(Advanced Presuppositional Apologetics Discussion): Eli Ayala & Matt Yester

All right, welcome to another episode of revealed apologetics today. I have a guest a friend of mine.

His name is Matt yester. He is Would you identify yourself as like an online apologist a lay apologist or just an apologist?

Okay, okay We got this we're out there people check out

Yeah, really find links to that I think on the current website and uh, Have really good fruitful conversations there doing the teachings and stuff like that Okay, do systematic theology right now.

So, uh, just start getting started on that So I think a lot of people are interested in that. So, all right, but yeah, uh, just a uh,

Conversing with a lot of a lot of different, uh, a lot of different people and um Over like a decade.

So yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, and you um, you do presuppositional apologetics

That's the methodology that you adhere to Yep. Yep. Yeah, it wasn't all but um

You know was uh very intrigued with the creation evolution debate uh very very early on and um

Once I became informed and things really changed there. It was a whole paradigm shift. So, okay

All right. Um, and uh, so I i've i've been doing apologetics for a really long time.

I grew up in church So, um, and I always I always enjoyed theology. My family always sat around arguing about something, you know

I grew up in a pent. I grew up in a pentecostal church. So the arguments were usually Why can't we do this or why is this wrong or why is it a sin to do this?

It was very kind of very uh, Sometimes it came across kind of like a very legalistic context So we would argue about like can christians drink wine or like what's wrong if I pierce my ear, you know, like stuff like that Um, but we often went into some deep stuff and and I always was geared towards like those kinds of discussions so later on in life apologetics was something that was

An easy move to to make in terms of being my focus now people who know my story

There's a broader story there that I don't want to get into Um, but I too, uh, i'm a presuppositional apologist.

I think it is a the biblical model for defending the faith and it is a

An apologetic methodology as you said before we started recording, um that flows from our theology and um

I want to ask this question and hear what you say in a little bit But um as calvinists you and I are calvinists

We would we would probably make the argument that our presuppositional methodology flows from a very distinctly reformed perspective and um

Some people who look at presuppositionalism from far away Don't see it as a necessary aspect like hey,

I can use tag Uh, and i'm not a calvinist and so hopefully we can talk about that later on but that's kind of that's an interesting point

That some people might be interested in hearing about so for for people who are kind of like listening to this and saying like Okay, presuppositional apologetics

I think I know a little bit about it because i've i've seen someone like saitan bruggenkade online Or i've maybe listened to a bonson debate or something, but i'm unclear on some stuff

How would you define presuppositional apologetics to the person who's never?

You know has never heard of presuppositional apologetics Well a presupposition is a basic fundamental assumption or a basic Starting point it could be you know, a lot of people lay out, you know, they have

They're not even aware that they have presuppositions unless Pressed on I go. Oh, oh

I do have these underlying beliefs that then undergird everything else that you know

Flows out of them in a network as boston, you know lays out what a worldview is a very succinct definition

The worldview is a network of presuppositions By which everything else they're not proven by the means of natural science

They're that by which even science is employed And they're not demonstrating that means but they're that by which everything else is interpreted and interrelated

It's a system. It's a worldview system Uh, therefore it's not one thing in isolation from one another these things these beliefs come in clusters but ultimately because you'll have a lot of Atheists just non -believers, you know

Even their agnostics whatever let's say. Well, I believe this I believe this I believe that and I just got a plethora of like fundamental properly basic beliefs

Okay, so you have a plus, you know, you have a many but what unifies them You know, you gotta you.

Otherwise you have no unity between them. There's no coherence between them But if you want to search for unity and plurality Now we press the issue a little further in the nature of the case.

There's only one I'm going to use fanciful term here transcendental ultimate. So it's an argument from the location of ultimacy

To everything else we experience as a precondition for our experience So so you would say a presupposition

Is an elementary assumption that is not itself Validated by empirical means

Uh or anything like that. We do not appeal to something more fundamental than the presupposition to validate the presupposition

They're our starting point. Would that be right? Right and to prove it transcendentally and you do demonstrate that by the impossibility of the contrary

It's a transcendental argument because if you have if you have the truth, let's say worldview has the truth

I know other people think christian false, whatever But if someone does have the truth, how would they prove it to you?

How do they prove you have the truth? Well, you got to show, you know, just uh ontological epistemological and ethical necessity

And that's what we argue from the christian god because you know, he's the way the truth in life No one comes from the father but through him

And all the treasure wisdom and knowledge are hidden in him Uh, he created all things so from the strict stringent worldview of biblical christianity

We can't argue outside of that on any new fashion So because the the unbeliever can read the bible too and they can see if someone's wavering from that They go.

Well here it says jesus christ created all things all treasure wisdom knowledge hidden in him you know Yeah, yeah, you can't you can't waver on that too much before they just kind of call you out on that.

So yeah Christian distinct And consistent, uh apologetic yeah, now now like we just said before where when we do a presuppositional apologetics, we are not uh,

Our worldviews come in or our beliefs rather come in clusters. So we start with like a system we don't argue for the truth of the christian worldview as as cornelius van till said and those who um

Kind of know the conversation we're having at least they're all somewhat familiar with it They will know van till is a very prominent figure when we talk about issues of presuppositionalism

He said that we do not argue in a block by block fashion Maybe you can unpack that for people.

Um and and explain what it means For the presuppositionalist not to argue block by block

And why we must argue system versus system christian system of thought the christian worldview

Versus the non -christian worldview. Can you unpack that a little bit? Sure Yeah, when you talk about a system in a cluster of beliefs that you just can't think about one thing one thing only without other concepts

Another thing being uh associated with that such as a system with just basic the three branches of philosophy

That's what we lay out as a worldview of uh Metaphysics or ontology the very nature and essence of reality the things in reality different types of ontologies

Distinctives between the two how do you get knowledge from that ontological grounding?

um and Once again, you can't talk about one without the other being brought in because you're making knowledge about ontology

Yet your ontology has the ground how you know things these things are unhappily reciprocal In a reciprocal relationship so you can't divorce one from the other and just look at I just want to talk about ontology in a vacuum

Impossible. I just want to talk about epistemology in a vacuum impossible. I just want to talk about ethics and vacuum

They're all well. Well matt. What if someone says well, I believe in logic you believe in logic Why don't we just start there? So I assume logic you use logic.

Let's argue logically to the truth of our conclusion What's wrong with with that? Well, they think it's epistemically neutral, but that's a con game

That that's uh god's logic and we have to think his thoughts after him Um, that's the only way we have the capacity to do that because that's part of our worldview

Um, and that's the only way we can actually utilize it because we reflect his thinking they think it's just some abstract uh ethereal notion

Somehow derived from the material universe or whatever They want to posit that if they ground that as the ground of all reality then how from pure abstraction.

Did you get? a physical universe so so are you saying that um

The unbeliever often assumes that logic the laws of logic are the common ground between us

So is it isn't or isn't that kind of a neutral ground between me the unbeliever and you the the christian?

I mean, we we both use logic. Why can't we why can't we just start there? Is it what's wrong with that?

Let me use analogy and you know what my favorite analogy is. All right got a piece of paper here Okay Right here.

You can if you have one right in front of you just picture it in your mind just thinking separately about it You got a piece of paper here

Uh, you know with uh horizontal lines just draw a line down the middle of it here We're going to split it in half put a christian on one side

But the unbeliever you're talking about from any worldview system on the other side

Now that middle line represents an antithesis between the two worldviews in principle. They don't agree on anything

Okay. Okay. I know what antithesis is. So before you continue there, why don't you explain, uh, Explain to people what what you mean by the middle line of the page

One side of the page the christian worldview the other line of the other side of the page is the non -christian worldview And you said this line down the middle is the antithesis between them.

What do you mean by that? Well when christian's laying out his worldview Metaphysic his epistemology his ethic

And categories within that and his whole worldview system as a whole the whole christian worldview system

It's the whole house built. That's what we start with The young believer wants to put his on the other side or a few bricks.

Maybe they might assert But they're in direct contradiction Systematically as a whole to the christian worldview now

Say they got those bricks from our side of the page and we that's the point of the demonstration to show that they want to assert these bricks

On their side of the page, you know logic uniformity of nature Maybe some moral absolute something like that or you're morally indignant about something

And um Uh we should show that they got those bricks from the other side and they don't even really have a right to even assert those because They don't make systematic cogent sense in their worldview when pressed to the location of ultimacy

His plurality is the ultimate it's got to be necessarily one They can't um ground that then they're making baseless assertions.

Anyway, they're not grounded in anything in systematic cogency It's almost like a want to assert a plurality of like foundationalism

Isolated little bricks, but I go you automatically assume that there's a relationship between What you know ontology logic?

Morality things like that. They know there's a tie that binds but I go what is that tie that binds them together?

We don't have it. Then you got these things that are radically disjuncted from each other So the christian's laying out his thesis the opponent lays out his antithesis.

He's the opposite Of what the worldview is asserting it's telling totally different grounds, even though we'll say

I assert logic He asserts logic, but the foundation is absolutely radically different So would you so would you lay out on the side of the page?

So you have the christian worldview on one side of the page you have And I think I remember you telling me this before in a in a other in a different conversation

You have the christian on the one side of the page the non -christian on the other side of the page And you have this line of antithesis dividing the two

And say you both assert logic You put logic on the top of the page so this item

Of human experience is up for debate and then you ask the question. This is why I like the paper analogy

Which side of the page? can account and ground The specific item of human experience whether it be logic whether it be science whether it be history whether it be philosophy

And then that's when you argue system versus system which system Can couch and make intelligible?

The specific item of human experience. Is that how you would go about it? Right? Yeah, that would be uh

Symbolic logic would be any p it's just called p t equals any intelligible experience that the person does not doubt

That's just I can't doubt that that that exists And I think I have the transcendental grounding for it so I go good now we can have a debate

We've both got a worldview laid out. It's called q. So christian laid out his q So so we got the um christian will be laid out all side of the page fill up You fill it up all the biblical data revelational knowledge stuff like that and revelational epistemology um, and then uh, the unbeliever is going to bring his

Particular worldview not all atheists are alike Uh, they can all different schools of philosophy rationalism empiricism

Pragmatism, you know, uh, they'll they'll throw out all kind of wonky stuff. They're not all uh, you know cookie cutter

You know atheists not all all empiricists or strict empiricists like kim was or something like that So you're getting nuances there

So that's why it's good that if you're at least picturing in your mind If you're like an audio debate or having a front face -to -face dialogue, you're doing it in your mind

You're picturing it, you know, and you're just viewing it as you know, two sides of the page and dialectical tension with one another and um, you know, you're doing in well, we get through the internal fatigue there though and external not to do an

External fatigue but to do an internal fatigue which is valid but keep that Focus on there so you can catch when someone tries to make an external fatigue and keep you from doing as well

So so so what's the difference between uh, people who need to understand this is vitally important Because a presuppositional method is a world view apologetic where notice that there's nothing we've said

That has appealed to specific evidences in favor of one view over the other we have not appealed to Look, there's design.

Although that has its place. We haven't appealed to an uncaused cause of the universe which has its place

Why don't we in the presuppositional method? Appeal to some of the arguments that we're familiar with when we read a book on apologetics like The cosmological argument the teleological argument the moral argument the argument from religious experience

Arguments for the the historical Reality of the resurrection of christ all have their place and presuppositionalist can use them.

Why don't we appeal to them? As directly as say those who hold to a more classical apologetical approach

The other way boss laid out when he's laying out different types of proof you put in four classes You put you can have pragmatic proof empirical proof rationalistic proof transcendental proof

The only those first three only make sense within the transcendental framework because that is the overarching

Because it's an ultimate argument. That's probably I mean, that's the thing that people need to grab It's an ultimate argument, especially arguing for god's existence as well

Uh demonstrating that um that there that that would take precedence there because that is the framework by which even

Rationalistic deduction and empirical induction would even be intelligible So so so the transcendental argument for god's existence is usually not laid out in some of these traditional formulations

Say for example, you take something like the cosmological argument, which is or the kalam cosmological argument

Which is typically laid out in a deductive form So whatever begins to exist has a cause the universe began to exist

Therefore the universe has a cause so you have two premises that if true lead to a conclusion

What you're saying is that a transcendental argument is so ultimate it is trying to It's not trying to prove god's existence by laying out premises rather It's trying to show that the christian system itself is the necessary precondition

For deductive arguments themselves or even syllogisms Utilize we're saying what even grounds that right, so so and so The way the transcendental argument has been formulated

Popularly, especially by someone like greg bonson the proof for the truth of the christian worldview is that if it were not true?

You couldn't prove anything at all Is that that's the idea wrapped up in what you just said right that the christian worldview is the precondition for even proof?

Correct how's proof intelligibles and Standard of proof where we lean upon there and so he's going transcendental proof is the ultimate now

The other things are very mitigated because uh, you know in the history of philosophy We really get the crux of things, you know at khant he's at the rationalistic empirical divide, you know, those guys have been uh

Flawful with each other for quite a while there for khant. They both led to skepticism. He's got to try and meld well

What? He's the person who used a form of a transcendental ordinance strictly epistemological He had no ontological grounding for anything.

It was metaphysical agnostic when it came to the numeral realm It was just do you divide metaphysics up into two categories?

The numena couldn't know anything about you can only deal with the phenomena you experience sense perception And that the mind is active and imposes, you know

Uh Time and space predicates and even inserts causation causal principles like that even though it may not exist in reality

But the mind just has to think that way He's just thinking on strictly Epistemological mind grounds here just saying the mind has to think of the way but you can prove all minds that way

He just proved that his mind has to think that way um, but he was at the crossroads there saying well Rationalists, you know when they have these innate ideas that they were just axiomatic but the problem there that led to theoretically three

Yeah, listen, we use a pretty popular one. Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz He said we take the rationalist perspective

These are just self -evident truths and eight ideas And we got radically three different metaphysics.

One's a dualist. The other one's a monist Uh, you know dualist holds that there's two aspects of reality.

There's two types of ontology monist believes There's only one essence or one ontology And leibniz was an absolute pluralist

Uh, so who's right that leads to skepticism david hume drove empiricism into skepticism

Uh, you know well before khant there and that awoken khan from his dogmatic slumbers as you said

And but oh, we got to save rationality here. We've got to save objectivity He didn't actually accomplish his job because he ended up subjectivizing all science because everyone's just got to deal with the phenomena

Sense experience being taken in. Yeah, what he's trying to answer was since The rationalist deductive methodology led to Skepticism and then the empirical approach hume drove that into the ground that leads to skepticism

But he's saying well they had their they had their place How they even intelligible even at the place they actually have intelligibility

What what epistemology can ground? or what is a Transcendental to these methodologies being employed.

You can't call them epistemology because epistemology is a falter you have to have an epistemology by which these certain methods which are mitigated and very um

Let's say, uh, they only they just have their limitations Wide in scope they're not the ultimate broad reaching can answer everything but they have their place on certain issues

Well, okay what epistemology ground these different methodologies now take that even as a christian approach from a revelational epistemology.

We can't account for Deduction and induction For our worldview, but those are methods being employed.

They're not epistemologies. Our epistemology is revelational Very ground for our knowledge Being created in the modern day

But therefore we can employ a certain methods, but we don't want to call them epistemologies.

They're not a Holistic theory of knowledge. They're just they have application at certain points in in the realm of experience

Let's back up for two seconds for uh again I anticipated this discussion to be at the more higher level which i'm glad we're talking about these things because I know that people who

Are familiar with the methodology and want to go a little deeper. This is going to be helpful, but just to throw a bone at the um

At the person who's kind of like man, I subscribed to your podcast. This one's different than the other ones, you know

Over now. Yeah, that's right. Um, let's define our terms when we talk about a worldview. Um, we're talking about Um a network of presuppositions a network of assumptions in terms of which all of reality is interpreted

They are they are our intellectual glasses through which we Filter the world and we interpret the world through these lenses.

That's our worldview worldviews are generally composed of three foundations Um people have categorized them differently, but i'm going to use the three basic foundations of every worldview

So i'm just defining the basics and then we'll return back to our discussion Um worldviews are made up of metaphysics epistemology and ethics now matt has been using the term metaphysics and he even uh, um, he even described the philosopher emmanuel kant as a metaphysical agnostic and so that Terminology can be a mouthful and give someone a stroke as they're listening.

Um, but Metaphysics metaphysics simply quite simply. It's a it's a scary word that has a very simple meaning

Metaphysics asks the question. What is real? What is the nature of reality? Epistemology asks the question.

How do we know what we know? How do we know anything about anything? Okay, and ethics deals with how we should live our lives, right?

Right and wrong these sorts of things. Okay. Now this is important to presuppositional apologetics because every claim that someone makes presupposes metaphysics that reality is a certain way and Epistemology that we could know the truth about reality or how we come to know what we think we know.

That's right. And so When we're talking about using a presuppositional method and saying for example

When we popularly formulated the argument that the proof for the for the truth of the Christian worldview Is that if it were not true, you couldn't prove anything at all

What we're saying if we're using this worldview language of metaphysics epistemology and ethics

What we're saying is that unless the metaphysic the theory of reality unless Reality is what the

Bible says it is Then a person couldn't know Anything their epistemology wouldn't work because their epistemology is not coherently connected to a broader theory of reality out of which the things we claim to know would even make sense and So that's why it's important to understand these foundations so when

Matt Referred to Immanuel Kant as being a metaphysical agnostic. Basically Immanuel Kant Was agnostic he says

I don't know the nature of reality The metaphysics. I don't know that Because is the thing on Zik it's you could not know that thing in and of itself.

That's right Right now when I would now without refuting

Kant because Kant can be easily Refuted if you grant that those premises then there's trouble for Kant We won't go there

But I think it's important to lay that groundwork to understand what a worldview is What it consists of metaphysics epistemology or ethics and if we don't want to use those words worldview consists of a theory of what you think reality is a

Theory of how we come to know what we know and a theory of how we should live our lives Everybody whether you're an atheist and agnostic a pragmatist.

Everyone has a view on those things whether they acknowledge it or not Presuppositionalist wants to show that whatever the unbelievers metaphysic epistemology or ethic

Do they hold it together in a consistent way and can it ground the particular instances of human experience?

Simple there were three categories, which are just branches of philosophy now some people focus on one branch of philosophy

And that's their whole life. You know that some people dedicate philosophers. You have one. They're an epistemology

They got one little mitigated theory or whatever They're not doing it in a whole this systematic fashion like the grand philosophers were doing but let's go

Okay, we lay out three points there now. Let's take a little bit more broad With the same three -point system now, let's go to a four point in that World view it also has to answer the meta narrative

So that I learned from John frame he lays it on his history of Western philosophy That all the world views you got to answer some more questions as well.

Not only about those categories, but four more as well nature of origins

Why man has problems in this world? What's his solutions? And where are things going now?

That's the from the secular view I use secular terms there from the Christian perspective. We talk about the doctrines of creation fall

Redemption consummation of all things to the other world. He's got their views of these things, too

Not only of just metaphysics epistemology and ethics, but the whole course of history

It lays on a meta narrative that's over top of that You know the stringent three categories there we laid out

So that's even something more broad to bring it more broad in scope of saying it gets more involved here

Because these sorts of issues are going to come up in dialogue You can think about the you know, three points and then four points just remember that three points three point worldview four point meta -narrative origin nature of origins

Are the doctrine of creation? That's what the Christians gonna argue from the fall. Well, they

The person's gonna say well, why are there problems in the world? The world is not ideal. There's problems people are disagreeing

We're debating there's bad things going on why they have to account for these things

Christian fall Simple nature of man, you know We're in simple.

We're bound against God redemption You know secular viewpoint. Well for Christian viewpoint, obviously the gospel faith in Jesus Christ You know saves us from our sins is that bro resurrection?

You know things like that we bring up but from the our worldviews, you know, just take pick an atheist You go well someone like Plato or some of these philosophers

Plato Hegel didn't really put the philosopher on the pedestal Well, obviously the philosophers gotta be the philosopher

King people just need to be educated We'll solve the problems and just educational just solve the problem, you know, or we've used that education to send me from And that can be internally critiqued as well.

And then where are things going final consummation of all things? See what I like about that.

Well, you just said right there The Greeks Aristotle, right? What? Plato, how do you fix?

this problem education but You see now you get to the foundation well education presupposes a foundation out of which of that education is coming from and so the

Presuppositionalist is gonna do well to not argue about well this form of education is better Well that form of education is better.

We go straight to the foundation What worldview are you standing on when you promote a specific education that you think is the remedy for man's problems?

And and if it comes out of a worldview that's incoherent and cannot ground itself cannot stand then that worldview is not sufficient to answer man's problems white blood of the system

Pumping into the system we go right for the jugular. That's right. Well, where's it pumping from?

Yeah, where's it? Where's this life like coming from? Well, okay that order That's what your main focus is look for the underlying presuppositions people's assertions.

Why would they assert that? Well, okay fundamentally It's not just one assertion in a vacuum. We already know there's a system around it

There's other interpretations of other things and other things that are on stated premises that need to be, you know laid out

Well, I mean, I want to get back to the first point You brought up when you're laying out the world view or the two sides of the page.

I like your phrase showing your cards Then your hand we show our hand and the opponent shows theirs and say, all right now let's tussle

We'll see which one has a world flush, you know Just that's pretty much the media media argument.

They're just using analogy But you know, you got it to lay it out and the Christians very forthright just laying out our world We say all right.

What do you have you can test against this? And not only do you have to have something substantial from your own view?

You also have to internally demolish your opponent which we do from our side tip we ours can stand it with a stand internal critique

As long as we're not strong man and stuff like that, but that's usually, you know Toss aside anyway, because strong man's aren't really attacking us

But then we can just deal with the cards that they've been laying out and say, all right

Let's make some systematic codes and sense. I can't I don't see how you have a cogent systematic worldview

Leaves gaps and You don't have systematic cogency says we're also looking for as well

So it's not cogent and the also on theological Well on theological metaphysical and ethical grounding for these things and that's copied the location of all for the seed

Which a lot of people would just assert as well There has to be a ground of all being there has to be maybe they would search.

There's absolute truth Maybe you can't know maybe no one can know but there there has to be it

But they get this big, you know circle with a question mark inside of it That's where the Christians like we know that we know what that is

We know this the unblockable Trinity for some Holy Spirit one God one being three persons and created the world and all things in them and Created us in his image or to bear that image.

So we got we got an answer from there We're arguing from the transcendental henceforth. They're guarding from things that experience try and go

Right When you start with your own finite self There's no way to make the leap to understand the nature of the metaphysic the nature of reality now the unbeliever or whoever might disagree with the

Christians conception of reality But if the Christian worldview is true then it makes sense that we can know the nature reality because the

Metaphysic the only way that that one could know the metaphysic is that they know it comprehensively and there's one within our world view that does

Christianity is a revelatory religion so that we could not know the nature of reality

Unless the one who knows all things tells us now the unbeliever doesn't have to believe that But it makes sense within our system on our side of the page as you if you will if you will it makes sense for Us to say we can know the nature of reality because God has revealed it that doesn't mean we know everything

But we know the metaphysical context in which the discussion can even make sense, which we call you know the foundation of reality where we would call the ontological

Trinity the triune God is the metaphysical context in which Everything within human experience human beings themselves and everything actually makes sense to begin with.

All right Okay, so we hit the half -hour mark Now here's the thing. I don't know how much space is on my phone

So if we record this and and it's really long, I don't want to be on to unable to record it

So we're gonna keep going. We still have plenty of time, but I want to shift gears and Ask you some questions in regards to common misconceptions about the presuppositional method now, of course, we've been all over the place

Which is what I wanted. I wanted a kind of a free -flowing conversation But I actually have someone I told people because I'm gonna be interviewing

Chris bolt from choosing hats on Saturday So two a few times on this court.

Yeah. Yep, right here I'm sorry I think I talked to him I think

I ran to him on this court Maybe earlier in the year or something like that had a quick thing where I didn't slap bag and go

Oh, yeah, we said the you know the way I like to lay it out there I said, yeah, it's just before you on the contrary, right?

Right? So I'm gonna be talking to him on Saturday And so I asked people if they had any questions to send me some questions now so far

I only just have a couple but I want I wanted to take For you to have the opportunity to answer some of these which

I think which I think are great I think this person is a Christian and So I've shared the post that I was gonna have an interview and discussion on presuppositional apologetics with with Chris Paul And of course,

I shared it in a group where people no one there is a precept You know that they're kind of classical guys and they all think precept is bunk

So I figured let's tackle some of the common misconceptions to show that even if they don't hold to this precept methodology

There are answers to what they think are, you know, these insurmountable issues that precept methodology can't address

Okay, so question number one, and I think this is an important question Is there an example in Scripture of presuppositional apologetics being done by presuppositional?

I mean assuming and not arguing for there goes the fallacy there the truth of Scripture and of God's Existence.

Okay. I'm not done with the question, but look at the faulty assumption The faulty assumption is that presuppositional is don't argue we just assert

There's a problem there. So so is there an example in Scripture of presuppositional apologetics being done by presuppositional?

I mean assuming and not arguing for the truth of Scripture and of God's existence

Because I see many times where God himself points to the work he has done in the world as evidence that he should be worshipped

Jesus points to the signs he performs. He doesn't just say believe the Old Testament.

Okay Why don't you address the faulty assumptions in the question? But then charitably answer the question in terms of well

Are there examples of the biblical you a biblical use of a presuppositional methodology? yeah, the

I think the classicist locus there for that would be act 17 all of the analogy in the

Greeks at Athens and also before the Areopagus or he's spurned by their all their idolatry and has the

Indwelling there to preach to them and Call them out on their idolatry and say the

God that created the universe He created all things that exist and it's not dependent upon anything does not dwell in temples made with hands

You have this all the unknown God There's no he who you worship in ignorance, but they have this religious superstition

So obviously, you know the Greek pagans didn't want to miss a God or whatever So they had this all the unknown God to cover all their bases, you know, maybe we missed one in their pantheon

You know, that's why he says you're very some translations say you're very religious some say you're very superstitious.

It's a religious superstitious You know, is that a real word? In this so and that's back to Romans chapter 1 where once again

God declares He everyone knows that God exists via his creation and also they're part of that creation

Therefore he made the knowledge manifests in them and their possessors of the truth who suppress it down and then exchange him for an idol

You know man himself or something in creation So they intertwine there, but Paul's laying out the eggs all weren't

Romans and he's preaching there an act So Paul's consistent with himself. He say also gets his consistent in first Corinthians Chapter 1, you know all the way in the chapter 2 where he's laying out the contrasts of God's wisdom versus the wisdom of the world

They all intertwine all three of these contexts. So Paul's example there's a classicist locust there in engaging the unbeliever worldview

Internally critiquing it and then declaring the Christian worldview shown that during the pagan idolatry and they need to repent because he says

God now commands all men everywhere to repent And judge the world by the man ordained, you know,

Jesus Christ. That's who he's bringing up there Whom he's gonna judge the world. Yeah at the point of the day, you know for that judgment, so So I'm gonna give a little pushback give a little pushback.

So But when you read the account of acts jet in Acts chapter 17 Where Paul is is preaching to the

Greeks there Isn't it the case that he looks for some kind of neutral common ground by appealing to?

Their own philosophers, isn't that an example, isn't that a textbook example of a classical approach where he speaks of kind of a generic theism at first and Appeals to their common notions and isn't that an example of a classical approach as opposed to a presuppositional approach?

It brings about the show that they already have an innate knowledge of God and they have this twist in this there And he's that's what's also parallel approach after one that then suppress the truth and that will change him for something

Idolatrous just like him because man's a worshipping creature. He doesn't worship Yahweh who worship anything else they have their idol worship and You know, he called out his own pose even your own pose upset

And we'd love to move that ever be now. We know he you know, the great Poe's point there was talking about zoos the ultimate though the

Greek pantheon there, but He's saying you can't escape the religiosity and this

Pagan idolatry though, because you do know the God that I'm preaching to you exists and you need to repent

But he's he's definitely laying out no commonality there because he's calling about directly on their idolatry

And then say need to repent to have the true worldview Expression truth and unrighteousness.

You have this whole look to the unknown God. It's Yahweh He's not dependent upon anything.

So he's declaring God's a saiyan tea. He's lined up the Christian worldview So I'm dependent upon anything in creation everything in creation depends upon him

Everything in creation including us including you You know the

Greeks now Out there now, what about He's the man with the hour mask on going well just I'll praise the man with the mask on say that's a very nice mask.

You got no he rips the mask off Now what about the The specific instance where Elisha faces

Elijah faces off against the prophets of Baal Where now now, I mean it seems to me

Matt that Elijah is Basically an ancient Old Testament version of William Lane Craig Where he's standing on the mountain and asking now before we jump to any conclusions.

We really need to ask ourselves the priests of Baal and the Rebellious children of Israel are there good reasons to believe that God does exist and are there comparably good reasons to think that God?

Doesn't exist and so let's lay out the case and see where the evidence points is this idea in the story of Elijah versus the prophets of Baal is that an example of a classical approach if not, is it an example of a

Presuppositional approach and if not in order to understand it as a presuppositional approach

Do we need to bring other issues of Scripture to bear on that passage or can or it can we say?

That that specific instance we can draw out some presuppositional principles Well, I thought so.

I know that before when he brought it up is you know, the circle was absolutely consistent What did Elijah do with him after that?

He slaughtered him. Yeah, I suppose not consistent with that. Plus he's not doing what thing Elijah did anyway, the same ontological scale, but Yeah, I feel that I don't feel it's very very fruitful because he's there but I'd say given the whole

Total scriptura and within the view of total scriptura and soul scriptura the scriptures where he lays with you know, it's gonna lay it's not

Proverbs to Answer the full according or don't answer a fool for his folly lest you be like him

But then answer a fool for his folly lest he be a wise in his own conceit. So there's obviously in a

Just see internal fatigue going on there standing your ground, but then saying okay Well, what's great the other side for sake of argument?

Let's see where it leads by implication and With the Thor of everything laid out in the

New Testament, especially the way Paul engaged The Greeks was he doing Elijah did know?

Once again, it's a slaughter that people after he laid out as apologetic But but real quick real quick just to put give some pushback

He may have slaughtered them but And I think the classical apologist who he looks at this story admits.

Yeah, they were slaughtered. However He did lay out a test And so let's see where the evidence goes

So even though they were slaughtered isn't this still an example of say? Hey, let's see where the evidence leads which seems to be a kind of you know language of the classicalists, right?

Mm -hmm. Well, you can we lay out a whole bunch of things even Isaiah the trial of the false gods

I would have the true God for the false guys No, no only tell us the future but also the past and why it happened.

Mm -hmm 448 so there's multiple lines we can use throughout scripture.

It's just which one is Showing systematic cogency On the argument of level because obviously

Paul's not pouring miracles before these people In Athens He's saying yeah

Call me out on your idolatry. He's got done preaching the Jews there now He's stoked by the by the pagans with their idolatry as the inclination to preach to them

He's brought before the Areopagus, you know, they're being mocked. They're like, yeah, they call him a seed picker, you know Which is like Pharaoh fed on with the stream, you know, these guys were all hey, we want to hear some new thing, you know

And they actually mistaken for you know Each in different gods because you know

Jesus and the resurrection One the same thing there You see how they are get this twist in this anyway in their in their theology

How they're even interpreting what he's laying out, but even though some believe that but not all of them some said, you know

Yeah, you'd be in mocked by a lot of people some said Maybe here about you another day

In Regards to the story in a lot of Elijah. I what

I see in that story is a clear example of a presuppositional approach in terms of Internal world you critique let's assume that your

God exists. Call him down. Go ahead. Call him down Now now let's assume

I'm sorry Yes, that's right, that's right and when he said is he on the toilet

Notice the language is he on the toilet? He's hypothetically granting the existence of this pagan

God And see he's not For you. What's your world view getting you?

That's right Holistically, you know, there's definitely principles would be derived there to have effect on on on our

Layout of things too. We go. Oh, yeah, I can see aspects there but holistically Yeah, I just don't see

Paul employing that one though, but right interesting Old Testament example, of course But yeah, and then they were judged

Right. All right second question Same person. I think tag the transcendental argument as I usually see it formulated is logically invalid the versions

I have seen start with something like God is the only possible source for Morality logic, etc

But the conclusion of God's existence is baked into that first premise making this argument

Circular is there a logically valid version of the argument that non presuppositional lists could use

There's so much wrong with that question But I mean it's coming from a place of yeah, if that's his question

I mean one of the knee -jerk reactions when someone hears a of the transcendental argument is like wait a minute

Well, that's circular. You can't assume God in order to prove God Why why when someone goes up to a presuppositional and set a presuppositional list and says?

You're engaging in circular reasoning. Why when someone asserts that the presuppositional is shrugs his shoulder and says and And I would say and because I don't think that all circles are fallacious.

So why don't you explain that for us? Yeah, well we say and you are too it depends on what circle you're standing in the one that implodes upon itself or not

What do you mean? What do you mean Matt that everyone is standing on a circle, right? Well, we're talking about what I laid out before when

I talked about, you know, maybe you have someone's layout Well, I got this foundational belief this foundationally this foundation will leave, you know, take four

Foundational beliefs wherever they were a certain uniform in nature. I like using logic. I like learning things.

I Believe it's actually morally indignant for this person to go to war against this other country

Yeah, they'll be morally indignant about or torture of animals or something like that sure for puppies

They'll have to stand up on something. Okay, so you get these basic foundational beliefs that human dignity value or something like that Maybe you know, they'll assert.

It's okay. So you got these bricks what unifies the bricks? So that's gonna be your location of ultimacy the ultimate gravity for unity, which they'll put a big question mark but still that is the grounds from which they are arguing from they just don't put a

A label on it or it maybe can't be known but ultimately there has to be a base of reality

Got the infinite regress So if you have well, once again, if you don't was arguing for the truth and say

I got the truth Well, that would be the starting point in order for the truth or falsity of anything that you're gonna experience

Do you want to put a claim on? So, how would I prove the truth to you? I gotta assume the truth in order to prove and demonstrate that it is the only truth.

Mm -hmm And I don't know how someone could actually refute that because you're trying to say well, how can I falsify the truth?

Well, someone's actually they have the true worldview to you. Then it would be insurmountable. But once again all philosophies are

Circular in that fashion because they're gonna appeal to that location ultimately whether they claim it or not They believe they exist and they make the mere formal claim that there is absolute truth

Maybe no, no for sure don't know what it is, but there has to be it. Otherwise, you know, why are we even debating?

In reference of non -grounding Right. So so basically the starting point the methodology and any conclusions reach are ultimately going to be reciprocal

Because it's always being employed even in the methodology Yeah, so it's a branded right from the very start

But if that's the truth and there's no problem with that like using LG of like, you know On a empirical ground just saying well, could you study the eye the eyeball without using the eye?

Even while studying the eyeball you're using the eye, you know So so basically the reason why presuppositional is don't have a problem with the circular nature of the argument

Is that one not all circulars are not all circles are fallacious when you're dealing with ultimate issues

Then those are ultimate you don't demonstrate an ultimate by appealing to something more foundational than it to validate it.

Yeah Their distinctions there because we're not arguing on the same plane of Ontology because we're appealing to God as the ontological creator the creator creature distinction or creator creation distinction person

Christian worldview there's dualistic metaphysics there God's Which is totally

I'll say he has Total he's not dependent upon anything for his existence self -existent

The creation is is dependent upon him That's the the realm of contingent experience

Especially Marvin the creator creature distinction can't be conflated and melded into one as if we're arguing on the same plane

Now the human on the human level are they ultimately arguing that circle viciously on that level? Sure.

The Christian has the broader context To where he's not engaging that vicious circular reason we call it virtuous

We're saying that this reasoning actually the philosophy and theology saves a reason Mm -hmm, and it feels like call it whatever you want.

This saves a reason it saves your philosophy Mm -hmm. It's when he's talking about salvation. He's saying this saves

Philosophy, you know as absent this you're you're dead. You're you're dead your philosophy, right?

Next question and I think this question again these site these types of questions I'm glad the person is asking this question because this is just based on a fundamental misunderstanding of presuppositional apologetics and this is not to You know to talk down to the person who asked the question

These are good questions because they allow they allow opportunities to clarify. So here's the question Is there something wrong with giving someone evidence?

Okay, is there something wrong with giving the historical case for the resurrection or the teleological argument?

I mean the arguments work. They're sound right? This is what the person's asking. So basically, is there anything wrong with giving?

Teleological cosmological historical arguments to defend the Christian faith. There's anything wrong with that I'd say absent of a transcendental framework.

You're not dealing with a worldview apologetic You just use it as an isolation from it They're poked full of holes in all three of the classical main arguments like a logical cosmological and things like that, so Because it's arguing from something within creation or from man's finitude to ultimately

God Got all these hurdles to get over plus they can just they can stop arbitrarily at some point

Anyway, they can stop at a nationalist pantheistic God Yeah You start within there because they go well If you guys say everything

They exist as a cause or everything begins or you just have a cause and you just say well God didn't have a beginning

Why just say the universe didn't have a beginning, you know, and they'll just you know, they'll stake their claim like right there

They go, but you stopped at some point so I gotta stop at some point I could be as arbitrary as yeah

You just you're not starting from the location of all to be Location of ultimacy and reasoning down from him.

You're starting with something that he grounds and arguing to him It's just in reverse and we do that sort of thing the

Unbeliever can stop you at any point just go well, I can just you know This full of logical fallacies here that you're making

Because you're not putting it you can put those arguments within a transcendental framework. They make sense.

It was It undergirded from those Logical jumps and stuff like that because we're not talking about Just causation absent from God or just say well causation.

Therefore God we're saying God Therefore the intelligibility of causation Arguments, right?

Right. So so the Christian worldview Is the necessary worldview context out of which one could have knowledge about anything a foundation for logic a foundation for Arguments a foundation for even making sense out of cosmological arguments

Problems the that's right So so so within the circle

The only reason why within the circle that is the only circle that could make knowledge intelligible

The only reason why a historical argument ready The only reason why a historical argument can make sense in here is because it is couched within the broader worldview framework, right?

So in that sense within the Christian worldview, I could make a historical argument However, we do not make the historical argument pulling it out of its

Christian worldview context Because we believe the Christian worldview context is the only context that can ground knowledge

So if that's true, then how can we tear? Historical arguments independent of that system and talk about it over here where there is no context out of which it can make sense

Yeah, why pull one degree out of the entire enchilada just throw the whole enchilada out. Yep. Yep.

Okay, that's that's good stuff So so there's a viewpoint even on a historical ground because the

Christian got completely different view of history We've already out with a metanarrative to there's difference between talking about the history of philosophy and the philosophy of history

Those aren't these same terms either So one has a view of history from their philosophical perspective, which is gonna be contrary to another person's viewpoint as well

So we're gonna be interpreting even history itself Right the standards that and scholarship.

Yeah, that's right. Yes. Very good Okay, so so basically the person who asked this question

No, there is no problem or there's nothing wrong with giving evidence We just do not give evidence in a way that is isolated from a broader worldview context we don't speak as we don't speak about specific things over here like evidence as Though the worldview context around it doesn't exist.

Well, I don't like Throw the entire house out of them. We're just saying lay out the whole house, right?

So got this brick here this brick here. Look how look how fancy those bricks are put it within the whole

Scheme of the house, right? We got laid out on our side of the page. We're saying we've got the whole house Okay, at least at a foundational level there.

Okay, get some things that go beyond Understanding They've got all the answers but at a foundational level we got the answers right, right

All right, and here's his last question Do you believe there are actual atheists?

I do I think they're telling the truth when they say I believe there is no God How would you respond to that from a presuppositional perspective?

I think it's coming from the heart That many presuppositional to say we don't believe in atheists because the

Bible teaches that all men know that God exists So I think that's kind of the background amount of which this person's asking the questions.

How would you answer that? Right. We're saying is they're operating within that Transcendental framework once again the

Christian worldview and they're created as image bearers of God Ontologically from from their conception.

Okay, and once again, the human has been developed and learned and stuff like that But these things are already

Antecedent as precursors for even the learning capacity because if they're just so much response mechanisms and children defy behaviorism

They do Remember Boston uses of his illustration of like well, you know you with my son

Do we start there with your kids you start pointing at things and say, you know ball bottle

How do you know that pointing means you're talking about the object and the language of the term you're actually speaking to him

Didn't teach him that be a behaviorism. He just knows it intuitively, you know There's a good reputation of behaviors in their children are just a good example of that.

There was no jobs. He actually brought that up, too but within that framework

We're saying there are no true atheists because they're on the operational grounds of the

Christian worldview Which asserts that man is created in the image of God. He's ethically Obligated to bear that image.

He's gonna think God's thoughts after and you can't avoid Wanting to think rationally

You know in certain context is like yeah, but he's gonna be self -contradictory you know in this philosophy he wants to lay out because he

Suppressed the knowledge of Yahweh and then assert your exchange him for something else What is Romans 1 say they're professing professing themselves to be wise to become fool

They gave they become futile in your thinking their foolish hearts are darkened So what they want to assert as wisdom of the world, which

Paul says World through its own wisdom did not come to know God. So I think his first reading is 121

That's just right there Paul laying out a reputation of natural theology that man on his own at Thomas Rouse concludes

God exists said the world through its own wisdom did not come to know God Right God made it manifest in them

Romans chapter 1 Now the far depth of that suppression, of course is going to self -deceive the unbeliever to you know

Once again, that's a secondary belief over his primary belief that then he self -deceives himself

It's all a contradiction from Boston Rose doctoral dissertation on that laying it out the apparent paradox of self -deception

They think it's called tradition. How do you be the deceiver and also the deceived? Once a primary belief and there was a secondary one takes primacy over and then you know

Just clouds your your judgment over though. No, I don't really believe that innately You know the

Bible, you know, it's Hebrews 412 lays out Romans chapter 1 itself The scriptures tell us about our true ontological state, you know, we'll deny it, you know, right their death they will deny it

Yeah, I think I think in a very simple way when you ask the question

Do you believe there are actual atheists? I do Well, it's not an issue. Do I believe they're actually if this person's a

Christian, what does the Bible say? Well, I will teach that there that there are atheists.

I don't I don't think it does Yeah, I think in the future in chapter 2 the term off a us is used as you there, but it's without God and I've heard the interpretation.

I think it was by Greg Bonson. He didn't really fared it out. So I'd have to Further but actually means abandoned by God I Isn't there in Romans 1 and I apologize for cutting in there

Isn't it Romans 1 where it says and knowing God they did not glorify God isn't the

Greek there known test on Theon knowing the God Actually, which makes it more specific as to the

God that they know not just a J ism Yeah, it's definitely article there get on thoughts knowing present at the parts of knowing the

God Mm -hmm Now he's not laying out today and have knowledge of the

Trinity. All right, stop right there I want to stop right there because that was my last question and I think this is very key and in my in my

Discussions with people I've had discussions with some pretty solid classical apologists

You know, I could just name -drop. I've had some good discussions with Braxton Hunter over at Trinity radio Mike winger

He's gonna be debating a presuppositional guy He's a great guy and he really Really just wants to understand the precept method and as he as from his position.

He wants to critique it, which is fine You know, but a question that he asked and I think is a good question when the presuppositional is says

That all men know God What is the nature of this knowledge?

Does that mean when we say all men know God that he knows the Trinity? That he knows the

Bible's the Word of God that he knows You know more specific things.

What is the nature of the knowledge? I'd say that since they're guilty for their what not glorify him as God nor being thankful for what they have is everything they have ontologically metaphysically in that respect all the gifts they have from God they

Use them and abuse them And you're not given right proper respect because it what they're doing you've got the suppression of the truth there and also the

Exchanging of them. So it's not I didn't get this from Yahweh I didn't get my capabilities and abilities from Yahweh my talents and things like that Especially in wanting to be a rational thinker, you know, even that we should remember

Boston bring it up We should give glory to God that we can learn things Yeah, one of the study things and stuff like that, you know, she could glory to God for that but we go

Whoa, this came from the evolutionary framework and ultimately, you know

We could ferret out that worldview wherever they want to serve from how much trauma them or to say district naturalism.

Well did the Imperatively element soup somehow just be able to learn at some point

They does ferret out from point one the point 50 ,000 if you want to lay out systematically,

I really wait for them to do that But they got jumps and leaps and gaps from one point to another what we really haven't ferreted this out yet So they're using their intellectual capabilities to suppress the knowledge of God It's a willful suppression because God says they're without excuse.

They don't have a defense Against him and it's a willful suppression because it's something that they do while knowing the

God And so I'd say it's on operational grounds Not necessarily on a special revelation grounds because Paul's laying out general revelation

He's saying apart from the Bible men know that God exists now he's just reiterating what we already know innately because he's going to the very ontological nature of man

And also the operational framework by which God has made him in the Immaculate Day Genesis 126 man is ethically obligated to bear

God's image. Well, don't do that. We're sinning Right, but he's supposed to be imaging him and you don't do that.

We're sinning and we're engaging in suppressing the truth we're not living consistently with our ontological nature as By God and now we're in that simple condition

We need we need a Savior because Paul's laying out the bad news in Romans He lays out one two half of three bad news before he gets to the gospel when he has to lay it out

Now I lied that was not the last question I have another question that's what I have a couple questions

I have a couple cars Okay. What's the difference between presuppositional apologetics and the transcendental argument?

Some people seem to think that they are Either one in the same or they're not necessarily the same.

So like someone will say well, I'm not a Calvinist I know all you presuppers. Mostly you're reformed, you know, someone like Cornelius Mantel.

He was you know, he had a tattoo event Calvin right on his chest and he didn't really actually You know,

Greg Bonson was a Calvinist so presuppositional apologetics is usually associated with reform coming out of a reform perspective and It usually manifests itself in the form of a transcendental argument.

So what's the difference between presuppo apologetics and tag and Can a non reforms person be presuppositional and can a non reformed person use the transcendental argument

Okay, sorry, that was a heart that's a hard one because Presuppositions are transfer transcendental in nature.

They're transcendental in character. Okay Maybe I should lay that definition earlier

You know my hokey analogy that I'll use a hokey analogy to Bonson like to and I kind of leaned upon him to create my own

So I'll actually bundle father brought this one up. So it's one out of all it's stuck in my brain

So nature of transcendental is a precursor for something. We took away the precursor. You don't have the thing following its consequence so like a very narrow transcendental will be the concept of Very narrow example would be you know, you know

You'd like to play games video games board games a site sort of game game chess checkers backgammon

Call of Duty Star Wars games was laying out. Well, he took away the concept of game. You wouldn't have any particular game.

It's trans It's transcendental is antecedent to any particular game, but if you took that concept away wouldn't have any game in particular

That's a very narrow sense of a transcendental now. Let's go more broad and scope So that was very like close to the bullseye for the illustration now

The biggest ring outside the bullseye here, otherwise the bullseye doesn't make sense took away causality

You don't have any in the concept of game. You don't have any particular game So one's more narrow in scope one's more broad in scope now.

We got two different types of transcendentals here Okay, so we got plurality transcendental now What is the transcendental that grounds all transcendentals these things need accounting for it was a precondition more?

Fundamental than these other things. There are more Systematically fundamental with the web of beliefs, you know, think of like a spider web coming out of a corner

You know We're talking about that corner is a starting point there and everything else spurns off from that in a web

We took that away the whole web falls Systematically related systematically

Fundamental, but we're not foundationalist. We're just talking about from a transcendental starting point because we're not talking about One thing in isolation from all other things we're talking about a system a whole worldview system obviously the ontological

God is Triune in nature so we can account for the one the many issue which we dive into Which a lot of people don't really bring up a lot, but that's what van

Til really wanted to ferret out And other people have really taken the reins so so so So if someone says

I don't like presuppositional apologetics, but I think that the tag argument is pretty cool Can someone take the tag out of the presuppositional apologetics category and use it?

Well, we can lay out like, you know, you have the atheist land There are multiple what we call presuppositions or they label them as properly basic belief who you say?

well, those are your presuppositions, but they haven't gone to the ultimate so You can have someone engaged or laying out presuppositions

Plurality, but we're getting to the unity there. We're talking about the one the many so that's why the Trinity is important here

Is he gonna I've engaged multiple atheists is to say why I believe uniform in nature I believe logic exists and I believe it's immoral for what you

Christians do or whatever. They'll be morally indignant against Christians Let's just say we grant that they're morally indignant. They at least firm something

They can be nailed down, you know, at least not waver on So I go. Okay, so you got this plurality what unifies them?

It's all we got being one So what is that? What is that? That one that actually is a ground of all being the location of ultimacy the transcendental ultimate

And we still say God's a presupposition, but he's transcendental in character Not just transcendence that he transcends all space and time or saying as a precursor

A precondition as you laid out before If you took him away, you wouldn't have anything else.

We're just saying he's on logical Transcendental necessity That's the whole purpose of the location of ultimately argument

It's an overarching argument to saying this is the ultimate thing got a grasp So so we're laying out that whole system from the

Christian worldview If one wants to come up to our level there of argumentation say, okay I can refute you guys internally and then here's my ground and here's how

I have systematic cogency I want to see that worldview laid out on the other side of the page So the layout just by basic terminology of just a presupposition you could just argue from presuppositions

But you're not having a unity there unless you're saying I'm gonna employ Their preceptor transcendental in character since you have a plurality of transcendentals.

You're not grounding them in the transcendental ultimate So you still got a disjuncted plurality without a unity which makes no sense

So there's a rationality there's if you want to affirm there is one in many then they have to ground the one That's where I'm ultimate tag

That's how I would distinguish between you can just argue presuppositions Inconsistently and just say

I got a plurality of presuppositions. You got a plurality presuppositions We never get anywhere unless you want to you know ground and say there's a unity to this diversity

Now we got the overarching tag Aside from just just strict, you know, quote -unquote presuppositions plural

Okay, the ultimate tag would be presuppositional in character because he's also presuppositional There is a presupposition

But he's also transit. It's also transcendental in character On paper a little bit more you can see the distinguishing there because we say it we're

Presuppositional transcendental list or transcendental presuppositional. It's either way you want to flip the term you're employing

Transcendental necessity to the presuppositions. Yeah, that's what we're saying So in a very basic way if and that was an answer,

I'm glad you unfolded it But let's let's make it even more simpler. So you have you have 15 seconds ready?

I'm not a presuppositional apologist, but I I like to the transcendental argument that you guys use Is that good what would you respond in 20 seconds, how would you say why is he like it?

Well, because I think it where I think it has it has a practical use to it, you know, I can use it I think it has a strength to it.

I just don't you're presuppositional apologetics is not equivalent to the tag argument, right? Hypothetical person.

Yeah employ the tags. They're transcendentalists. So yeah Because we're arguing from the location of ultimacy the ultimate transcendental

Engaging in presuppositions that people have engaged in their presuppositions about their presuppositions about the nature of reality

And knowledge and how you should live, you know your lives and we do it in from that viewpoint.

So That's so important purpose of laying out two sides of the page lay out their presuppositions

So you got the plurality there you got your metaphysic epistemology ethics, you know, that's a plurality There's three categories there.

But what unifies the three categories? We're saying the ontological training does you know, it's imagine circle father son

Holy Spirit Totally equality, you know representing the ontological training there and then branching off from that you got three philosophical categories

And that meant a narrative From his creation, you know and the creator creature creation distinction.

They're already laid out our dualistic metaphysical framework So we're laying on our side the page the other side is going well

I got these things in these categories, but I have no unity between them. I can't harmonize them

They believe there are relationships there, but they have to human a ground what a relationship is what a conceptual relationship is

These are things about verified by empirical standards at all, but they're that by which they want to employ even an empirical investigation

All right, I mean radically disjuncted things. Otherwise, I just say you have just Chaos and old night

Okay, so how about this? All right, Matt. I'm not a Calvinist man

I am an Arminian or I am a traditionalist, you know, maybe I'm late in flowers or something

Maybe late in flowers. He said he's actually subscribed to the podcast. So you probably hear this but Not taking pot shots

But Say you're say you're not a Calvinist Can a non Calvinist be in any consistent way a precept can can that person use?

presuppositional apologetics consistently I Wouldn't say consistently because they'd have to jump ship on one's personal theological grounds.

I think what bento and boss were dealing with there was a Consistently biblically derived apologetic to say this is derived from scripture and the whole worldview system that scripture lays out

It's our metaphysic how we know we know and how we should live holistically So, you know issues of God's sovereignty

The creator creature distinction free will so they get are going to get into that as well as Depending on how you preach the gospel for someone

So it has that Once again, the the purpose of apologetics.

I think it has to be emphasized guys learn this too. It's something I always got to keep Bringing back up in my mind because sometimes we get into this intellectual rigor

And intellectual fisticuffs we forget about the overarching umbrella, which is the evangelistic context

So apologetics is always a subdivision within Evangelism, so angelism has to be first and foremost

The subdivision within that is to engage in apologetics. Not that's so important. Yeah, and I had to definitely flip on that many times

Where you lose sight of it and yeah, okay going up. I got to check myself Gotta think evangelism first and foremost the whole time.

I'm engaging in apologetics That's the overarching umbrella by which apologetics should be be employed

So I want to make it add to because it's something I got to call myself out on multiple times Yeah, we can get so wrapped up I mean, they know what perspective

I'm coming from but they need to hear that gospel I need to hear that gospel preach to you know And we kind of lose sight of that just you know

I could debate philosophy with someone for one or two hours. Oh my god. No way. Oh stop. You've done it

You've done it for four hours. I've listened to it He's trying to be modest

I could go for two hours no Because you self -reflect upon that I'm like, oh man, okay answer that point after that point

But man, I could brought the gospel right there, you know, that was like he right there So it's trying to pick up on that not lose sight of that Which will only be called out upon too because we're all easy to do

Because we you're trying to deal with a whole bunch of stuff in your head and stuff like that Well, if he brings up this way brings up that bubble, you know focus upon evangelism.

Yeah, it's real quote forth and that's an R point to Just teaching on some apologetics to some newcomers to the car server on on discord

Yeah, I was coming for you teach me philosophical apologetics I got no will teach you theological apologetics

Because philosophy once again is oh my god so we're gonna put it within that framework and I Had to bring it up to him that you know

Make that a subdivision Apologetics is a subset of evangelism. We got to be gospel -oriented first Foremost and can't lose it.

Why is you know, you go Hayward on there? And there's the ultimate Scope of things.

Yeah now I guarantee for the people who are listening to this. They are going to find this conversation

Immensely helpful now, we're gonna end here only because I don't want the video to be too long because then I'm gonna have trouble

You know like I would how it kind of downloads and it takes forever if it's like two hours long or whatever But I'm going to I'm going to manipulate manipulate you now and in in public for everyone listening

You're coming back and we're discussing another issue. You're gonna say yes Eli. We're gonna do this again.

Let's do this, right? Okay So here's the next topic we're going to talk about in some time in the future whenever you want to and I know that a

Lot of people would be interested in this ready the truth For the proof of the of the the truth of the

Christian worldview is that without if it were not true You couldn't prove anything at all people say well, that's great

How do you know that it's the Christian God Specifically that grounds all of these things and mr.

Pre supper you don't prove your point by merely disproving someone else's viewpoint you hear this stuff all the time so next time maybe we can talk about specifically the transcendental argument and why it demonstrates the

Triune God and not the God of Islam not the the fake

Fresh a Christian God or the God that is perhaps a a Quadrinity as opposed to a

Trinity or something like that So, uh, would you be willing to talk about that and we can get into issues of the one in the many and I think people

Would really find that super fascinating. Yep, and that's gonna be a hint there That's the one that slices through the majority of the world is you know, perfect man.

Well, thank you so much, bro I love to guys just let you know Matt yester has helped me in my own personal studies

I've listened to and digested so much of Greg Bonson that I I lost count how many things that I've listened to but Matt Has actually helped me fill the gaps in my understanding as to what

I learned from Bonson and he's been able to explain some issues that I you know that I missed when I did those studies and so I've really

Appreciated his insight. He's always letting me know when a debate is going down So I'm always you know, I'll be sitting around like man.

I need to listen to something I'll get a text and do this is going down on modern -day debates or something like that You know, and so I do appreciate your friendship.

I appreciate your your insights and And I'm looking forward to doing this again man.