to get along just fine without having to, you know, go to church and hear the

Bible and so forth. And so how do we make sense out of this? Now, in asking that question,

I think it's important, okay, that we make a distinction between what is called chronological, chronological discovery and logical primacy, okay?

Chronological discovery and logical primacy, okay? Now, don't get thrown off by these terms. I'm going to explain what these terms are, and hopefully they will be understood, and you can kind of see the application

I'm trying to make here, okay? Now, chronological discovery refers to the order, okay?

Chronology, okay? Chronological discovery refers to the order in which we come to believe or know certain things, okay?

So, for example, before we ever encounter the Bible, okay, we trust our senses, for example, okay?

I trust my senses before I actually held a Bible in my hand, I suppose, okay?

I guess I don't count because I grew up in church, but you get what I'm saying, right? We rely on things like our eyesight to read or our hearing to listen to, you know, explanations and things like this, and our sense of touch, we trust our sense of touch to navigate the world around us.

And so this trust in our sensory organs comes early in our cognitive development, long before we pick up the scriptures, okay?

And so there is a chronological aspect to that. We trust our senses, we trust, you know, these sorts of things before I pick up the

Bible. Now, we want to make a distinction between chronological discovery and logical primacy.

And so, on the other hand, when I speak of logical primacy, logical primacy deals with the foundational basis upon which other beliefs are justified, okay?

It deals with the foundational basis upon which other beliefs are justified. So the presuppositional apologetic approach, you know, as reflected by someone like Greg Bonson or, you know,

Jason Lyle or myself or whoever you might listen to, okay, we would point out that the truth of the

Bible, okay, is logically more foundational than any other truth, including the reliability of our senses, okay?

So I would say that the truth of the Bible is logically more foundational than any other truth, including the reliability of our senses.

So let me kind of illustrate this with, you know, an example, okay? And so, you know, take for example, we believe our sensory organs are basically reliable, right?

But notice that this belief is chronologically prior, okay?

It comes first in our experience. We trust our senses before we learn anything from the Bible. However, from a logical standpoint, our confidence as Christians, our confidence in the reliability of our senses, is justified by the biblical worldview.

It's the biblical worldview that provides a justification for why we trust our senses, given the fact that we're made in the

Imago Dei, God created our senses for a specific purpose, and all these sorts of things. So the presuppositions of the

Christian, okay, as rooted and grounded in God's revelation, provide that context out of which something like the reliability of our senses makes sense, okay?

The Bible teaches that God created us and designed our senses to be reliable.

And so therefore, our belief in the reliability of our senses is grounded in the truth of Scripture. And so though we discover, it's true that we discover the reliability of our senses first chronologically, the truth of the

Bible is logically primary, because it provides that necessary foundation for trusting our senses.

Throw out the God of the Bible, why ought we trust our senses? And how do you answer that question without fallaciously assuming the reliability of your senses?

And of course, when you assume the reliability of your senses, while answering the question as to how we know the senses are reliable, is fallaciously circular, okay?

So a couple of these things kind of come to become issues when we explore these specific topics, okay?

Now, why is this important? I think this is very important. Understanding the distinction between chronological discovery and logical primacy is crucial for addressing, from a presuppositional perspective, addressing objections to the necessity of the biblical worldview, okay?

So critics might argue that since people can live and function without the Bible, the

Bible is therefore not necessary for things like knowledge or logic or whatever, okay?

But the problem is that that objection fails to grasp the concept of what we just kind of explored here, this issue of logical primacy.

As a Christian, as a presuppositionalist, the argument is not that you can't use logic, you can't trust your senses, all these sorts of things, unless you read the

Bible and believe the Bible. That's not what we're saying, okay? I understand that people use their senses, they presuppose the reliability of their senses, all these sorts of things, and they get along in a general sense, fine, right?

You don't have to pick up the Bible. The question is, what grounds those things? What I'm arguing is that unless the biblical worldview is true, when pressed, you do not have a foundation for those things that you take for granted, like the reliability of sense experience, okay?

Now, again, the idea that you have no ground for these things is rooted in your rejection of a creator who created these things for those specific purposes.

When you take, for example, an unbiblical worldview in terms of which, you know, man is, for example, the byproduct of a, you know, purposeless chance process of evolutionary development, then yeah, these questions have been raised not just by Christians, but non -Christians ask the question, well, why ought we trust the reliability of our senses given the truth of, you know, evolution and these sorts of things?

So this is not kind of a weird thing that me as a Christian, you know, I just happen to be bringing up by way of criticism, okay?

Now, I want you to keep this in mind, okay? So even if someone, okay, has not read the

Bible, okay, the reliability of their senses, their use of logic, and their pursuit of truth are all undergirded by the biblical worldview, regardless if they've read the

Bible or not. That's basically what I'm saying. And so without the God of the Bible, we have no basis for trusting our senses, no foundation for the laws of logic, and no ultimate standard for truth.

Now, I want to make another important distinction. There's a difference between me saying those things and actually demonstrating those throughout the course of an apologetic interaction, okay?

That is very important. So when we say the unbeliever does not have a foundation for universal conceptual laws of logic, the argument isn't simply saying they have no foundation.

It's having to demonstrate that they have no foundation, okay? So we, A, show that the

Christian worldview can provide those foundations, and then B, challenge the unbeliever to posit and put forth their own worldview so as to withstand the criticisms that they in fact lack those foundations for things like the laws of logic and so forth, which are preconditions.

They must be true. That must be the case in order to make sense out of anything, okay? So let's kind of, you know, let's use some examples here, okay, to illustrate the point that I'm trying to get at, all right?

Imagine a person who's never read the Bible, but uses the laws of logic in their daily life. This is obviously the case, right?

This is what we see, you know, whether in making, you know, decisions, solving problems, engaging in debates and things like that, okay?

They might think, quote, I don't need the Bible to use logic, okay?

However, the very existence of the laws of logic require a foundation that is both universal and unchanging.

Deny the universality and unchanging nature of logic, and there are problems as we've expressed in other videos, okay?

Now, according to the biblical worldview, these laws reflect the consistent and rational nature of God. And so we argue that without such a foundation, the laws of logic would be arbitrary and could not be universally binding, okay?

So this is super, super important to keep in mind. Same thing with morality, okay? Consider someone who strongly believes in and, you know, practices ethical behavior, right?

Being honest, treating others fairly and so forth, okay? Without any reference to the

Bible, okay? Now, while they may argue that they don't need the Bible to know what's right and wrong, the concept of objective moral values, we would argue, is grounded in the character of God as revealed in Scripture.

And so the biblical worldview provides the basis for why certain actions are inherently right or wrong, rather than being based on subjective, you know, issues of subjectivity or societal opinions and so forth, okay?

So these are important. We're not saying that unbelievers can't do these things.

They can't use—of course they can, okay? As a matter of fact, just at a surface level, there are many unbelievers who utilize the laws of logic in a much more skillful and, you know, useful way than many

Christians, okay? That's not the point. The point is, what are the grounds for these things? Can a person's worldview account for the things that they take for granted?

That's the issue. You know, same thing for science as well, right? Think of the scientist who conducts research and makes discoveries about the natural world without ever using the

Bible, right? They trust the consistency, they trust the orderliness of the universe to make sense of their observations and experiments, but we would argue the biblical worldview asserts that this order and consistency are a reflection of God's orderly nature as the

Creator. And without this foundation, the assumption of a reliable, orderly universe would have no basis, undermining the very possibility of scientific inquiry.

Again, this is not an observation that I'm simply making. I mean, we have David Hume who pointed out what we call the problem of induction and how when we project the consistency of future instances based upon the regularities we observe in the past, you cannot tell us what the future will be like simply by appealing to past experience because that presupposes the very thing under dispute, okay?

We presuppose the uniformity of nature without justifying why nature is uniform. Which worldview makes sense out of a uniformity of nature?

One that is sound and fury signifying nothing, to quote Shakespeare, or one in which there is a Creator God who creates an orderly universe such that we can make predictions and engage in scientific inquiry and these sorts of things, right?

These are the sorts of things we would talk about, okay, in discussions on these topics, okay?

So the biblical worldview, as revealed in scripture, okay, we would assert is the necessary precondition for intelligibility.

And so this means that for anything to make sense, the truth revealed in the Bible must be true.

The truths, the Bible talks about many things that are the case given the creation of God and so forth, okay?

This includes the existence of a rational, orderly universe, the reliability of our cognitive faculties, the existence of absolute moral values, these sorts of things, okay?

Now again, I want to reemphasize, it's very important, there is a difference between asserting these things and actually demonstrating them.

For example, when I say that the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for, say, the objectivity of moral values, there are other moral theories out there that purport to offer a foundation for the objectivity of moral values and duties.

And so you're going to have to interact with those, right? That's going to require you to hear someone out and have meaningful discussion and say, hey, that's a good point, let me go back and think about that, right?

I'm not just giving you kind of a shorthanded way of just a pat response to someone, you do have to get your hands dirty, so to speak, you know, to kind of hear what the other person is saying, but that would be our argument, okay?

And then we listen and we interact and we critique and so forth, okay? And so, yeah, so these points kind of, and you read this in the writings of Bonson and others, right?

Bonson, for example, often emphasized that unbelievers, while rejecting the biblical worldview, nonetheless rely on these preconditions for intelligibility in their daily lives, okay?

And this reliance, whether they acknowledge it or not, demonstrate the truth of the biblical worldview. It's one of the ways that we appeal to the fact that the unbelievers made in the image of God, for what they profess with their mouth, their disbelief, then their heart of hearts, they know the

God of which we speak. And the evidence that they know the God of which we speak is that they live in ways that are complete contradictions to what they assert with their mouth.

And to kind of put it in a very blunt way, we assert unbelief in God, yet we live as though God exists, okay?

So, yeah, so that's kind of an important way to understand this distinction between logical primacy and chronological discovery, okay?

It's true that we assume, we learn that our senses can be reliably trusted upon, we know that chronologically prior to picking up the

Bible. But the Bible is logically more fundamental as it provides a worldview context to justify the fact that we can trust the general reliability of our senses, and the sorts of things, uniformity, all that sort of things that I've discussed already, okay?

All right, whew! All right, that's a lot, okay? I hope that makes sense.

So when people say, I'm fine without the Bible, they don't really understand what we're saying.

We're not saying that unless you read the Bible, you can't do these things, you can't use logic, you can't do science.

What we're saying is that the things that you do, and oftentimes you do them well, require a biblical worldview to make sense out of them, okay?

All right, so let's see here, let me, I have a bunch of questions,

I have questions over here on my screen here, and then there's some questions in the comments here. So let me see, my first, the first question here, let me see here, dude, let's see.

SaintsRising says, just curious, what are your thoughts on Joel 3 .6? Ever since it sunk in, I often think about it.

Well, Joel 3 .6 says, you have sold the people of Judah and Jerusalem to the Greeks in order to remove them from their own border.

To be perfectly honest, I can't answer that question because I'd have to read the context and look a little bit into it.

I don't even know the context of the question itself, so it's hard for me to make application there. So I do apologize,

I can't answer that question, there you go. Okay, all right, sorry about that, my bad, all right, let's see here.

Yeah, so, follower of Jesus that unironically likes sardines, okay, very good, so asking this just to try to play the other side for the sake of seeing how you would answer, why wouldn't evolution be a sufficient ground for justifying those things?

Okay, so let's take a look for, when we say those things, I suppose you are assuming the things required for, for example, the preconditions for intelligibility.

Let's take, for example, something like knowledge, okay, the interesting thing about evolution, when you presuppose a worldview that is sound and fury signifying nothing, it's blind chance, purposeless universe, evolution is geared towards what?

Is evolution geared toward truth, or is evolution geared toward survival?

That's right, so evolution is geared toward survival, not necessarily truth, and this is why even Charles Darwin and others would say, why should we trust the conclusions of our mind, right?

The things we think are determined by their evolutionary advantages, okay, and truth is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage.

You can, there are ideas that you could believe in that will help survival, but are not necessarily true, and so that's one thing.

Evolution is not geared towards truth, it's geared towards survival, but in a Christian worldview, our minds and our cognitive faculties are created in such a way as to equip us to ascertain certain truths about the created order, and it's part of being created in the image of God, so that's how

I would answer that, okay? Now, I do understand that there are people who are theistic evolutionists, so they would say, hey, well, evolution, yeah, it's geared towards survival in one sense, but we're also creating the image of God, and so we can account for this, that, and the other thing, and so to the theistic evolutionist who affirms, say, the

Bible, my dispute would not be the response I just offered there, my dispute would be over understanding the biblical text correctly, because I am not at all convinced that a strong biblical argument following the proper rules of hermeneutics and exegesis, when you confront the scriptures, you don't get theistic evolution, and I know there are some people who would disagree with me there, but if I were disputing that with a theistic evolution,

I would argue the text of scripture, since the text is supposed to be the authoritative text for which we are to settle these issues, okay?

Hope that makes sense, yeah. Dude says, you can drive a car without knowing how it works, yeah, that's true, right?

And there are people who know how cars work, and know that cars were created, and who created them, that don't drive as well as people who don't know where cars came from, but they just really know how to drive cars well, so yeah, that's true.

That's not my claim here, that unbelievers can't use logic, or they're not good at using logic, or doing science, that's not the claim at all.

Although that's repeatedly what I'm accused of when I make these sorts of statements, right? I would just imagine,

I bet anything, my next live stream, I'll see if I can find it in the comments of this video, I bet you anything, someone's gonna be like, are you trying to tell me, man, that because I don't believe in the

Bible, I can't do science? Or because I don't believe in the Bible, I can't do good things?

People will still say these things, even after explaining it, but that's just the nature of the beast. Alright, let's see here, so,

Emanuel Simon says, to my understanding, some Christians disagree about the canon, you misspelled canon, canon is

C -A -N -O -N, it's a different canon. Like Catholics and Protestants, given that to be the case, does a biblical world you include only 66 books, or at least 66 books?

Yeah, so I believe in the 66 books canon, I believe that the church recognized that which was the

Anastas, I would disagree with the canon of scripture that the

Catholics hold to. I suppose someone could acknowledge a book erroneously, but still quote -unquote be a

Christian, I think that's not impossible, I suppose. But, I would even take issue,

I mean, it's not the topic of this live stream, I would even take issue with Roman Catholicism, as it is seen today,

I think that they do not have a gospel that saves, okay, I don't mean to be disrespectful towards people who are

Catholic. I think that a Catholic doctrine of salvation really kind of bumps up against the biblical doctrine, which

I am convinced that the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace through faith alone. I hold to the doctrine of justification by faith alone,

I think it's an essential doctrine, and I think Rome adds to the gospel. And so, I'd be very careful in identifying, at least, identifying that as quote -unquote

Christian, I think it's also a non -Christian conception of the gospel. Now, with respect to the books of the

Bible, I suppose, I think there's good reason to believe the 66 books are the ones that we are to hold to.

I suppose, though, that someone could acknowledge some other book, and while I disagree and think that they would lack a justification for including that extra book, whatever that book might be, that it is possible for someone to still quote -unquote be a

Christian. But a biblical worldview would entail all of the essentials of the faith, and I think the scriptures provide us a foundation for identifying essentials.

I'll give you an example, and I think people ask this all the time, I would say that the scriptures make a distinction between essential doctrine and non -essential doctrine.

And the way in which we discover essential doctrine is it is either explicitly stated in the text, for example,

Jesus says that unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins. And so, unless you believe that I am, right, there's a condition, you will die in your sins, and so that is an essential doctrine.

So, you need to believe that Jesus is the I am, of course, quoting from Exodus 3 .14,

in which God gives his name to Moses. So the deity of Christ is an essential doctrine. In the book of Galatians, the apostle

Paul says that if you believe you're justified by works, you are cut off from Christ. And so, it is essential to Christian faith that you do not believe that you're justified by your works.

So that's an essential doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity, I would say, is essential because it impinges upon other doctrines that are essential as well.

The Bible says that unless you have the Son, you don't have the Father. And so, receiving the

Son, if you don't receive the Son, you haven't received the Father, these sorts of things. So understanding

God as he's revealed himself as triune, I think, is essential. But with respect to certain biblical books, yeah,

I think I would have a little bit more leeway there. But I'd have to have a specific example, counter example, to be more stringent on that.

I hope that makes sense. There we go here. Yeah, so follower of Jesus that unironically likes sardines follows up on his question in evolution.

But if hypothetically evolution is true, then can someone just bite the bullet and say, yes, it's all chance, but if evolution is true, then it's true.

Yeah, so I don't think you understood my previous answer. If evolution is true, there's no reason to believe evolution is true.

Okay, I'm going to say that again. If evolution were true, there's no reason to believe evolution is true, because there's no reason to believe the thinking and rationalizing processes of the human brain.

Okay, and so if you don't have a reason to believe it's true, then you don't have a reason to believe anything that's true for that matter.

Then such a worldview undermines what? The necessary preconditions for intelligibility, knowledge. Okay, or if you come from a materialistic evolutionary perspective, in terms of which all reality is matter in motion, then guess what else goes out the window?

The laws of logic, which are universal conceptual laws of thought, which wouldn't exist if all reality is matter in motion.

So if someone wanted to hypothetically say, well, no, I still hold to this position. Well, we could just point out that that position would be arbitrary and unable to offer anything by way of critique of anything that would disagree with it.

In which case, such a person would not be able to engage in the debate game, so to speak. When they disagree and make assertions, we can just assert, well, evolution has caused you to say what you're saying.

The external factors are impinging upon your rational process, your brain, and making you say what you're saying.

And of course, as a Christian, evolution is making me say Christian stuff. And so there's no way to kind of move on from there.

If that's a person's worldview, I think it's going to be problematic. That mindset, by the way, also undermines the scientific endeavor.

So anything that they assert in terms of interpreting the scientific data to draw the conclusion evolution, that doesn't help if the worldview in which you're doing that undermines knowledge claims altogether.

Because once again, as I said before, evolution is geared towards survival, not necessarily truth, okay?

So they can bite the bullet, but from a Christian apologetics perspective, I welcome them to bite the bullet to show that their own position would— you could actually perform a reductio ad absurdum.

You could reduce that position to absurdity, okay? Thank you for that question. I appreciate it. All right, so let's see here.

All right, so if there are any more questions, please send them in and preface your question with question. If not, I have some more questions that I can go through here that often come up in light of the stuff that I've just mentioned.

Uh, oh, there was a quick question. So, all right, so Emilio Beltran says, what do you think when people say

God told me or God gave me a word today? Yeah, when someone says that, my antennas go up right away, okay?

Again, if someone says God told me, right, we have to do what the Bible tells us to do, and that is to test all things by Scripture, okay?

Now, I know I'm not going to get sucked into the debate between continuationists and cessationists. My personal position is that of a cautionary, a cautionary cessationist.

I'm inclined to hold to the view that these sorts of things have ceased, you know, the spiritual, charismatic gifts and these sorts of things.

But I am open to something that looks like it is consistent with what the Bible teaches and things like that.

But I always want to know what the person says God told them. And so, you know, we want to test these things.

But yeah, my antennas go up right away because oftentimes when people say God told me or God gave me a word today, what comes out of their mouth is often inconsistent with the word of God.

So those are the things that, that's what I do. When someone says that, I'm like, okay. And then

I will ask questions, right? I will analyze and offer, you know, well, wait a minute, but where did you get this from?

And where'd you get this from Scripture? These sorts of things. We want to test all things against the word of God. I think that's important.

That's kind of the first thing that comes to mind. I don't automatically say it's impossible for God to tell you something, right?

We can't say, God, you can't say anything to people today, right?

It is possible, I suppose. But then again, this person is going to be held to greater responsibility, okay?

Because they're claiming to speak the words of God. So I'm going to pay close attention and I'm going to offer my comments, okay, depending on what's going down there.

Alquin Project, thank you so much for your $5 Super Chat. Always appreciate Super Chats. Thank you so much. The question here is, is theistic evolution a form of syncretism since it attempts to blend biblical and secular worldviews?

Yes. I want to be careful. A savvy theistic evolutionist will say, well, could say that if the

Bible teaches evolution, then it's not syncretistic. It's something that is consistent with the text or perhaps taught in the text, depending on the person's perspective.

The person could also hold to, I think, an inappropriate view of the relationship between science and the scriptures.

And so that they allow scientific discovery to kind of govern their interpretation of the scriptures. It really depends on who you're talking to.

There are people who are much more careful with the biblical text and how they kind of meld that with scientific findings and things like that.

So it's all going to depend. But from my perspective, since I do not believe that the Bible in any way, shape or form teaches evolution,

I would see that I would argue that it is a form of syncretism, that it is an attempt to make the

Bible consistent with something that really isn't in the scriptures. Okay. So, yeah,

I would say that that would be problematic. And I think this is often done, especially with respect to topics relating to the relationship between science and the

Bible. The temptation is to make the Bible fit what seems to be kind of the consensus on some scientific issue.

And I think we need to be very, very careful of that. It is true that discoveries in science may cause us to take a second look as to whether we're interpreting the biblical text correctly.

I think that's fair. Right. But I think people are too quick to reinterpret the biblical text so as to fit some scientific finding.

And remember, science, I keep saying this, science doesn't tell us anything, right? Scientists do, specific scientists.

And so we need to be sensitive to the fact that these issues really are worldview dependent. What is your foundation?

Is your foundation the word of God? Are you confronting the word of God with proper exegesis and hermeneutical principles?

Or are we molding and shaping the word of God to fit, you know, various theories and things like that?

As Dr. Greg Bonson said, we want to be very careful in sticking too close with science as an authority that molds the

Bible. We want to be very careful of molding the scripture to match what certain scientific theories are putting forth.

Because if you're in a dance with science, you have to remember, and this is evidenced through the history of science, science is a fickle dance partner.

Science is a fickle dance partner. What is, quote unquote, the scientific consensus can, in principle, given the nature of science itself, can be overturned later.

And so what happens when we say, look, this is what the science says. Look, I'm going to make it fit the

Bible. And then all of a sudden, the thing that what science said, what was the consensus, what everyone agreed on, is overturned with more investigation, more hypothesizing, all these sorts of new discoveries.

Then we have to mold the Bible again to fit the newest theory. So no, I think the

Bible is the unchanging word of God. Yes, we want to understand it correctly. We want to see the world and the scripture in a way that is consistent.

But we need to understand the role that the Bible plays as our ultimate authority and the very foundation upon which science itself gets off the ground.

So yes, so all in all, to answer your question, I do think it's a form of syncretism, although obviously theistic evolutionists might disagree.

And hence the debates pursue, right? This is the nature of disagreement, right? Great question.

Let's see here. Yes, okay.

So Joshua Cadavo says, can you explain blasphemy of the Holy Spirit? Well, let me get the text up here, actually.

Yes, let's see here. Blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit passage. We'll get the passage up there. So it's

Matthew chapter 12, verses 22 through 32. I'm going to read it here. And this is important because blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit is to be understood within the context in which the concept is found. So Matthew 12, verses 22 to 30 through 32 tells us what blasphemy of the

Holy Spirit is. So I'm going to read it for us here. As a matter of fact, let me get it up on the screen here. I'll put my share screen here.

Boom. And there we go. So I don't know if you could read that, but here's what the text says.

Matthew 12, 22 through 32. Then a demon oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him and he healed him.

This is Jesus healing this particular person. Let me see. I got a notification pop up here.

No, I lost it. So let me see here. Something happened to my page. Okay, there we go.

So I'm going to share the page again. Sorry about that. Thank you for bearing with me. Okay, so boom.

All right. There we go. So we got it up on the screen there. Okay. Then a demon oppressed man who was blind and mute was brought to him and he healed him so that the man spoke and saw.

And all the people were amazed and said, can this be the son of David? But when the

Pharisees heard it, they said, it is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this man cast out demons. Knowing their hearts, he said to them,

Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand.

And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand?

And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore, they will be your judges.

But if it is by the spirit of God that I cast out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man?

Then indeed, he may plunder his house. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.

Therefore, I tell you, here's the relevant passage here. Every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven, people, but the blasphemy against the spirit will not be forgiven.

And whoever speaks a word against the son of man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or the age to come.

Okay, so there you go, that's the passage. So the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit appears to be attributing to the work of the spirit the work of Beelzebub.

That's what it is. So Jesus is casting out demons by the power of the spirit, and his opponent says, nope, that's the power of Satan.

And then, of course, that's the context in which Jesus says, you know, well, you know, if you blaspheme the Holy Spirit, there's no forgiveness, okay?

So the context there seems to be the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is attributing to Satan the work of the spirit, okay?

That's what it seems to be in that particular context. Hope that answers your question. All right, here we go.

So follower of Jesus that unironically likes sardines. I think I struggle with precepts mostly because I think I suck at doing it, and I'm more comfortable with doing evidential apologetics and said arguments have convinced me more in my faith.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Whether you suck at doing something or not really is an issue of practice.

You know, someone could, quote unquote, suck at doing evidential apologetics because, you know, they misremember certain facts and the way certain arguments go.

It's with anything. It's kind of, you know, exercising and strengthening your muscles. The more you put into practice certain principles, the better you are at doing it.

And one of the best ways to practice is to just do it, okay? Do it with yourself, you know, role play, these sorts of things.

So yeah, I would continue. I would say that precept is the biblical position.

That's my position. And then once we get the biblical position down, you know, practice it.

Practice applying biblical truth to the realm of unbelief. That's basically what we're doing.

That's one of my favorite definitions of apologetics. I don't remember who said it. First time I heard it was I think it was

Dr. Scott Oliphant. He said that apologetics is the application of Christian theology to unbelief.

And so so yeah. All right. Well, thank you for that. Yeah. So, Dimitri, thoughts on Buddhism.

Yeah, Buddhism is one of the great world religions. I am obviously not a

Buddhist. I have spoken to two Buddhist ones. I was at a Starbucks preparing for a sermon some years ago and overheard a conversation between two

Buddhists. And without getting into the details, I was able to join their conversation. And they asked me about my my views as a

Christian. And eventually one of the Buddhists said, you know what your problem is, Eli? You would be a better Christian if you were also a

Buddhist. And of course, that perked my interest, right? I was like, OK, you know, how is that even possible? Of course, this particular

Buddhist says, you know, well, all religions are are valid. OK. And I don't know if all

Buddhists would say that. But this particular Buddhist says, yeah, you know, Christianity and Buddhism are consistent. OK.

Now, this is important because when we take a look at Buddhism, there are different forms of Buddhism, by the way, but Buddhism can be understood in terms of a philosophy of life.

It doesn't necessarily entail the worship of certain deities and things like that. You could even be atheistic but hold to kind of Buddhist principles, generally speaking.

So. So, yeah, I don't think Buddhism is is a meaningful, at least philosophical, philosophically speaking, a position, for example, on Buddhism, just at least one form of Buddhism, which was interesting.

And I brought this up a few times before. I haven't talked to a lot of Buddhists, but in one discussion

I had with a Buddhist, I kind of laid out the position to make sure that I was understanding it correctly. So on Buddhism, you have the position that the problem with the world is that there is suffering.

OK. And so on Buddhism, they acknowledge suffering in the world and they also acknowledge the remedy of suffering.

So they acknowledge suffering, they acknowledge why suffering occurs, and then they offer the remedy.

And so on Buddhism, suffering is acknowledged. The root of suffering is desire.

So people desire things. They don't get what they want. And so what happens? They're suffering. People steal, they kill, they rape, they pillage because they don't get what they desire.

And so the key to removing suffering on the picture of Buddhism, at least this particular form of Buddhism, is to remove desire.

But then again, the problem with that is that you must have a desire to remove desire, which is self -refuting.

You need to have a desire to remove the thing that's causing the problem. But here you go. You desire to remove desire and you're unable to remove desire, and so hence you suffer.

You see, so it's actually a contradictory perspective at its base. Again, there are different forms of Buddhism, but just one way

I would kind of come at it by way of critique. I don't think it is philosophically coherent. Of course, Buddhism coming from a more

Eastern intellectual perspective, those categories, that thing that I just did right there talking about the logical inconsistencies that we will often be told from those of the

East, well, that's just you thinking along Western lines. You are always trying to make sense out of these things logically, but that's not the way the

East thinks. So it's like, well, OK. The fact that Western people tend to be more logical doesn't refute the fact that being logical is a good thing when critiquing various perspectives.

So, oh yeah, there you go. Emilio Beltran, what are your views on infant baptism?

Well, I am a Reformed Baptist in my theological orientation, so I do not hold to infant baptism, although I have had some friends, some pretty solid friends who hold to infant baptism.

And of course, some of my great heroes of the faith were Presbyterian, so they held to infant baptism.

As a matter of fact, there was a friend of mine when I was back in New York, his name was

Pastor Bill Shishko, who, interestingly enough, if folks are interested in the topic of infant baptism, I highly recommend folks look up the name

Bill Shishko, S -H -I -S -H -K -O, Bill Shishko versus Dr.

James White. Bill Shishko, who was a mentor of mine, also is friends with James White, and they debated the topic of infant baptism, or baptism.

And in my opinion, it was one of the better debates. I actually thought that, you know, although I hold to Dr.

White's position, Bill Shishko gave him a run for his money. So, being mentored by someone who holds to infant baptism and who tried to quote -unquote convert me to that position—and he did it lovingly and respectfully, we had some good talks in his office—he made me respect the infant baptism position in a way that I hadn't before, so that while I'm not convinced it is the biblical teaching,

I understand where the other side is coming from and have come away with a greater appreciation for those who hold to, you know, paedo -baptism, infant baptism.

So, check it out. Very good debate. Bill Shishko versus James White on baptism.

Totally should check it out. All right, let's see here. Let's see here.

All right, Joshua Stanley asks, Unless Christianity is true, you can't prove anything at all.

What if the unbeliever responds with, What if we don't need to prove anything? Could it then follow that God does not exist?

Well, again, if he hasn't proven it, then—well, does he not have to prove that it would then follow that God does not exist?

He'd have to give me some kind of—he's making an implicit argument in this statement, right? To say we don't need to prove anything is just to affirm what we are arguing, namely, that such a worldview provides—does not provide the preconditions for intelligibility, right?

If we can just be arbitrary, right? That's basically what you're saying. If we don't have to prove anything, we just get to assert what we want and not give a justification.

That's literally the definition of arbitrariness, right? Well, then we could just be arbitrary. Okay, if that's your position, your worldview requires you to be arbitrary, and hence you are unable to prove anything whatsoever, which is literally what we're arguing, that without the

God of the Bible, you can't prove anything, right? So the proof of the Christian worldview is that if it were not true, you couldn't prove anything.

Someone says, well, that's right. We can't prove anything. And they can't even prove that they can't prove anything. So it's just a meaningless position, and again, they remove themselves from any form of debate whatsoever, okay?

And that, again, is to reduce the position to absurdity. So yeah, they could say that, but then they're just affirming arbitrariness, okay?

And just because they affirm arbitrariness, it doesn't follow that God doesn't exist. My position is not weakened by their weakness in terms of admitting, well, all we need to do is just be arbitrary.

I don't have to prove anything, okay? That's a detriment to your worldview. That doesn't mean that is imposed upon my position.

My position is that we can assert things, and we have a foundation for proving things, okay?

And I think that that is the more rational position. And of course, whether the person believes that position or not, whether they come to believe or are persuaded, well, again, that's going to be the work of the spirit of that person's heart.

If the person wants to be arbitrary, they're free to do that. That doesn't undermine the Christian worldview position and its assertions that it does, in fact, provide the necessary preconditions for things like knowledge, logic, science, and so forth.

Okay, great question. Corinth's Chancellor, thank you so much for your $5 super chat. Super, super appreciative of the support.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. All right, let's see here. Let's see here.

A follower of Jesus that unironically likes sardines. I do think I've won a debate doing precept, but the person compared the

Bible to Harry Potter, so I don't think it's saying much. Yeah. Well, yeah, I guess that's true.

It's just silly, right? You know, the Bible is just like a Harry Potter. If that's what you think, you are completely ignorant of literature, right?

I mean, yeah, that's not high tier level debate opponent. Yeah, so sorry, follower of Jesus that unironically likes sardines.

That must have been frustrating. Okay. All right. Let's see here.

Tony T. Nicola. I'm about to go to lunch with him in 45 minutes. Eli lunch with who?

I don't know. Oh, to build with Bill Shishko. Oh, cool. Yeah. Bill one.

Yeah, to be perfectly honest, if I had to be honest, I love Dr. White's debates. I have to say that Bill had the upper hand in that debate.

I do have to say I do have to say that. So you folks check it out. It is a good debate. And it's such a respectful debate.

It was very friendly, very cordial. And, you know, it highly recommend Bill Shishko versus James White.

Let's see here. Articulate apologetics. What are your biggest tips on growth for growth on YouTube?

Love the content, by the way. Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. I don't know the biggest tips.

Okay, so I'm going to give you advice that someone else gave me. So Mike Winger, Mike Winger, who has a really large

YouTube channel, more well -known than myself. Let's actually go on his channel real quick. Let me see what his subscriber count is.

Let me see. Mike Winger. All right.

Mike Winger has seven hundred and fifty nine thousand subscribers. It's a very large channel.

And it is very easy. And he's told me this. It's very easy to look at his channel and be like, wow, man, what a successful YouTube channel.

But people don't recognize that it took him a very long time to get there.

OK, so even when I told him how many subscribers I had years back, he's like, man, you have more subscribers,

Eli, than I had when I was doing YouTube that long. And so that was kind of encouraging because, you know, obviously,

I want to grow this channel as well. So the tips that he gave me, OK, he said that first, you need to really believe and love what you're doing.

OK, you do this not for the growth. You do it because it's important and you have a passion for it.

And this is super important. And that sounds kind of like cliche. It's important because it's very easy to be discouraged when you put out material and it doesn't catch on in the way that you want.

OK, you got to do this stuff because it is important. And then when you have a passion for it, there is the continuity that accompanies it.

So there's another piece of advice that Mike gave me is that you need to be consistent so it's consistent.

It's a passion for what you're doing and it's consistency. And of course, there's also the back end stuff, which

I don't do, not because I don't think it's important. I just don't have the time to do it is checking your analytics, seeing who's watching your video, how long they're watching your video, which videos are doing well.

And then you kind of try to highlight your content and gear your content towards the things that have been doing well in your channel.

And you kind of figure out your audience. You also want to know your audience. OK, you know, you need to keep some form of consistency with respect to your content.

So, for example, I tend to focus on presuppositional apologetic methodology, reform theology, you know,

Calvinism, free will, these sorts of things and various other topics. So theology is kind of like my realm with a focus on presupp apologetics.

But you need to find your particular topic. You don't want to talk about, you know, frogs on one day and then talk about, you know, philosophy in another episode.

And then in another episode, you talk about how to bake a cake like you need to have a some kind of consistent theme of topics to cover because you want to appeal to that niche, that specific audience that that you're trying to reach.

So so there you go. Have a passion, consistency, OK, and consistency also with respect to the topics that you cover.

All right. So so there you go. For me, what really helped, too, was I keep saying this, but COVID, COVID actually helped

I want. So so when I read books, right, you know, for example, I have a I have

Wayne Grudem systematic theology behind me, right? Let me see. Where is it? My finger is here.

Right there. That blue book on the top of my head. That's Wayne Grudem systematic theology. I remember reading Wayne Grudem systematic theology and thinking like, oh, question.

So I don't want to search the book and find the answer. So I actually just looked up Wayne Grudem and called his seminary and I was able to talk to Wayne Grudem.

And actually, I actually got on my podcast years and years ago. So there's a Wayne Grudem episode somewhere there.

But but when I when I read a book and I have questions and I reach out to the author and I get in touch with them,

I would have these awesome discussions. And I think to myself, man, I wish this was recorded. So that was kind of the idea of like, well, why don't

I talk to people and record it and kind of make it into content? And what helped with that was COVID, because all of the well -known theologians who are typically busy with teaching and traveling, they were all home.

So at the beginning, because we were kind of like, you know, on lockdown, so to speak. So I was able to get a bunch of well -known theologians and thinkers like in a chronological order, like all of a sudden

I have these awesome kind of lineup. And that kind of helped get me like that first audience there. And then, of course,

I kept putting out content. And over the years, you know, we are right now close, not quite there yet, but close to 10 ,000 subscribers, which

I'm super excited about. What am I at now? 6 ,000, I'm sorry, 9 ,680 something.

So there you go. So there's no magic trick unless you go viral, you know, miraculously by having some video that really, you know, latches on with people.

You know, there's no magic trick. It's just consistency. Be patient. Know why you're doing this. It's not simply for growth.

It's something that we do because we think it's important. We have a passion for it. So sorry for blabbing on that one.

I hope that's helpful. Yeah, great question. Let's see here.

Let me see here. David asks question. If the creeds are fallible and subordinate to Scripture, how is full preterism not true?

Yeah, full preterism is not true because it's not biblical. It has nothing to do with the creed necessarily. When you take a look at what

Scripture has to speak on these issues, it's just not true biblically. And so, yes, the creeds are important and they inform us on what people have believed on various topics.

But yeah, they are. They are fallible, right? And as much they are true and as much as they agree with Scripture, I just think that full preterism is not scripturally true.

I don't think that full preterism is false simply because, you know, someone might have said something in a creed or a confession somewhere.

I think it's unbiblical textually. So there you go. Thank you for that question.

Let's see here. Ravi, Eli. Hey, Ravi, how's it going?

Do you believe the Bible is inerrant? Yes, I believe the Bible is without error. And when someone thinks there's an error, then we need to look at those things.

And, you know, as we look closer to things that seem error, you will find that it is not an error.

And that has happened to me a number of times. That's why, because I assume that the Bible is true because it is the word of God, it has no falsehoods in it.

I give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. When something comes up, I take my time and examine closely. And what

I found is when I do examine closely, the Bible makes sense, especially when you are understanding the context and and all of the background issues of a particular topic.

Here's a good book for those who are interested in. It's not directly related to inerrancy, but it's dealing with this issue of alleged contradictions.

This is a book by Jason Lyle. Had him on the show before. It's called Keeping Faith in the Age of Reason, Refuting Alleged Bible Contradictions.

And the good thing about this book is not only does he cover specific apparent contradictions in the Bible, but he also highlights the logical fallacies that are inherent in the accusations that certain texts don't make sense.

And so that's a super helpful book. I highly recommend folks check that out. Thank you very much,

Robbie. That's my short answer. Yes, I do believe the Bible is inerrant. It is without error in the original manuscripts or the autographer.

All right, let's see here. So, OK, so,

Robbie, again, so Eli numbers 31, 18 about keeping the virgins as the spoils of war. You think that's moral? OK, so now without getting into the details of the text, because I'd have to look at the context and when

I talk when I talk about issues relating to Old Testament ethics and things like that, it requires understanding a wide range of cultural and textual and contextual issues.

But let's deal with this right here. One does not demonstrate that the Bible is immoral by pointing out something in the

Bible that they don't like or perhaps don't even understand and say, look, how can the

Bible be moral, for example, when God destroys the world in a flood? Well, what does that presuppose?

Well, that presupposes that God destroying people in a flood violates some moral principle.

What moral principle is the person operating under when they try to judge God based upon a moral standard? You see, within the

Christian worldview, God is himself the standard. God is good. God is just.

Everything he does is good and just. And that's true even if we don't understand why he does things or why he permits things.

OK, so within the Christian worldview, there is no external standard from God to judge

God's actions. God is the standard. And so when we judge actions of God, we're either judging him by our own standard, in which case that has problems because your standard is going to different from her standard over there.

Whose standard do we judge God on? Or you're going to judge God on his own standards, which is problematic if you're trying to refute

God, because if he's the standard, then obviously the Bible teaches that even when he judges the world or when he permits certain things or whatever the case may be,

God has good reasons for doing so. So so, yes, keeping the virgins a spoil of war.

When we understand the context for all those things, whether we like it or not, there are reasons and purposes for why

God permits those certain interactions that we find throughout the Old Testament. And the moral standard by which we judge those things is not an external standard that stands over God.

OK, so let's see here. Yeah, so Ravi continues on.

He says God might be good, but he didn't inspire the Bible. So it might be untrue. No, that doesn't follow at all.

I'm not saying God might be good. By definition, God is the standard of good within the Christian worldview.

We're not Platonists as Christians, right? Where goodness is this abstract thing over here that exists independent of God.

The nature of God itself himself is a reflection of goodness. God is the good.

So we don't say God might be good because that assumes good is this independent standard, which, again, would not make sense within a

Christian worldview. OK, he did inspire the Bible and the things that we don't like in the

Bible. God has good reasons for permitting them or commanding them, or he has good reasons for the things that he does.

OK, so again, unless you presuppose or one sneaks in some external standard of goodness by which to judge

God, right, this objection wouldn't make sense in terms of accurately internally critiquing the

Christian worldview. But thank you so much for that, Ravi. I do appreciate your question. All right. Let's see here.

All right. OK, we're at the top of the hour. OK, I didn't get to get to the questions

I wanted to get to relating to the main topic of this of this live stream, but that's OK. That's OK. All right, we'll stop here.

And I'm growing that summer vacation reform beard. Well, thank you. I'm not doing it on purpose. I've just been lazy, haven't shaved.

So I hope, guys, that you found this helpful. I appreciate your question. I do apologize if I missed a question or skip the question.

And I have addressed a lot of issues on the channel. So if I didn't get to a question here, search the channel and see if you could find something that relates to the topic relating to your to your specific question.

All right, guys, thank you so much. Once again, if you have a question or a topic you'd like me to address, email me at revealed apologetics at Gmail dot com.

You can do that. I do read my emails. And if I'm not knowledgeable about a specific topic, I'll try to find someone who is and have a fruitful discussion with that person on the show so that it can help you get your question answered.

So and also, if you want to support Revealed Apologetics, the donate page there is in the description link below, along with my courses that I offer on my website.

You can order those courses and a bunch of other content, too, on the website revealed apologetics dot com. Once again, guys, thank you so much for listening in.

I really appreciate you. Thank you. Even if you disagree with me, I appreciate Ravi's questions and some of the other questions as well.

Thank you so much keeping us on our toes and having to address these important issues. But I appreciate you guys until next time.