Answering More Questions on Presuppositional Apologetics

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Iyalla and today we are going to continue covering a whole host of questions that I receive, questions and comments and things like that in my comments section of my

YouTube videos and things that I get emailed to me and I figured I would take the opportunity to address some of them.

And again, as I did before in my previous episode, to kind of expand on some helpful points of presuppositional apologetic methodology and so hopefully folks found the previous episode useful.

I sure hope that people found it useful because I do put a lot of work into trying to move through questions and expand on things and I'm trying my best to scratch where people are itching and so hopefully the questions that I cover are useful and beneficial for those who are interested in learning presuppositional apologetics.

So before I jump in, I just want to give folks a heads up. I will be flying out to I think upstate

New York for a speaking engagement as I've mentioned in past episodes. When I'm not doing

YouTube or I'm not teaching in the classroom, I am a traveling speaker so if you want me to come to speak at your event, to do a workshop at your church or anything along those lines, that is literally a thing.

You can go to my website, revealedapologetics .com and you could reach out to me there. There's a little thing on the home page there where you can kind of go straight to my email.

You kind of leave a comment there and we can set something up like that. Also January 15th starts the first day of class session of PresuppU, the premium edition, in which those who signed up for my class that I offer on my website, there is as I said a premium version of the class in which

I meet with the students five times, once a week for five weeks where we go in more depth with respect to the video content, the pre -recorded video content and lectures and things like that.

We get to go deeper into the content of the class and so if you're looking to learn presuppositional apologetics in a more orderly way, kind of in a classroom sort of setting, you can sign up for my class right there on revealedapologetics .com.

You click on the PresuppU button and you could RSVP your spot. Class starts on January 15th so we got a few people signed up.

Whether a bunch of people sign up or two people sign up, I still do it. I still meet with folks and we can dive deeper and get into the details of whatever questions that might be on your mind.

You could interact with me personally, we'll be sharing the screen there and people can talk to me and we can go into great detail.

So I've done this class in this course in the past and it has been a great blessing to be able to see the faces of many people from around the world who support the ministry and want to learn in a more structured fashion and so super excited about that.

It's a great way to support Revealed Apologetics, otherwise you could always go to the website and donate whatever amount you feel led to do.

If your form of support for this ministry is simply being here and clicking the like button and just learning and finding benefit in what is being said here on this channel, that support is fully appreciated as well.

So just wanted to throw that out there. Let's jump right in.

I hope folks really enjoyed the live. I really did enjoy. I kind of like this format where I kind of go through a list of questions and comments and things like that.

It allows me to expand on important issues relating to theology and apologetics.

We've got a Bible question in my list here and we've got presuppositional apologetic methodological questions that I think will be very useful.

So if folks like this format of me simply going through various questions and things like that, let me know.

Let me know in the comments and I can keep doing this. It's much easier for me in terms of how

I usually do it, although I do love interviewing great guests. I will be having a guest soon to talk about a new book that came out.

I won't mention any details now here because I want to solidify that first. But I do have an interview coming up that will have to be scheduled and I'm waiting for someone to respond to lock in another interview.

So hopefully we'll get a couple of interviews in the near future. I'm looking to be super active in 2024.

I know sometimes I have kind of an inconsistent schedule where I'm nowhere to be found and then all of a sudden

I'll just whip out like three or four videos. So I'm looking to be a little bit more consistent and put out much more content this year in 2024.

So there you go. All right. Well, let's jump right into our questions.

OK, so welcome to this episode entitled Answering More Questions on Presuppositional Apologetics.

OK, all right. So I have a first question here and the first question here is, what is the place of intelligent design within presuppositional apologetics?

I think that's a great question. The reason why I think this is a great question is because there is often a misunderstanding as to the relationship between evidence and a presuppositional methodology.

People tend to have the impression that if you're a presuppositionalist, you don't really talk about the evidence because we're so focused on presuppositions.

What what is presupposed and assumed when coming to the evidence? And to be sure, we definitely do focus on those issues because they're foundational and very important in addressing issues of evidence and whatnot.

But I think this is a great question. So so what is the place of intelligent design within presuppositional apologetics?

Let's start by defining our terms. OK, so according to the Discovery Institute, the

Discovery Institute is an institute that is very much involved in the intelligent design movement and things like that.

So the Discovery Institute defines intelligent design in the following way.

Quote, intelligent design refers to a scientific research program, as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

And this was got this definition here from Bio Logos. If anyone is familiar with with that group there, they're very much involved in the intelligent design movement and discussions relating to those issues.

Now, and by way of response to this, there's nothing wrong with pointing out the fact that nature gives evidence of design.

Right. Nor is there anything wrong with pursuing natural sciences and documenting the evidence of design in nature.

In fact, I think it is of great apologetic value to do these sorts of things. But what's wrong? What's wrong with this picture?

Right. When I say these things, many see my statements that I just made there as somehow being in conflict with my commitment to a presuppositional apologetic approach.

And such of you would think that presuppositionalists are allergic to any appeals to evidence whatsoever, be they from fields of science, historical analysis, philosophy and so forth.

This is really to misunderstand presuppositional apologetics. OK, when the presuppositionalist appeals to evidences produced by, say, intelligent design advocates, one might be tempted to think that that that particular presuppositionalist has wandered off into evidentialism.

And so we can talk or we can think about evidentialism, classical apologetics and presuppositionalism as different tools in the toolbox to be used depending on the context of the apologetic encounter.

So we can kind of take this pragmatic approach to apologetics. In one context, I'll be an evidentialist.

And in another context, I'll be a classicalist. And then a different context, I'll be a presuppositionalist. Right. But this, of course, is not what

I'm saying. OK, I'm not saying that. I've said multiple times before, and I'll say it again. There is a vast difference between the use of evidence and the use of evidentialism as a methodology.

OK, when the presuppositionalist uses evidence, whether their appeals to intelligent design or some sort of historical argumentation, the presuppositionalist does not cease to be a presuppositionalist.

OK, it is entirely appropriate to appeal to evidence in the created order to respond to, you know, the absurd claim that everything we see in nature simply developed by some random process over a long period of time and so forth.

Right. There's nothing wrong with with responding to those claims in this fashion. The problem arises when we come to the data of nature in a neutral and autonomous fashion.

OK, as we know, the scientific enterprise itself is far from from this neutral project of simply studying the data and following the evidence wherever it leads.

This is what we hear. You know, we hear this a lot, right? We the reality is we all have our bias.

We all have our presupposition. So when asking what role and getting back to the original question here, when asking what role does intelligent design play in a presuppositional approach to apologetics, an approach that is committed to the lordship of Jesus Christ at every turn, it must play the role of displaying the glory of the triune

God who has revealed himself both in general and special revelation. And so when we appeal to evidence as we do not do so to encourage a sort of generic theism.

Right. I think the problem that is that the problem is that generally speaking, the project of intelligent design, at least as I understand it, typically seeks to uncover evidence of a general intelligence or what we might call a generic theism, the sort of theism that is not the purview of what

I think should be a Christian apologetic. So for the evidence in nature discovered by the scientific enterprise only has intelligibility and meaningfulness within a worldview perspective.

So for the Christian, it's this is going to be the Christian worldview that makes those things meaningful. So in the final analysis, intelligent design has its place as we make various appeals to design inherent in nature and things like that.

But we do not use this information to point to a generic and undefined deity.

All of the intelligence found in nature evidences the one true God, the creator of the evidence itself.

OK, so so we take this and we ask the question, how can we make use of this in a practical setting?

Well, first, we're going to need to disconnect ourselves from the erroneous conclusion or view that appeals to evidence of design as a detachment from a presuppositional approach.

That's not the case at all. When someone asks me, for example, what evidence is there for the existence of God?

We need to remember that if the presuppositional position is correct, everything is evidence for God. And therefore, we could appeal to literally any item of human experience that that we want.

You want to talk about art and aesthetics? Let's do it. You want to talk about historical facts and historical issues?

Let's let's go for it. You want to talk about the intricacies of biological life and the complexity of DNA and genetic information?

We can do that. Or if we use Greg Bonson's example with toothpaste, if his toothpaste proof for God's existence, if you guys are familiar with that, you want to talk about toothpaste and the issue of induction and the justification for the expectation that the toothpaste will squeeze out of the tube as it as it has done so in the past and that on the

Christian worldview, we can have an expectation of it coming out in the future and so forth. We can talk about all those sorts of things.

There's nothing inherent about the presuppositional approach that forbids us from discussing the evidence first.

I'm going to say that again. There's nothing inherent about a presuppositional approach that forbids us from discussing the evidence first.

The only thing we'll want to keep in mind is what Cornelius Mantill has reminded us correctly.

I think that while we discuss the facts, we will not want to endlessly discuss the facts without addressing one's philosophy of fact.

OK, so while we have one foot in the evidence and that conversation surrounding the evidence, the other foot is always connected to the broader worldview context, which makes sense of the meaningfulness of the facts under discussion.

It's it's basically navigating that balance of evidence that will become really important if we choose to utilize the resources of intelligent design or historical analysis or evidence for the

Christian faith and these sorts of things. So I think walking that balance is a very, very important way of approaching this question of what role might intelligent design play within a consistently presuppositional approach.

OK, all right. So I hope that makes sense. And it's a great question. I think the relationship between presuppositionalism and the utilization of evidence is an important question.

I have promoted a book. It's old. It's out of print. If you find it, it's kind of like finding a golden nugget, you know, buried in the ground somewhere.

But the book Vantill and the Use of Evidence is a great book. It's written by Tom Notaro. If you can get your hands on it,

I think it might be floating around on the interwebs. You can get like a scanned copy of it or something like that.

It might even if I'm if I'm not mistaken, it might even be available on James Anderson's blog,

Dr. James Anderson of Reform Theological Seminary. If someone knows about that, maybe you can put a link in the comments or something that would be useful for folks.

So, all right, let's move on to our next question. OK, this is this is I guess this is a Calvinism question.

All right. Let's see here is is the biblical mention of free will offering a rebuttal of Calvinism?

OK, is the biblical mention of free will offering a free will offerings? OK, a rebuttal of Calvinism.

OK, so there are a number of ways we could respond to this. First, we're going to want to define what a free will offering is.

That is a that's that's in the Bible, right? There is literally a kind of offering mentioned in the Bible called a free will offering.

So let's take a look at Exodus chapter thirty five, verse twenty nine. OK, Exodus chapter thirty five, verse twenty nine.

It says this. All the Israelite men and women who were willing brought to the Lord free will offerings for all the work of the

Lord through Moses had commanded them to do now. Now, again, the mention of free will offering here is important.

We want to know what that is. So a free will offering was basically an offering that constituted a voluntary sacrifice.

This is laid out for us in Leviticus chapter twenty two, verse twenty three, as opposed to, say, one that was the result of a vow or obligation.

OK, so how much of whatever was given was something determined by the individual and it wasn't laid out within the law as something obligatory.

So in that sense, it's a free will offering. It's not an offering that was an obligation placed upon Israel because of the law of Moses.

OK, so now the question is, is this idea of free will offering?

Does this go against Calvinism? And my estimation, it does not go. And I think I really think that people who are

Armenians or Molinist or someone who holds like libertarian free will, I think they would agree that this this particular scripture wouldn't be a good case against Calvinism's understanding of free will.

I think they would agree or at least should agree, even if their position is is if their position is correct.

And I was I were a libertarian and I was a Molinist or an Armenian or someone who held to that form of freedom.

I wouldn't use this passage. OK, so so first, we want to get a couple of things out of the way. It doesn't go against Calvinism because Calvinism doesn't deny free will.

Contrary to popular opinion, OK, we don't we have a particular understanding of the will, a free will and what that means.

But we don't we don't reject free will in kind of that general sense. The mention of free will in the

Bible is not a. Someone here.

Oh, oh, yes, yes. Sky, I'm live. Yeah, we're we're live, man. Welcome.

I'm glad you're glad you're here. Yeah, we're live here. I'm going to try to sneak in a couple of other lives before the year is over.

So we'll see how how effectively I can do that. But so let me continue here. So the mention of free will in the

Bible is not a demonstration of what we might call libertarian free will. And that's really what is is being asked about here, which refers to libertarian free will refers to the ability to make free choices that are not determined by prior conditions, nor is the mention of the phrase free will, nor does it demonstrate the truth of what we would call the categorical ability to do otherwise.

OK, namely the idea that a person has the ability to do other otherwise, all things being equal up until the moment of choice.

Right. That's the categorical ability. There's a distinction between the categorical ability to do otherwise and the conditional ability to do otherwise.

And there's a broad discussion with respect to those different versions of ability to do otherwise that I think is important for these sorts of discussions.

This in no way is this particular phrase, a free will offering. It doesn't support the idea of incompatibilism, the position which states that determinism and moral responsibility are incompatible with each other.

The utilization of this passage in Exodus, which mentions the free will offering when someone uses the passage as an argument against Calvinism is they're misusing that text.

It doesn't really relate or apply to those sorts of discussions, kind of like when folks try to use

First Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13, to try and demonstrate libertarian free will and the ability to do otherwise.

And that in that categorical sense that I just mentioned, as a matter of fact, let's take a look at First Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13,

I think. Let's see here. Yeah, Sky, I'm going to take your question.

Let me just finish this question up and I will take your question. Absolutely. If you have if there are folks listening in and you have some questions and I will try to address the questions in the comments as well as the questions that I'm addressing here as part of my main spiel here.

So so real quick. So let's go to First Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13. It says no temptation has overtaken you that is not common to man.

God is faithful and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability. But with the temptation, he will also provide the way of escape that you may be able to endure it.

OK, so like Arminians and Molinists and people who hold to libertarian free will will assert that the believer in this passage has the ability to not fall into temptation because God has offered, quote, a way of escape.

OK, now this passage is not saying that the people in this situation in exactly the same circumstances with exactly the same amount of grace can simply indeterministically do better without without more grace.

That's not what it's saying. The passage is saying that people in similar circumstances can avoid sin, how they're able to do that, in what sense do they have the ability to do otherwise categorical, conditional, all these sorts of things is just simply you can't draw those out from this passage.

I would say this passage does not support either position. It is in it is how can

I say this? It is underdetermined. It just doesn't it doesn't mention the things necessary to extrapolate that sort of position.

OK, so we want to be careful when we use Bible verses to support our view.

We don't want to make a verse say more than what it actually is saying. Oftentimes we can thrust a whole bunch of assumptions into a particular text, and that is obviously going to impact how we interpret those specific passages.

So so there you go. That's how I would answer the question. No, the idea of free will offerings mentioned in the

Book of Exodus is not it doesn't go against Calvinism's view of the will and those sorts of things. OK, if libertarian free will were true and, you know, and could be demonstrated, it's not demonstrated utilizing this passage, if that makes sense.

OK. All right. I'm going to go off my main list of questions here. We're going to take a quick question from the comments here and feel free to shoot some over throughout my as I'm going along.

Sky Apologetic says, I just got for Christmas a defense of the faith. Would you recognize it? Would you recognize it cover to cover or would you?

Oh, would you maybe would you read it cover to cover or would you jump around chapter to chapter, page to page?

Well, Sky, that is going to depend on the goal and purpose for your reading.

Are you looking to see what Vantill has to say about a specific thing or are you trying to get an overall perspective on his, you know, on his on his defending his presuppositional approach?

OK, there is a whole section in that book that deals with objections. So if you're looking to see, well, how did how did

Vantill answer common objections that were launched against his position? Then you might want to read those portions of of the book.

For example, Cornelius Vantill was often accused of being an idealist, a

Kantian, all these sorts of things. And he addresses those. So if your goal is to kind of know, well, how do I respond to criticisms, then you might want to go to that particular part of the book.

Me personally, I would recommend reading it from from cover to cover.

OK, that would be my because Vantill you need to you need to read Vantill in context.

It's very I think it's it's not as helpful as reading it cover to cover if you were to take pieces of Vantill without seeing the big picture.

You have to understand something that Cornelius Vantill comes from a continental philosophical tradition, and this should be drawn a distinction between what we might call the analytical philosophical tradition.

Analytic philosophy deals with linguistic analysis and the defining of terms and the structuring of rigorous argumentation, whereas continental philosophy tends to be more broad strokes, more worldview emphasis, kind of big picture.

And of course, within the big picture, it is that big picture that creates the context and meaningfulness for the understanding of the individual pieces within that picture.

So for Vantill, he draws these broad strokes that is required to understand the place of the individual pieces of his thought, how they fit together.

So in that sense, I personally would recommend reading the book cover to cover for that sense to get a kind of a fully orbed view of what he's trying to say.

And then you got to plow through his language. He is conversant with certain philosophies that one might not be familiar with.

So you want to maybe have a pen or maybe like a Word document open, take notes and be like, well, what is idealism or what's his deal with Barth?

And what's this guy accusing him of? I don't recognize that term. You want to read him actively.

It's not open the book while you're laying in bed. Although if you like that stuff, maybe that's, you know,

I don't mind reading Vantill while I'm laying in bed. But if you're not into this sort of stuff, it might put you to sleep or you might have great difficulty understanding what is being said.

So there you go. All right. Well, great. I'm so happy that helped. You are not bothering me at all.

If you have a question while I'm going through my other questions, please feel free to ask your question and I will have no problem jumping off my main questions to address any questions that might be in the comments.

So. All right. Well, thank you for that, Sky. We're going to continue on in my list here.

My I think we're on a third question here. OK, so this question is, what would you personally say to an atheist who has spent many hundreds of hours studying the

Bible simply as a piece of literature, all the while they reject it as the word of God?

OK, well, that's going to depend on who I'm engaging. Really, people are different, as as we know, that's kind of an obvious thing to point out.

Right. You know, furthermore, I point out that with more knowledge of the truth comes greater condemnation.

Isn't that right? The more he reads and in a general sense understands what he's reading, his accountability is all the more greater.

I would encourage the person to keep reading, as well as if he's my friend meeting up with me, you know, to discuss some of the details.

I would try to find out where he is and engaging the truth of the text. And I would gently and respectfully press him.

OK, now, ultimately, his submission to the truth of what he's reading is going to is going to come down to the gracious work of the

Holy Spirit. But as we know, the spirit works in tandem with the word. So what

I would personally say would not be something that is said in necessarily like a sentence or two, but rather through a course of a relationship in which

I would seek opportunities to press the truth of the word with the hopes that the spirit of God does his gracious work in that time.

So I think I think it's going to depend on the person you're speaking with with respect to the route

I might take. But I'm more of a long term person. Don't think that in apologetics you need to have this quick answer.

Sometimes apologetics is most effectively done over a course of time, over a course of relationship and discussion and plowing through issues.

I think it can be done very effectively in that regard. OK, all right.

All right. So let's see here.

Give me one second. Jimmy, I'm going to take your question. OK, let's see here.

All right. So Jimmy asks, should presuppositionalists be idealists?

Well, I mean, should someone be an idealist? Well, it depends what you mean by idealism.

There are different flavors of idealism. If you can kind of give me a little bit more details. I think a

Christian should be a metaphysical position that they think is supported in Scripture.

Now, people might think that the Bible doesn't talk about metaphysics and it's not concerned with those questions, but I think the way we speak about reality is going to have to be informed by by Scripture.

So it really depends. It really depends. Let's see here. Sky, have you read any of Michael Kruger's books?

Michael Kruger? Yeah, I've got a bunch of Michael Kruger books. Where'd it go?

Oh, here we go. All right.

So I have a couple. Give me a second.

I don't like turning my back to the I don't like turning my back to the camera, but I want to get something real quick.

Um, let's see. Is this

Kruger too? Yeah. Okay. I got a couple of things. Okay. So first, Michael Kruger.

All right. Let's see here. Michael Kruger has this book,

Canon Revisited. I highly recommend this book. This is an excellent book on the formation of canon and having a kind of a theological approach, kind of a

I would I would even say a presuppositional approach to understanding the development and establishment and defining of canon.

Then there is let's see here. There is another one here.

The heresy of orthodoxy, how contemporary cultures fascination with diversity has reshaped our understanding of early

Christianity. And in this book, he kind of responds to the idea that early Christianity was was very, very diverse and, you know, undefined.

These sorts of things addresses that in this book. And now this is not a Michael Kruger book. But if you're interested in canon stuff,

I would highly recommend this. Okay. This is called The Shape of Sola Scriptura by Keith Matheson.

And this is an excellent book. I mean, it's it's what is it?

Three hundred and we see of text itself. Three hundred and forty five, three hundred and forty six pages.

Give you an idea here. I'm going to show you the table of contents here. This might be some good, juicy information.

You want to put it on pause later and see there. There's some good stuff. He's got some responses to.

Eastern orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism. Well, let me let me take a time here. So the first the part one, part one and then chapters one through four, he provides historical context, the early church context for the canon,

Middle Ages, Martin Luther, John Calvin, the Radical Reformation, the Counter Reformation, Post Reformation developments. His part two, he provides the witness of Scripture, Scripture on Scripture and tradition.

What does the Scripture have to say about Scripture and tradition, the Scripture and the role of the church? Part three, chapter seven through nine, the theological necessity of Sola Scriptura.

He offers a critique of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions, a critique of the evangelical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which should not be confused with Sola Scriptura and the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Part four, chapters 10 and 11 are objections and issues, answering objections and then the canon, the church and the creeds.

So basically, that book covers all of this sort of stuff. Really good book. I highly recommend people get it along with the canon revisited.

Kruger stuff is great. Okay, there you go. All right. Didn't know

I was gonna have to whip out those books there, but let's see here. All right.

So let's see here. Ah, Jimmy, Berkeley and idealism, to be precise.

Now, are you saying that if something is not being observed, it doesn't exist?

Is that the kind of idealism you're talking about? Like George Berkeley? George Berkeley's been a while since I've read up on that stuff.

If that's what you mean, no, I would not encourage someone to hold to that position.

So there you go. Richie Torres says, Eli, how would you respond to some of the more robust philosophical objections to precept, let's say, from someone like Alex Malpass or Graham Oppie there?

Now, I'm not familiar. I am familiar, but I don't know off the top of my head the specific argument that Alex Malpass has made against precept.

And it depends. There are different manifestations of, say, the transcendental argument that might be formulated maybe different than the way

I would use it. Or it really depends. I don't know what his main thrust is.

If someone knows, maybe they can summarize it in a comment, and I can try to interact with it as best I can. Graham Oppie, again,

I don't remember any of his objections to precept as well off the top of my head. So basically,

I tend to deal with popular objections, not because I don't think the sophisticated objections are important.

They are. And I have engaged them. But because I do this when

I catch the time, I don't have a lot of time to plow through some of the deeper philosophical issues.

But they are totally important. And I'm familiar with the issues enough that if someone were to lay it out for me,

I might have a few thoughts on them. So so sorry if I can't be any more help there.

OK, let's see here. Sky, again, also just curious, what's your day to day Bible? My day to day

Bible, I would have to say. I really like my my

ESV study Bible. I also have I can't.

OK, I'm going to get up and I'm going to show you this is going to be really weird, but I'm going to show you the book that I have here. All right.

This is super weird. One of my favorite Bibles that I own. OK, you're going to laugh and be like, wait, what?

This is a thing. OK, this is called the Legacy Study Bible in which

Hank Hanegraaff is the general editor. OK, now you might be asking, what the heck?

Why is this my favorite Bible? Well, it's my favorite Bible because I love the way the text is laid out.

Look how much space you have to write in the margins. It's called the

Legacy Bible because it's meant to be passed on. So the leather that it's made, you can shoot this thing with a machine gun.

It ain't nothing's happening to it. The pages are so thick you can write with a high with a marker and everything.

It doesn't leak through the pages. So I'm not supporting Hank Hanegraaff or anything like that. You know, although this came out before he kind of converted to Eastern Orthodoxy.

But this is my favorite Bible because, quite frankly, it's the most sturdiest Bible that I have. And it's super comfortable to hold in my hand and to write in.

So so there you go. I'll give you another look at the here you go. See, so you have some of the pages look like and let me see what it looks like with some notes.

Just a couple of notes there. So, yeah, it's just sturdy. This thing is literally bulletproof.

So that is my favorite. That's my favorite Bible. So there you go.

Let's see here. We're going to continue on here. Got some good questions. Thank you for that. Let's see here.

Hey, Richie, thank you for the super chat. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Let's see here.

Yeah, so OK, so Jimmy kind of expands on his view of Berkeley and idealism. The physical world is dependent upon the mental.

And in some sense, that's true. If you think of like the mind of God, physical stuff only exists when it's perceived by the mind now.

So that that part, I would I would disagree. I think that physical things exist because there is a distinction between creator and creature

God created. Right. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The Bible teaches that there is a material realm, that material realm exists independent of myself, whether I'm observing it or not.

I would not hold to that position. Yeah. All right. Let's see here.

Yeah. Yeah. Christian monarchist. Every thought captured by Richard Pratt is a good read. Yep. I agree.

That is a good one. Any tips for studying a book, also reading more? Yes. OK, now

I have just discovered. What my iPhone can do. All right. Now, I don't have a lot of time to sit and and read.

But what I find is that listening while reading what I'm listening to is super helpful for retention.

So if you're doing apologetics and reading philosophy, you want to retain what you are reading.

What I do is there is actually a function in the iPhone, OK, where if you go to accessibility and then you go to spoken content, you can choose a voice in which it will read to you whatever is on your screen.

And if you click on a Siri voice, it is not robotic at all.

And you can choose from a certain amount of Siri voices that comes with the phone.

And whenever I have my Kindle open or my Apple books, I literally just click this thing and it reads in this clear, crisp

Siri voice. But when I say it's it does not sound robotic. I'm telling you, it does not sound robotic.

There are robotic voices available, but this particular one sounds like very smooth and like someone's reading to you.

And I will read my books. I'll have my phone read my book to me while I also have my

Kindle open. So I read from a Kindle scribe. OK, I read from my Kindle scribe here.

OK, I know some people like this stuff, so I don't mind going into it. So I have here my

Kindle scribe. OK, and I have my these books are also on my phone.

So my phone will read the book to me while I'm following along with my actual

Kindle. And that has been ridiculously helpful and things that I don't have to sit and like really absorb.

I will have my phone read to me while I drive. I have 40 40 minute drive to work so I can read multiple books, read multiple books in a nice audible quality voice for free, reads all my stuff to me.

And I'm constantly reading in that way because of my lifestyle. I don't I don't always have the opportunity to just chill and sit and read something thick.

So I hope that's helpful. It's super helpful to me. You know, I'm an

I'm an audio learner. So so I found that to be very, very useful. OK, all right.

You could also you can also unlock that function in your iPad as well. Your iPad could read to you as well.

So all right. All right. So question from zone locks, zone locks.

Sorry, just watch the Bonson versus Stein debate. Didn't fully understand Bonson's answer to this. Why not just assume the transcendental nature of logic?

Well, yeah, logic is a transcendental category. However, logic is understood within a particular worldview.

So for Gordon Stein, who is a metaphysical naturalist where all is matter in motion, you're now going to have to assume logic.

What is logic? Is it immaterial? How does immaterial nature of logic cohere with a worldview that thinks that all is matter in motion?

Is logic matter in motion? If so, then how is it necessary? How is it a necessary precondition?

How do you fit, for example, immutable conceptual immaterial laws of thought in a universe that is physical and constantly undergoing entropy and change?

How can you have change less conceptual laws being grounded in the more fundamental or just as fundamental material universe?

So with respect to the debate, Bonson could simply press the issue.

I don't remember the specific place in the debate, but he could have pressed the issue of, well, what is logic on your worldview? So if you want to say the transcendental nature of logic, yeah,

I think logic is a transcendental category. But what grounds it?

Does it, you know, what is it? Is it immaterial? Is it material, right? What's the nature of logic itself?

The category of logic is not worldview independent. And so we'd want to challenge if you want to take the transcendental logic of nature, then you're going to have to tell us within your worldview, what is that?

And then we can test for consistency to see if you have a coherent understanding of how that fits in your world. And that's where the internal critique happens, right?

OK, so so, yeah, anyone could assume anything if you want. The real issue is, does it fit consistently within a worldview that coheres with each other and does not violate its own principles?

I think that's an important, important way to come at it. Jacob Glass, Eli, if you had to build a team of apologists, who would be your starting five?

Yeah. So so Greg Bonson, James White. Who else?

Who else? I like this really good debater. William Lane Craig, if you like, wait, wait, whoa, whoa, time out.

He's a classical apologist. Yeah. But when he is critiquing atheistic positions,

I think he has some really great points. I don't agree with them and everything, but I think that's that might be part of my my team.

We might do certain different things as we debate. So let's see who else.

James, I love Anthony Rogers. Anthony Rogers is a beast, especially debating the Trinity. So Anthony Rogers, how many how many is that?

That's Bonson. Well, well, Vantill. I have to think questions like this, it's hard for me to like on the spot,

I'm probably going to like finish up later and be like, oh, man, I should have thought of this other person. So so yeah, that's all you got out of me.

I have to think about that. OK. Let's see here. OK, so Rayleigh, real

Android. OK, real Android. Can you give an example of how using the preset method in conversation can lead into a presentation of the gospel?

Yeah. So the presuppositional method is is is gospel centered. It's not something that leads into the gospel.

It is a proclamation and defense of the gospel. OK, it is a proclamation and defense of the gospel.

What are we proclaiming to the unbeliever? We are proclaiming the triune

God and we are proclaiming Christ who came and atoned for sins.

We are proclaiming the one that unless we submit and bow down in repentance, right, we can't make sense out of anything.

If I can put that in a very simplistic way, it's Christ, the Christ of Scripture, the self -attesting

Christ of Scripture or chaos. OK, the gospel is hand in hand with the apologetic argumentation.

Because what are we debating? What are we discussing in apologetics? It's the Christian worldview. And what are we talking about when we talk about the

Christian worldview? We're talking about the gospel as a central issue, Christ as the foundation of our faith and these sorts of things.

So the presentation of the gospel goes hand in hand with our apologetic.

All right. So I would lead with the proclamation of Christ. And as the handmaid of that proclamation is my apologetic, and that will come into fuller focus depending on how the person responds to the proclamation.

I don't jump into the discussion with apologetics and transcendental arguments. No, we proclaim Christ. That Christ is not something we should lead to later on.

We should begin with Christ. OK, and then the defense is what? If anyone asks us for the reason for the hope that's within us, then we engage in that defensive aspect.

So they work hand in hand. I'm very much in agreement with the idea that apologetics is the handmaid of evangelism.

OK, evangelism and apologetics go hand in hand. It's very important to keep in mind.

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

All right, let's see. Richie Torres says here's one of his main points,

I guess, talking about Malpass. If Christianity is true. The then a perfect being exists, but if a perfect being exists.

Then Christianity is false. Therefore, Christianity is false. If Christianity is true, then a perfect being exists.

But if a perfect being exists. I'm not sure

I'm not trying to make sense out of that. If Christianity is true, then a perfect being exists.

If a perfect being exists, then Christianity is false. Why would the existence of a perfect being falsify

Christianity? I don't get it. And within the

Christian worldview, perfection would be defined within the context of the Christian worldview. This person has an idea and definition of what constitutes a perfect being, but that idea and definition is in conflict with how the

Christian worldview defines its own categories of perfection. Then it's an external worldview critique, and therefore the conclusion doesn't follow.

And I would challenge the second premise. I hope that makes sense. Yeah, I guess I would need more information. That doesn't sound that doesn't sound like a big deal.

If Christianity is true, then a perfect being exists. But if a perfect being exists, then

Christianity is false. So it seems to be saying that the idea of a perfect being is inconsistent with Christianity.

I don't see how that would have to be fleshed out. I don't even know how they would go about demonstrating that premise without engaging in an external critique, because the perfection of God is going to have to be defined within the worldview of the

Christian perspective. Otherwise, he is critiquing the worldview of Christianity externally.

Yeah, yeah. Yeah, that's all I can say there, because there's not enough. I don't know how he would defend those premises.

Okay, let's see here. That seems yeah, that seems not like a good argument.

Trying to be respectful as Alex Malpass is a smart guy. That if that's his argument, that seems I say respectfully, that sounds lame.

I'm so sorry. That sounds really bad. Okay, I'm trying to be nice. All right, be nice,

Eli. Okay, so let's see here. Let's see here.

We are on trying to find my spot here. Okay, let's see here.

Christopher Coleman, is God's reasoning circular? I think circularity of reasoning is a feature of time bound creatures who engage in what we call discursive reasoning.

So human beings bound in time as we are, we reason and we're limited in our knowledge.

So we reason and make inferences, right? I don't think in all knowing, right, an omniscient

God infers anything, because God being omniscient, he knows all things in one fell swoop, one intuition, right?

He doesn't reason from like point A. Oh, okay, so then this is connected to that.

He has all knowledge laid bare before him. Okay, now this is really important, because in Van Til, he makes the important distinction or he brings out the important point that we need to make the distinction between creator and creature.

Man is made in the image of God. So there is a sense in which we are similar to God, but there is a very profound sense in which we are different.

And one of the ways that we are different is that the way we reason is not the way

God reasons, okay? Because we are limited time bound creatures, we have to go through this process of inference.

God as being all knowing doesn't, and therefore there's no circularity as he's assuming things and he's trying to prove things and all these sorts of things.

God just knows that's the nature of who he is, okay? So I wouldn't say that his reasoning is circular in that way.

I think circular reasoning is a feature of time bound limited creatures, okay? Do you have the leather

ESV? No, actually, I do have one. I have the leather strap.

It's like you tie the rope around it or the leather strap around it and tie it. It looks like something you would bring out in the wilderness or something like that.

But it's super thick, so I usually don't take it with me anywhere unless I'm, well, no, I don't take it with me.

I usually use my Kindle. So I'm more of a digital guy. I know that doesn't sound cool because it's people who do what we do.

We like our books, right? These books in the background, I've read a lot of the stuff back, not all of it.

I mean, bits and pieces of these books, but for the most part, I haven't touched these books in a long time because everything's on my Kindle.

Why do I sit with a physical book when I have all of my books that I can take with me in my

Kindle, so yeah. Let's see here,

Sky. On the topic of great debaters, I would say Jay Dyer is an unreal debater, even though we are pretty much opposite ends of the spectrum.

Yeah, I think Jay Dyer is an excellent debater when he's debating respectfully and really kind of zeroing in because there are different flavors of Jay Dyer, right?

There's the silly Jay Dyer, and then there's the Jay Dyer that seems to be very sharp and insulting to a point where it kind of makes people like, hey, what are you doing, man?

And then there's the Jay Dyer that's super sharp and has these great critiques, and he has a great knowledge of philosophy and these sorts of things.

And in those instances, I think he's an excellent debater, and he's obviously very experienced, has a history in debate, not just online, but just studying debate and things like that.

I followed some of his stuff. If you're trying to watch Jay and learn debate tactic, apart from the instances where I think he's not showing well as someone who is trying to defend his particular flavor of Christianity, I don't think he is representing well when he acts in certain ways that he does.

I know people are going to say, oh, of course, I'm just, what do they say, a soy boy or something like that, or slow boy or however they might label me.

Listen, I am familiar with debate, and there are just certain ways that you probably shouldn't if you are going to represent

Christ, right? So I have issue with some of the tactics that he's used. But in those other moments when he's not doing those things, yes,

I would say he is an excellent debater. He is very sharp. He knows how to pinpoint a lot of the key presuppositions of his opponents.

And in that sense, I'm going to be perfectly honest. I've learned a lot from watching a lot of his debates, his debate with Matt Dillahunty.

I thought he completely and utterly destroyed Matt Dillahunty and exposed the undergirding presuppositions of Matt's position.

So in that sense, I found him helpful in that regard. Okay. All right.

Very good. Christopher Coleman, would presuppositional apologetics have worked before the canon of scripture closed?

Yes. Yes, it would. So remember, God has revealed himself progressively throughout history, and so you would always have a sufficient foundation if your foundation is based upon the one true

God and his revelation in as much as he's revealed what he's revealed up until that point in history.

So the very moment. So for the Old Testament, by the way, Bonson has a little section on this, and I have a video somewhere on my channel.

I have a recording where Bonson actually answers this very question. Let me see if I could find it for you.

Revealed apologetics, Bonson, Old Testament. Let's see. Let's see what pops up.

I don't want to spend too. Oh, there we go. Could Old Testament saints use precepts? That's literally the name of the video.

What I'm going to do for you, I'll offer my thoughts, but what I'm going to do for you is I'm going to share that in the comments, and hopefully that will be useful for you.

There you go. But yeah, so our foundation, our metaphysical foundation is

God, and our epistemological foundation is his revelation, and there has always been

God, and there has always been revelation since the garden. Right? And so if we are standing upon the one true

God and what he's revealed, even though we exist in a period in which he has not fully revealed everything, we still have the sufficient grounds to presuppose his self -attesting authority and argue that any position that is contrary to it lacks justification, coherence, and so forth.

So absolutely. But I highly recommend the video I just posted in the link there to kind of get more detail on that.

Bonson addresses it directly. Very good. Let's see here.

Jimmy, if the God of the Bible is a perfect, necessary being, why do arguments proving the existence of a necessary or perfect being wrong for a

Christian apologist if Christian theism entails all those things? Okay, you got to try your best to type carefully so that I can analyze what you're saying.

I don't want to misrepresent what you're saying. If the God of the Bible is a perfect, necessary being, why do arguments proving the existence of a necessary or perfect being wrong?

It's not. The fact that God is perfect and necessary is not in conflict with the idea that God commands us to defend his existence, right?

If God is perfect and all -powerful and he could answer all of our issues, why do we have to pray?

Well, the existence of prayer proves that there is not a perfect. That's ridiculous, right? That doesn't follow at all.

There's no necessary connection there as well. God, this perfect being is perfect, yet he has commanded us to obey him in certain ways.

And the demonstration of the existence of God is not in the

Bible is not to give information to an otherwise ignorant person who just doesn't know. It is the way that God has ordained that we expose the suppression of the truth in unbelief.

Do we have to do that? Is that the only way that God could accomplish his purposes? No, but that is definitely one of the ways that he has chosen that we interact with one another with respect to evangelism and these sorts of things, right?

It kind of reminds me of the question of God predestines all things, right? He predestines whatsoever comes to pass.

What's the purpose of evangelism? Well, God, in his wisdom, has not only ordained the end, but ordained the means.

God, not only this perfect God, not only created the world and he has created man with a knowledge of who he is innately, he has also commanded that we engage in evangelism and apologetics to accomplish certain ends.

So I don't see any inconsistency with that. Now, someone might say, well, if I were a perfect God, I wouldn't do it that way.

Well, you're not a perfect God. Apparently, the perfect God of the Bible ordains that this is the way we interact and discuss issues of God's revelation and how we interact with the unbeliever.

Apparently, this is the way that God has seen fit that things should go. So when you're a perfect God, you can do it differently.

Right. So there you go. All right. Let's see here. Is it okay

I posted on your face? Yeah, that's fine. That's fine. I don't know. No problem. Yes, I probably.

Why are you yelling at me, Richie? What's going on here? Let's see here. Piano Blaze.

What is your opinion on young Earth or old Earth? Do you think this should be an important topic that Christians should debate? Yes, I think it's an important topic because it is a revelational topic.

If the Bible discusses information about creation in the Bible, then it's worthy of discussion.

Do I think that Christians should be as divided over it as they are? No, not at all. Okay. I happen to be a young Earth creationist, but it's not because I think old

Earth creationism is a compromising position in these sorts of things. I just am convinced textually that that's what the

Bible is teaching. But I don't divide over those issues. I don't make non -essential issues essential.

It's important because theology is important. This is a purview of theology, and it intersects with theology and all that sort of stuff.

I think these are important discussions and debates that need to happen, but I wish that we did it in a way in which we weren't at each other's throats, unfortunately.

So yeah, those are my thoughts there. Let's see here. Let's see here.

How long have I been married? That's none of your business, man. A long time.

Let's see here. There we go. Is logic created or uncreated?

I do not believe that logic is created. I think logic is a reflection of the mind of God.

It is not an abstract, eternal thing that exists independently of God, like kind of a

Platonic ideal, but I think it is a reflection of God's mind, a reflection of the mind of God, and in that sense, it is as eternal as God because it simply reflects the mind of God.

So there we go. Let's see here. Let's see.

Okay. How important is journaling, taking notes in your walk with God, and as an apologist, do you keep journals?

I do not keep journals, not because I'm against them, because my brain is scattered.

I primarily learn through audio. Some people are more tactile. They have to sit down and write something out and see it in front of them and feel themselves writing it, right?

You kind of remember when you're writing something out, but I do recommend it. I mean, it is a helpful way.

I wish I journaled, but it's definitely useful. And one of the other things too, my wife and I have a thankfulness journal in which we have written down prayer requests throughout the years and have written out answers to those requests.

And it is an amazing thing to read our prayers and read the specificity with which those prayers were answered.

And that is a great encouragement to our faith because it is a real tangible way to document

God's faithfulness. And it's a good reminder in times of doubt and struggle and things like that.

So I highly recommend people do that if you have the opportunity. Let's see here.

Jimmy here. The core of the question is really why, if natural theology entails Christian theism, why shouldn't a priest up or use pure natural theology?

When you say pure natural theology, that's, I mean, it depends what you mean by that, right? Natural theology is typically presented in such a way that the facts of nature can be addressed neutrally and autonomously.

At least that's what it looks like when people engage in it. So if you're going to do natural theology, but within the purview of setting the boundaries of the

Christian worldview context and the teaching of scripture, right? Remember, you don't want to engage in the sort of natural theology that conflicts with principles that we do have in scripture.

You want to be consistent in that regard, then go for it. There's nothing wrong with using a cosmological argument.

If you think the cosmological argument is sound and you're able to utilize a cosmological argument in a way that does not sacrifice your presuppositional commitment to the lordship of Christ and the self -destined nature of scripture and so forth, then yeah, you know, knock your socks off.

I don't think there's any problem with that. All right. So let's see here.

Zonal locks. I'm so sorry if I'm mispronouncing that. Do we have to test all other worldviews before having confidence in the impossibility of the contrary, or is the impossibility of the contrary also presupposed?

All right. Well, that was actually one of the next questions I was going to get to. So there was a question that someone sent me. Hopefully my answer will be useful to you here.

The question was, why is it that you only get intelligibility if the Christian worldview is correct? And what is the precept argument for accepting the

Bible is true? That is, that it's God's word. Okay. Well, the simple answer is that only the

Christian worldview can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.

And I've unpacked that elsewhere, but in short, we can kind of break it down. How does the transcendental argument demonstrate that Christianity is the one and not some other worldview?

Okay. Well, there can only be, and I've said this before, there can only be one necessary transcendental precondition.

Okay. And the reason for this is because transcendental preconditions are necessary.

If there are two necessary preconditions that contradict each other, two worldviews that both provide those preconditions, okay, then they're not necessary by definition.

There would have to be some preconditions back of both of those positions to explain the relationship.

If there are two necessary preconditions that are one and the same, then it's just the same thing with linguistic variation.

Okay. So if the Christian worldview does in fact provide that which is necessary for intelligent experience to be possible, it follows that it is the only worldview that can do it since you could only have one necessary transcendental for the reasons

I just expressed. And this eliminates in essence, the need to inductively refute every possible worldview out there.

Now, if the objector wants to say, well, I don't agree that the Christian worldview does in fact provide those necessary preconditions, which of course the unbelievers free to do that, right?

Then he's going to have to interact with the account that was given from the Christian position, right? It's here where they're going to have to do minimally two things.

He's going to have to provide a justification of his worldview ability to provide those necessary transcendental preconditions for intelligible experience, because when he launches his attack upon the

Christian worldview, what is he standing on? If he himself is not standing on a worldview that provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience, then what foundation is he standing on when he launches critiques on the

Christian worldview? See, he's also going to have to survive the internal critique of his worldview that he's laid out in replacement of the

Christian worldview that he thinks doesn't provide those foundations. And this project is going to involve an internal critique of the

Christian worldview. So as to demonstrate that it fails to do the thing it claims to do, namely sufficiently provide the transcendental necessary preconditions of intelligible experience or knowledge or anything like that.

OK, so so there you go. Now, what is the precept argument for the Bible? Well, remember, we are arguing worldviews, right?

So it's going to be the same argument that we use when we're talking about the God of the Bible, right? Reject the revelational worldview laid out in Scripture, and your position will be reduced to absurdity.

The Bible is true if the Bible is true, right? It includes the reality of the God of the Bible by the impossibility of the contrary.

That's the way we would argue. How is this demonstrated? Well, I'm not going to repeat myself in detail, but it's demonstrated by positively showing how the worldview of the

Bible provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, knowledge, et cetera, and engaging in the internal critique of the competing worldview perspectives.

If we are able to positively show that the biblical worldview does in fact provide those necessary preconditions, then we have by extension demonstrated that it is the only position since we just mentioned before, you can only have one necessary transcendental precondition.

Okay? All right. That's a mouthful there, but it's a technical question that requires some background knowledge in these areas.

Okay? Great, great, great, great question. Thank you for your question there. Let's see here.

If you could have five minutes coffee talk with Greg Bonson, what would you tell him or what would you ask him?

Well, first off, Greg Bonson didn't drink coffee, so that would be weird. I'd have my cup of coffee and he'd just be sitting over there looking at me.

I would ask him, of course, about his study habits.

I really am interested in those sorts of questions, like what is your process? What is your debate prep like? How are you so confident?

He's so confident. How do you maintain that confident demeanor? Because when you do debates and you're not used to it, it can be kind of nerve wracking.

How did he navigate that? I'm always interested in kind of those background details. That's something I would ask him about.

Let's see here. Okay, Christopher Coleman, how is autonomous reasoning avoided practically?

Couldn't someone argue that a precept is a precept because he's convinced by his own autonomous reasoning? No. To be precept, what are we precepting?

We're precepting the Christian worldview, right? And the Christian worldview tells us how we come to adopt the ultimacy of the

Christian worldview, and that is done through the gracious work of the Holy Spirit. If I give a presuppositional transcendental argument for the truth of the

Christian worldview, what will convince the other person that my argument is true and therefore

Christianity is true and therefore he should submit to the Lordship of Christ, repent of his sins, so on and so forth? What's going to convince him?

My argument? Well, God definitely uses my argument, and that's an important role there, but ultimately it's going to be the gracious work of the

Holy Spirit. So if I'm presupposing the Christian worldview, then I could never with consistency say that I came to be a presuppositionalist by my own autonomous reasoning, because to even speak of one's autonomous reasoning is to automatically step out of the

Christian worldview, which posits the idea that autonomy is impossible, okay?

Hope that is helpful. That's a great question. All right, let's see here.

Thank you so much for your $4 .99 super chat, CQPO, Christian's questioning popular opinion.

I love that. I'm a Star Wars guy, so that's actually really cool. Let's see here.

Yeah, so CQPO says, how would you respond to someone who says God could have lied to you?

I would say, no, he could not have. To posit the hypothetical possibility that God lied to me is to already assume something that is contrary to the

Christian worldview. As we learn in Scripture, which is Revelation, which is self -attestingly true within the

Christian worldview, that it is impossible for God to lie, so the Bible says, right? So when we posit the hypothetical lying

God, we are no longer talking about the Christian God. So basically this question is asking, how would you respond to someone who says that the non -Christian

God has lied to you? Well, there is no non -Christian God. There's only the Christian God, and the Christian God has declared self -attestingly that he has not lied to us.

Okay, so that's how I would interact. This is what you call an external critique.

It is not offering a critique. Someone says, well, suppose your God exists. How do you know he's not lying to you?

That's not an internal critique. He's not hypothetically granting the truth of my perspective and allowing me to answer the question in a way that is consistent with my system.

He's actually throwing in external issues, issues that are impossible on the

Christian worldview and then asking me to interact with really an impossibility given the truth of my perspective. If Christianity is true, then

God would not have lied to us because God does not lie, as the Bible says. It's impossible for him to lie, okay?

All right, let's see here. Very interesting stuff.

Where did you unpack that topic? Well, I addressed it in a previous video, and I don't remember. I've addressed it in a couple of other videos.

I haven't addressed it in one singular video, but I've definitely addressed it multiple times within videos that covered a bunch of other topics, if that makes sense, okay?

All right. Okay, so let's continue on with the questions. I'm feeling good right now.

I'm not as tired as I thought I'd be. It's 10 .09 where I am right now, 10 .09 p .m.,

but we're going to press on. Those are great questions. I hope I was able to answer them to your satisfaction, okay?

Real quick, I'm just going to put the plug in for my class again. I said at the beginning of the show, and I need to keep pushing it since our class sessions will start on January 15th.

If you're interested in learning presuppositional apologetics in a more structured fashion, please consider signing up for my five -week course that can be accessed on revealedapologetics .com.

Just basically, so just to let you know, it comes with five pre -recorded lectures of about an hour long.

It comes with PowerPoint slides and outlines that you can keep and use in your own context, and it includes five private

Zoom sessions with myself and those who've signed up for the class where we can talk together, and you could ask questions.

We could have discussion and go deeper into the content of the lectures. It's a great way to learn apologetics in a structured way.

It's also a great way to support what I'm doing here. Just wanted to throw that out there, revealedapologetics .com.

You click on the Presupp U drop -down menu, and you can sign up RSVP for the course.

The classes start on January 15th. All right, let's see here.

Next question, have there been any efforts to fully flesh out transcendental arguments for specific doctrinal positions?

For example, are there transcendental arguments demonstrating the folly of not believing in special revelation?

Or are there transcendental arguments showing that Pelagianism or semi -Pelagianism, Arminianism, and so forth, result inevitably in contradiction?

That's an interesting question. I'm personally not aware of specific attempts to do this, but we need to remember that the transcendental argument, as used by presuppositionalists, is a worldview apologetic.

For instance, let's take, for example, what this questioner here gave. He says here, for example, are there transcendental arguments demonstrating the folly of not believing special revelation?

Well, if you provide the transcendental argument for the truth of the Christian worldview, the folly of not believing in special revelation gets lumped in there, given that the

Christian worldview teaches that it is, in fact, folly to disbelieve special revelation, right?

Isn't that what the Bible teaches? With respect to Pelagianism and semi -Pelagianism, again, when we defend the

Christian worldview, we are defining the Christian worldview in such a way that cancels out Pelagianism and semi -Pelagianism, as such positions are not taught in Scripture.

Now, of course, the Pelagian can come along and say, oh, yes, my position is taught in Scripture. And of course, that's fine.

He's perfectly free to do that. But at this point, it's going to be a discussion over who's interpreting Scripture correctly.

And that, of course, I think is a fruitful and often necessary debate to have. But having it, we're not veering away from a commitment to a consistently presuppositional approach.

There's nothing anti -presuppositional of saying, hey, this is my interpretation of Scripture. You come along and you have your interpretation of Scripture.

We disagree. Let's deal with the text. That's not that. That's still within the purview of a presuppositional approach where we're taking common ground, not neutral ground, common ground.

We both affirm the Scriptures and we're engaging the text. And I believe, and this is a presupposition of the Christian worldview, that God has revealed himself in human language and human language is sufficient for communication and communicating truth.

And so if language is sufficient for communicating truth, then we can deal with the language through which God has revealed himself and engage the text.

OK, what will convince the other person? Well, of course, I think a semi -Pelagian and a Pelagian, Pelagian is false and it impinges on essential issues of the gospel.

Him being convinced by my scriptural interpretations and issues like this is going to be an act of the grace of God.

Isn't that right? OK, we can't forget in the discussion of all of this logic and transcendental arguments and scriptural debates and stuff like this, cannot forget the work of the

Holy Spirit in the persuasion and conversion element of all this. OK, so I think it's perfectly fine if the person says, hey,

I disagree with your interpretation. You know, that being said, when we engage the text of Scripture, we are not ceasing to be presuppositional.

We deal with competing claims of interpretation all the time. And we need to remember that the existence of multiple competing interpretations of a text is not a demonstration that it's therefore impossible to have the correct interpretation or have the ability to demonstrate that you have the correct interpretation.

It just doesn't follow. OK, well, he has an interpretation, you have an interpretation, so therefore there's no way to determine who's correct.

That doesn't logically follow at all. The multiplicity of different interpretations does not entail logically that,

I guess, we don't know, we can't know, right? If language has meaning, we can know.

Whether a person is persuaded by what you're presenting, when you try to prove from the Scriptures that the

Scripture is teaching something, there is an important distinction to be had between proof and persuasion.

They're not the same. OK, so there you go. Those are my thoughts on that. OK, thank you for that question.

Let's see here. All right, let's continue on.

Ah, this was a question that came up earlier. I knew that it was on the list somewhere, but I didn't want to scroll and look for it.

But here's a question. What is the relationship between evangelism and apologetics, and how could

I best—this person, I guess, was writing a paper—how can I best incorporate presuppositionalism into my paper?

I guess this person's writing a paper of some sort on this topic. Well, I think there is a very important relationship between evangelism and apologetic.

There's a very important sense in which, as I said before, our evangelism should be apologetic and our apologetics should be evangelistic, right?

There is, in my understanding, no sharp distinction between the two, right? I agree with the phrase that apologetics is the handmaiden to evangelism.

They work together and are both understood within the context of our broader biblical worldview commitments.

Evangelism does not exist in a vacuum. Evangelism is theological.

It is a biblical concept. Scripture gives the context as to how we understand the role of evangelism, just as apologetics is theological and biblical.

How we evangelize must be consistent with how the Bible teaches we should evangelize, and in like fashion, our apologetic must be consistent with the very worldview we seek to defend.

So, again, it's very important. Now, let's see here.

I answered that already. All right, here's a fun question here.

Someone asked, imagine you grew up on a beautiful island with many books, but no

Bible and no books that mentioned the Bible. You know how to read, of course, and nobody alive on the island knows about Christianity or the

Bible. Someone gives you the Bible and you read it. How would you know that the Bible is the

Word of God? I'm going to read that question again. So folks can follow along. Okay, imagine you grew up on a beautiful—I'm sorry,

I'm being distracted. I'm reading the question, but then there's some other questions coming in. I'm trying to—let's see here.

Okay, let me see. I don't want to get distracted, so I'm going to continue on here. So let's read the question here. Imagine you grew up on a beautiful island with many books, but no

Bible and no books that mentioned the Bible. You know how to read, of course, and nobody alive on the island knows about Christianity or the

Bible. Someone gives you the Bible and you read it. How would you know that the Bible is the Word of God?

So I can only answer this question from within a Christian worldview, right? So this is not a neutral question, right?

From within the Christian worldview, there may be people who have never heard of Christianity or have ever read the

Bible before, but there's no such thing in a Christian worldview of anyone who has literally no knowledge of the one true

God. Even if a person hasn't read the biblical statement, like in Romans, you know, all men know God and are without excuse.

The statement's still true, even though the person's never read it, because the knowledge of God that all men have is not learned simply from reading the

Bible. It's a knowledge they have in light of the reality that they are image bearers of God. So such a person like that would still be without excuse.

But nevertheless, how would a person know the Bible is the Word of God? That's the key question. And the answer to that is simple.

It's the same way that a person who doesn't live on a beautiful island with those books the same way they would know by God revealing the truth of the

Bible to them. Now, the apprehension of the truth and submission to that truth is a gracious gift of God bestowed on the sinner.

Okay. That is how people come to the knowledge of the truth. It is the work of the spirit working in tandem with the work.

Okay. However, I could imagine, okay, what's being assumed in this question.

You have baked in their assumptions of autonomy and neutrality, right? There's no one who autonomously and neutrally reads the

Bible and then concludes on their own that the Bible is the Word of God. Right. This is something that is revealed to them by God.

Now, I know the response is going to people and say, oh, wait a minute. Wait a minute. What if the same thing happens, but someone claims that it's been revealed to them that the

Book of Mormon is the Word of God or that the Quran is the Word of God? Well, at this point, we're right back to competing authority claims.

And again, this isn't a weakness of the presuppositional position. This is simply the square one of all positions. Every position has either an implicit hidden authority claim, maybe the autonomy and self sufficiency of the person or an explicit authority claim, as we see in various religious perspectives.

And at this point, we're simply going to do the worldview analysis. We're going to do the internal critique and so forth. And the transcendental argument, for example, would still hold in this situation.

It could still be done. So to answer the initial question, though, we know the Bible is true because God reveals it.

His spirit bears witness to our spirit, et cetera. Right. So it's impossible to answer that question as a

Christian in a way that does not consider what the Bible says about how those things work.

And what the Bible says about how those things work are true, even if a person never hears the

Bible or hears about the Bible and has it in their hand. If a person who's never heard of the

Bible or read the Bible, but is given the Bible, how would they know it's true? The only way they'd know it's true is by God revealing it to them.

OK, but again, this is not subjectivism. OK, others can make the claim.

But now you're at the authority claim competition. And how do we get past two competing authority claims?

Well, transcendental analysis, transcendental comparison of worldviews, internal critiques.

Right. These sorts of things, consistency, the positive presentation of the Christian worldview position, like we mentioned previously.

OK, all of these things are going to be involved in in those sorts of discussions. All right.

All right. Next question here. And I think this will be the last one. We're at an hour and 20 minutes.

So if I miss any questions in the comments, I do apologize. Let's see here.

OK, this person's asking to Christians in general. So Christians, is there any evidence that would persuade you that Jesus did not rise from the dead?

If there isn't, how are you being rational in that belief? Rational, meaning generally that you come to believe something based on evidence, reason and logic.

If you believe you're rational about your belief that he rose from the dead, you must believe it is based on evidence, reason and logic.

Oh, I forgot. The person says sarcastically, no need to ask me about my worldview.

It's irrelevant. This is an internal critique of your view. All right. So the answer is question evidence alone is not going to do it.

And in principle, I don't think could do it, given the fact that I'm well aware and we should all be well aware that evidence and the interpretation and the conclusions we draw from the evidence are worldview dependent.

Right. So to ask a question with respect to the bare evidence without considering the necessary worldview context in which the very notion of evidence makes sense is to already not be engaging in an accurate, philosophically cogent internal critique of the

Christian worldview. So personally, while I employ evidence, reason and logic, again, they're not worldview neutral categories, right?

Evidence, reason and logic make sense in a world in which Christianity is true, but I can't for the life of me see how they make sense in a non -Christian conception of reality.

Now, this is another point that I think demonstrates that what we have here in this particular question is far from an internal critique in terms of which someone is hypothetically granting the

Christian position and testing it for consistency. Rather, it asks us to answer a question formed in such a way that the presuppositional apologist or the person coming from my perspective will want to challenge because it implies something contrary to the

Christian worldview's understanding of the role of evidence, logic and reason. So evidence, logic, reason, they play a role within the

Christian worldview, but they play a ministerial role and not what we would call a magisterial role.

Evidence, logic and reason are tools, but they are not that by which my ultimate standard is judged.

My ultimate standard, God and his revelation, is the very thing that gives those tools their meaningfulness and effectiveness.

And they're under, for the Christian, they're under the lordship of Christ, not tools of judgment over him.

Okay, so that's how I would answer that question. All right, let's see here.

All right, so Faith Refined by Fire says, there is evidence, though, the apostles were willing to die for what they would have known was a lie.

Well, again, that is your interpretation, Faith Refined by Fire, of the data. And what's going to happen is the unbeliever is going to interpret the data in a different way because of his presuppositions, right?

And so while that point, Faith Refined by Fire, is a very useful point to point out in discussion, because I believe it's true, you're going to have to have your other foot in the worldview issue.

Because someone, when you give evidence, the disagreement over the evidence is going to be based upon the presuppositions the person brings to the discussion.

And so you want to have both in your pocket. You want to have, hey, the apostles are willing to die for what they would have known to have been a lie.

That's a perfectly valid point to point out. If you want to have in your back pocket, the broader worldview context out of which you can make sense out of evidence at all, right?

And that is your commitment to your worldview, which is grounded in the triune

God. When I speak of the Christian worldview, I'm not speaking abstractly like this abstract impersonal notion.

We are presupposing the God that is our Lord, the one we worship.

We take his word as self -attesting, and we argue from that foundation. And when we do that, we find ourselves arguing from a strong foundation, the strongest foundation, the only foundation that can hold everything up in a consistent fashion and in a meaningful fashion.

And of course, those who argue against the Christian position are standing on a foundation. But the Bible tells us it is a foundation built on sand.

When the winds come and the storms come, great will the fall of that house be that is built upon the sand.

So when we're doing Christian apologetics, do not be intimidated by the fancy philosophy and all of these intricate details.

Stand firmly on God, the triune God and the word that he's given us and the worldview that we get from the revelation he's given us.

I think this is the place we need to start. We need to be faithful to that. So, all right.

Well, I hope this was useful, longer than I thought, but this was fine. And I hope that this has been helpful to you.

If you really have enjoyed this content, again, as the YouTubers typically say, you know, click the like button, share, subscribe, all that jazz.

And, you know, I really appreciate the questions and hopefully I'm providing the kinds of answers that are useful to you.

I can't answer everything, you know, I know my stuff, but I don't know everything, you know, so I'm still learning a lot.

And, you know, before I even do these things, I have to make phone calls and talk to people that I trust and run things by them.

So, you know, I talk fast, but this isn't stuff that's just coming off the top of my head. This stuff can be challenging and, but we're doing it for the honor and glory of Christ.

And so I encourage people as challenging as apologetics can be, challenging as, you know, talking about our faith can be.

We need to keep at it and we need to do it in obedience to Christ and out of a desire to proclaim the gospel to those who need it.

So, well, that is it for this episode, guys. Until next time, take care and God bless.