Presupp Debate Strategies (With Sye Ten Bruggencate & Eli Ayala)

Presuppositional Apologetics and the Guest Introduction

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Elias Ayala. And today I have a guest with me today. As always, I've been having guests throughout the past month, I really appreciate the positive feedback that I've been receiving from folks really all over the world, which is very fascinating to me because I am encouraged that there are people from parts of the world that didn't even think about that are interested in presuppositional apologetics and are excited about what we're doing.

So I'm very happy to have Saiten Bruggenkate with us today, who is a buddy of mine. I call you my pocket apologist. When I have questions, I'll just reach in my pocket, you know, send you a message over Facebook and he's generous enough to kind of entertain my questions.

So we have Saiten Bruggenkate with us today. Now next week, we are gonna have Matt Slick, who is another friend of mine, and we're going to be covering the title of the episode that I got from Matt, so much heresy, so little time.

And so we're just gonna kind of have a giant chunky episode where we talk about a bunch of different false views and how we might respond to them biblically. As you know, it is very important that we are so familiar with the truth that identifying error is easy as, you know, eating a piece of cake.

I don't know why I thought that that was a random analogy, but at any rate, so let me welcome Saiten Bruggenkate with us, give him a few moments to introduce himself. I'm sure those who follow this ministry and are interested in presuppositional apologetics, you'll know who he is, but for those of you who don't, why don't you say hi to everybody?

Hey, everybody. You know, my friend, Marcus, he live streamed with me about a month ago and he actually lost viewers. So hopefully this won't hurt your channel, but yeah, I'm just a dude with a website as I like to introduce myself and my talks.

And I tell people, I'm you out there. I've been trying to take this apologetic methodology and dumb it down to my level. I'm a factory worker by trade, blue collar worker. I just celebrated my 12th year of being full-time as an apologist, as a teacher of apologetics and an evangelist full-time, 12 years on May 18th.

But yeah, my last job was as a stationary engineer. They call them in Canada. I'm a boiler operator by trade. And I love to defend my faith with my colleagues. And most of my life I was doing it wrong because I would get these arguments, which I thought, you know, I dumbed down to my level.

My Christian friends love them. I would use them at work with my unbelieving colleagues and I'd get them shoved down my throat. I didn't know why at the time, but then I discovered that a lot of them are terrible arguments.

And then I further discovered they wouldn't even talk about the God that I believed in. So by the grace of God, I was introduced to this apologetic and that was about 16, 17 years ago now. And I'm just as excited today as I was when I first learned of it.

And I'm happy that you've had me on to discuss the topic.

Debate Strategy, Nervousness, and Glorifying God

Yeah, well, it's definitely a pleasure to have you on. I know some people have told me in passing, oh, don't have that guy sigh on. You know, I really can care less if I lose subscribers. I think you're an excellent apologist.

Of course, we probably would do certain things and phrase things differently in some regard, but I think you still have a lot to offer and that you have a good record with interacting with people and really showing the foolishness of the unbelieving perspective.

So I very much appreciate that and continue to learn from your example. So very much appreciate that. Well, today, I thought we might cover an interesting topic and it is the issue of debate strategy.

Now, this is not some top secret thing. If you're an unbeliever and you are watching this, take notes. There's no secret here. We hope that the strategies of debate are not dishonest. If you're going to try and seek after truth and argue consistently from your position, hopefully we want to know how to think and how to do that in a way that is effective in communication.

Of course, for the Christian, do it in a way that's honoring and faithful to God's word. So let me ask you first, how many debates more or less have you done? Like maybe formally, let's go with the formal route where you've actually been a one-on-one with someone.

Why don't you tell us a little bit about that? You should have sent me these questions ahead of time.

So I could look it up. So I think I'm about, I think Dr. White's probably done, what, a hundred and something. So I'm probably about a hundred behind. So I don't know. I think I've done formal debates, maybe eight or something like that.

I'm not exactly sure. I did one in California, which was a three-on-three, which was a dog's breakfast, by the way. I mean, I think a lot of people were blessed by it, but three-on-three debates, they turn out to be messy.

But, and then I did one, two-on-two with my friend, Dustin Seegers. That was one of my first debates in North Carolina. And the rest I've done on my own. So I'm gonna guess eight. I don't know, something like that.

People say that I love to debate, but I would be happy if I never did another debate in my life. I don't debate because I love it. I debate because people insult my God and I want to give a Christian response or I want to respond to them.

And a lot of the inspiration for these debates is just watching how other people debate about God. They're not talking about the God that I believe in. So that's why I do it. And as you'll notice as well, Eli, since I know that you do debates, people don't line up to debate presuppositionalists.

I mean, they end up having all sorts of insults towards you, but it's an argument that cannot be defeated. And one thing that I've really, has surprised me in debates is that, especially my North Carolina debate, the apologetic has been out there for a while.

My website had been out there for a while. And I thought, well, these two atheists are, from the college there in North Carolina, that they're gonna be prepared for this argument, that I'm gonna have to be really on my toes.

And then we did this debate and it was exactly the same. It's exactly the same. You cannot defeat this argument. So yeah, I will do debates, but people are not lining up because they always turn out the same.

Yeah, what I find too is the insults, they typically come because they're unable to answer the fundamental questions. And I think they get very annoyed that we repeat the fundamental questions that they can't answer.

There was a debate that I saw, I don't remember who was debating, but someone, an atheist who was kind of the MC, he said, he was joking around, but he says, and if someone says, how do you know one more time, Saiten Bruggenke is gonna materialize on the stage.

And that got a kind of a rise out of the crowd.

That was with Matt Slick and Matt Delahunty, I believe. I believe so, yeah.

But I think that's interesting in that the, how do you know, presuppositionalists get a bad rap because we ask that question, how do you know? But if it's such a silly question, why can't anyone tell us how they know?

I mean, it seemed, you know, the whole brain in the vat type of thing. And how do you know we're a brain in the vat? It's like, well, that's silly. Well, if it's so silly, then respond to it. You know, I don't get it.

But anyway.

Preaching Christ, Not Just Winning Arguments

Videos, somebody said, you're arguing like a child. It was at a university. That clip is actually somewhere on YouTube. He says, you're arguing like a child. And I said, you know what's interesting about that?

Two people at a university here cannot answer the argument of a child. That's a good point. They mock you so that you'll get off of it. Right. And like Bonson, he gives the analogy of an evidentialist, you know, is like going into debate with somebody in a room with no windows, no doors, and they have a gun with an unlimited supply of bullets.

You can either learn how to dodge bullets or to take away the gun. Right. And we wanna learn, that's what this apologetic does, is take away the gun. And a lot of people, they do not want to get involved in that kind of conversation.

But the Christian, what they'll do a lot of times is that they will give up their authority and they'll start dodging bullets, even as presuppositionists. I say, look, we have the authority in this debate.

If you wanna mock the argument, I'm not gonna get off it. I'm not gonna throw away my gun. I'm not gonna give my gun to you. I'm gonna stick to the truth of what we believe. And the reason they mock is because they don't like it and they don't want you to stick there, but I'm pretty tenacious in sticking to the truth of my worldview, not giving up my ultimate authority, like they want me to do because they sure won't give up theirs.

Yeah, and I think that's one of the things.

That I greatly appreciate about you is that you are very consistent and you are relentlessly consistent. So it's at those moments where you're like, all right, maybe he'll give a little, nope, no, he won't.

He's sticking with his guns. You're not gonna be the judge over the evidence. And he just goes, and I've actually heard atheists say, they actually appreciate that about you. You're very consistent. And I think that's something that's important to take note of.

Now, you've got

One thing we're talking about here, first of all, I just wanna clarify, we're talking debate strategy. Will I be like that with my friend at work? Well, that could be how do you know, how do you know, how do you know?

He might just be wanting to have a decent conversation and it will be way different. They know my worldview. I know their worldview. We're talking as friends. But if somebody hires a building and has people come in, pay to attend, to mock God, to argue against the God that I believe in, I'm gonna stick to that.

And the thing is, people want a cookie cutter approach to apologetics. You don't have that. Like Ray Carver says, law to the proud, grace to the humble. It's the same thing with presuppositionalism. We deal with people as they come, on a different basis.

It's not a cookie cutter approach. So I might have you know someone to death on the campus who is just being obstinate. But if somebody really wants to have a discussion about this, then I will lay out the foundation that say, in order to have this discussion, you're borrowing from my worldview.

But what's your question? And then I might say to them, but I'm gonna answer your question, but you're gonna interpret this question according to your presuppositions. And then I might answer the question for them evidentially.

And then they'll say, yeah, but this. I say, that's exactly what I said you were gonna do. Because your problem is not the evidences. It's not the arguments.

Your problem is you hate God. Right. And I think it was very interesting. As I told you before we started that I saw that episode with you on the Thinking Atheist. And I think one of the hosts, one of the things they said when you presented the apologetic, they said something to the effect like, isn't this just a parlor trick?

And I was like, that's interesting. Well, if it's a parlor trick and you see right through it, answer the questions. Don't just call it a parlor trick. It might seem suspicious to you because you seem trapped, but maybe it's because it's not a trap.

I mean, because it's not a trap, it's that you are actually trapped in not being able to answer the issues.

Now that one is actually one of my favorite talks. I was supposed to be on the magic sandwich show with Eric Hoven. And the host of that show, he was testing a Skype connection with me on a Friday night.

And our show was gonna be on Sunday that I was supposed to be on. And he said, I have to call into this Thinking Atheist, this radio call-in show. And he was gonna be a guest. I said, do you want me to call in?

He goes, sure. So I called in and it turned out to be wonderful. I really enjoy it. Now, if you go to the Thinking Atheist YouTube channel, listen to the debate and then watch it on my channel, it's different.

They edited some out because some of the debate I think was embarrassing for them. And they took pieces out. So I took out some stuff as well, but like more ums and ahs. But if you listen to the two of them, I have a less edited version on my channel.

But I don't think that it went well for them. And actually they posted it on their Thinking Atheist Facebook page as well. And people were mocking me, how poorly I did. I said, well, I'll be happy to come on again.

They deleted the entire thread on Facebook. Wow, interesting.

Okay, so you've done a bunch of debates formally. You've done a few. And then of course you probably have countless informal interactions with people. Let me ask you a question, very simple question. But I think people who are beginning in apologetics, I think this is an important question to address and perhaps give some biblical encouragement behind the answer to this question.

When you debate, do you get nervous? And that's an important question because I think people's nervousness goes into a lot as to why people won't speak out as often as they probably should.

Well, one thing as far as open air preaching, I mean, I wanna talk about that first. I had a pastor write me once he's writing a book on open air preaching, why don't more pastors do this? And I'll say, I'll give you the two reasons right now, pride and fear.

I know those two reasons because I feel it before every time that I go out to open air preaching. Now, as far as debating, this is something that I've done so much that I don't really get nervous. I used to get nervous early on, but like I say, every time it's the same answer that they give you.

So I really don't get nervous. But one thing that I do is I pray before the debate and even I pray before the show, whenever I do shows like this, I try to be consistent with it. I pray, Lord, if you want me to look like a fool today for your glory, so be it.

And I don't think it's happened yet. I hope it hasn't happened yet, but one day he might say, Sai, you're gonna debate this person. You're gonna go on this show today. So you're gonna look like a fool.

Now, will I be happy with that? Clearly I would not be. But when you pray that before you have a debate or have an interaction, then it tends to quiet the nerves because then you know, and you hope that you're gonna glorify God in the debate.

As far as debate strategy, that's what I wanna focus on, glorifying God. If you listen to my, it's an audio debate with Eric Hernandez. And I remember it was, it's a clear difference between the approach, between his approach and my approach.

And the host asked him, who is your audience for this debate? And Eric said his audience was himself. I mean, when he engages an unbeliever, his audience is himself. Now he might wanna take that answer back when you heard my answer, but who's your audience when you engage a person?

My audience, I have an audience of one, it's God. And I wanna glorify him when I give a response. If people aren't happy with me, I can't help that. I just wanna glorify God when I debate. And that's my debate strategy.

And clearly I fail sometimes, but that's what I wanna do. Now, how would you encourage someone.

Who gets nervous in debating and does not have the experience you have and doesn't share, or maybe he's not conscious of that perspective you just shared. They're kind of just like, yeah, but it gets, I get my nerves get kind of like, I get giddy and I don't know what to say.

How would you encourage someone.

Who's experiencing something like that? Well, I would encourage them by being prayed up. And one thing that I've noticed too, that the more debates that I do, the less philosophical I am. And what I've discovered is that I learned this apologetic from a lot of philosophers, PhD in philosophy.

And I go out in the street and I start talking about the preconditions of intelligibility. Logic is universal, abstract, invariant, and people don't know what you're talking about. Will you win that argument?

Absolutely. They don't know what you're talking about. And so I believe that just like evidences, these things are good to have in your back pocket. But even in debates and when I go out there, I think that I don't want to focus on these vain philosophies either.

I go out with the impression that the debate is already won. When I go to the person, I want to preach Christ to them. One of the biggest compliments that I get from a debate is when an atheist tries to insult me.

I call it a complisult or an implement. I just came here today. He didn't come to debate, he came to preach. I say, amen. So as far as nerves go, seek to glorify God, let Christ increase and you decrease and not be worried with the outcome because nerves a lot of times just comes down to pride.

We all get it, but we're worried about how we're gonna look. And nowadays, everything is on the internet forever. And don't get me wrong, if you mess up, the atheist is gonna take a little clip out there and they're gonna put on YouTube and they're gonna exploit it.

But you just have to not worry about your own appearances. You have to try and glorify Christ. And it's not bad to say, I don't know. I don't know what you're talking about. That's not your problem. Problem is if you die tonight, you're gonna stand before the God you know exists.

Amen.

Preparing for a Formal Debate and Studying the Opponent

All right, now, when you're preparing for a debate, because you're not always intentionally preparing for informal discussion. Sometimes they just happen and you need to go with what you know and what you know about your own faith and how you can interact in the discussion with the other person and interact with what they believe.

But when you're doing a formal debate, what is your preparation strategy? Obviously, you know that the Christian stands on a very strong foundation. You know that the argument is irrefutable. I know some atheists who even watch them like, yeah, right, we would expect you to say that, right?

But we understand that the argument is irrefutable. I personally have never heard a good response to the presuppositional argument in my own experience. But you obviously have to prepare. And so what is your preparation look like?

And are there certain things you're trying? Is your mind laid out like a chess board where you're like, okay, well, this person is gonna say this. How do I answer?

What is that process? How does that process look like to you? Well, one thing that I've heard said about a good lawyer is a good lawyer is somebody who anticipates the response that you get to your question, no matter what they say.

So what I tend to do is with a question that I ask, I prepare for answers no matter which way they answer the question. I try to be ready for something like that. But what I like to do when I prepare for a debate is find out everything about that person.

So for instance, my Matt DeLaHunty debate, he's on a podcast on YouTube. I watched a lot of his videos and that was clear. I mean, I took a lot of clips. And what I like to do then is just show their inconsistency, show that they can't even be consistent with their own worldview and how it contradicts the Christian worldview.

Now, a lot of times you'll debate people and there's not a lot of stuff out there. And the more that I do this, and I think what would be a good biblical apologetic is to know scripture and respond with scripture.

But first and foremost, I like to find out what they believe and show how it's contradicting. Because a lot of times like that Tom Jump, you debated him. He doesn't debate what he believes. He tries to trip you up.

That's why one of the reasons he's contacted me again, I haven't responded to him yet. He wants to debate me. He never debates what he actually believes. He debates hypotheticals. I'm not interested in that.

I'm interested in his soul. So when I prepare, I wanna find out about the person. I want to love on them. And of course, sometimes I fail in doing that. And the more that I do this, the more loving I try to be.

I wanna love on someone. If they're there just to try and trip me up for a debate, there's a lot of Christians who watch the debates are pointless. And to a large degree, I agree with them. So I go out there to exalt Christ so that a larger audience can hear the gospel and to love on the person in the hope that God saves them.

Will that be the case? I don't know, but find out about them. And I had one fellow that I debated. I won't mention his name, but his parents were Christians and they contacted me and they were very happy that I was debating their son because they wanted him to be given truth.

And so, yeah, just prepare by wanting to exalt Christ with them. And if they reject it, if they blow you off, if they mock you, doesn't matter. I give the example of the story quite a lot of times for people that watch my talks.

But when you preach Christ and they reject it, you didn't miss, you didn't miss. Because they walk away and the one thing that they're gonna think about, they might think you're crazy. They might think that, but you hope that that truth that you left them with, the one that they mocked and that they rebuffed, that's the truth that you hope that God is gonna use to save them.

Because if you just give a philosophical argument and they walk away from that, what are they thinking about when they put their head on the pillow? They're thinking about philosophy. I don't wanna do that.

I wanna leave them with the thought that they're rejecting the God they know exists. I like to say to them, look, do you want to know how to be made right with God before you die? And what I say to people too, this is more on a one-on-one basis.

Do you wanna know how to be made right with God before you die? Or somebody debating the preconditions of intelligibility with them. They have tragedy in their life the next day. Who are they coming to?

They're coming to the person who preached Christ to them. And I think a lot of debates, and what happens too, if you get too heady, if you get too philosophical, a lot of time it's the winsomeness that people watch.

And that's what actually wins debates, not on the content. That you go out and love people and be confident in what you believe. One of the things that I heard, I think it was Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens.

For people who haven't watched that film, it's called Collision. And by my friend, Darren Doan, he was the director of that wonderful film. But Christopher Hitchens, he said something about Doug Wilson.

He said, when I debate him, I know that he believes what he says. And that's what I find too when I see other people doing debates. I don't believe what they say. I don't believe in the God that they believe in.

There's a quote from C .S. Lewis, from one of his books. It was timeless at heart. I think the book is out of print now. I think you can get the quote other places. But he said something that was quite profound.

And I felt it as an evidentialist as well. He said the weakest he felt in his faith was when he just finished successfully defending it. And I felt exactly the same way as an evidentialist. And I didn't know why.

Because I wasn't talking about the God that I believed in. I was giving a good argument about a probability. And I felt hollow afterwards. I've never felt that way as a presuppositionalist because I'm trying to preach Christ to them.

Now, this is an example that I give. And it's kind of a harsh example. But this is the example that I gave when you're gonna debate or talk to an unbeliever. Somebody comes up to you and you're a married man, Eli.

Oh, yeah. Eli, I believe your wife's a prostitute. And you say, well, last night she was making dinner for me. So I don't think she was on the street last night. The night before that, she was at Bible study.

So I don't think she was on the street that night. And the night before that, she was at her parents' house. So I don't think my wife's a prostitute. I don't think, would you say that? You'd say, buddy, that's my wife you're talking about.

You better be very careful with the next words out of your mouth. And some atheist comes up to you and says, yeah, I don't believe that God is God. I believe that Allah is God. You say, well, let's book a hall in the hotel over there and we'll debate the topic.

Excuse me, you have just insulted the King of Kings, the Lord of Lords. Now, I will have the discussion with you, but know that this is not good for you. If you die in your unbelief, this could be the worst day of your life.

So I think that we need to approach debates with unbelievers differently. I say, what is more dangerous for that unbeliever? To call your wife a prostitute or to call your God a liar? And sadly for more Christians, it's more dangerous for that person to call your wife a prostitute.

Why? Because we deny what scripture says, that they already know that God exists. Out excuse for their suppression, for their sin against him. And the question that I ask very often is when they want evidence for God, I say, what evidence will convince you of the God who says you already have enough?

Right, right. Yeah. What will convince you of the God.

Who says you already have enough? Yeah. I think it's very interesting too, that people will give evidence that their wife is, in that hypothetical, you give evidence instead of saying, well, wait a minute, I know my wife, you know?

Well-known, a well-known Christian apologist whose name I won't mention, but has told me, he's on the more of the classical flavor. He says that he's more sure of his wife's existence than God's existence.

And he's like, I'm sorry, I'm just being honest. But again, apart from all of the issues and conversations, you can go into that. I think it's interesting that we are not, we're not holding God at that foundational level in our argumentation.

Like you often say that in church, everyone's a presuppositionalist, right? You know, right? And so the tears down the eye, and then when we go outside, we're arguing as though God is some kind of a probability.

There's a kind of a disconnect there. I'm gonna show you my film, How to Answer the Fool, by the way, for those who aren't familiar with it, it's at the Dutch price on YouTube.

The Dutch? Of course. Free. Free. Now, one thing you said, well, actually, I forgot what you just said.

What did you say just before that? Well, I had a friend who is more certain of his wife than God.

And the interesting thing about that is that they could not be certain at all of their wife's existence without the certainty of God. Right. So that's just a total misunderstanding of the certainty of their wife.

You know, he says he's more certain of that, but really, couldn't he be certain about his wife without being certain of God? Right, right. And of course, everyone is certain of God, that's why we're without excuse.

Yeah. All right, well, you did say something that I think is very important, and it pertains to the topic of debate strategy. And it's not just debate strategy, I think it's strategy in communicating better, is a lot of people who engage in apologetics, presuppositional apologetics specifically, their access point is someone like Van Til or Bonson, mostly Bonson, or even yourself, but mostly Bonson.

And Bonson's a philosopher, he did an excellent job taking the philosophical concepts and making them kind of easy to understand. But there is a disconnect when the apologist is studying from the philosophical and theological literature, and you learn to speak the language, right, of the philosophers, and then now you need to take this philosophical language and bring it down to the everyday person, okay?

What are good ways that people can practice doing that? If I'm a seminary graduate, now, I am a seminary graduate, so there is sometimes that bridge that needs to be crossed. What is your advice for someone who has the philosophical language but needs to, he's in a context in which he needs to communicate this to everyday people.

How do people bridge that gap from the academy to the street, in your opinion?

I think a lot of people lose sight of the fact that the person they're talking to is going to hell without Christ, and they wanna make it a philosophical argument when philosophy is not the issue. I think a lot of evidentials are duped into believing that evidence is the issue.

A lot of presuppositions are duped into believing philosophy is the issue. And so they argue philosophy with someone that scripture calls a fool. They'll argue with them for six hours about philosophy.

So as far as dumbing it down, I tell people one of the worst things that people tell me on Facebook, and they're trying to compliment me. They say, I was talking to my unbelieving sister-in-law last night.

I really wish Cy was here. I say, yeah, I wish I was there to listen to you talk about the God that saved you. And so, I think because we have learned this from philosophers that we think it's a philosophical argument but it's not.

The philosophy, just like the evidence, is nice to have in your back pocket, but that's not the purpose. The purpose is out there to preach the gospel to them. I say, I know why you've invited me to speak at this conference, because in John 10, 27, Jesus said, my sheep hear Cy's really good argument.

That's a nice He said, my sheep hear my voice. Right. In John chapter six, when the disciples were leaving Jesus, and Jesus said, are you gonna leave me too? And Peter said, no, to whom shall we go?

You have such a good argument. Yeah. You have the words of eternal life. So, I think there is a place for apologetics, but the presuppositional method is to believe the Bible. And that's what we say, the Bible is true.

Do not deviate from it. And a lot of times, because the truth of our position is philosophical, we can account for all of these things that they can't account for. But that might only take place with the university professor or the philosophy student.

But because we can demolish people with those arguments, now we have a powerful weapon to wield, we go out and do that. So, I would be more concerned, more interested in learning what scripture says about the answer.

And that's how I wanna develop the apologetic. No matter what answer they give you, give them a biblical answer. So, as far as dumbing it down, because here's one analogy that I came up with. I say, let's say that you were having that discussion with somebody on the street, and the apostle Peter was standing beside you.

And you're talking to this guy, this guy's an unbeliever, and Peter's standing beside you, and you're talking to him, and precondition of intelligibility. Peter would say, what are you talking about? What are you talking about?

Now, is there a place for that? Sure, but I think Peter would preach Christ to them. And one thing I say, if you could have anybody in history, you're gonna talk to a bunch of Mormons or a bunch of Muslims.

Would you want an expert in those fields? Or how about the apostle Peter? Maybe you'd want him. Now, if you listen to the expert in Mormonism talk to a Mormon, the expert in Islam talk to a Muslim, or the apostle Peter talk to them, and you listen to those conversations, you think, which one of those could I do?

The apostle Peter would not say, I gotta run to the library and get a philosophy book, or I have to learn the Hadiths before I talk to these people. Is there a place for that? Yes. Do I love listening to that?

Yes, because I'm a Christian. But I think for the average person watching this, it's not the apologist who's gonna be in the university. It's gonna be the person who's gonna talk to their brother. Right.

Or to their grandmother.

I had an email just recently. Well, if you're misinterpreted, that's not to say that you're discouraging being an expert in any of those fields. You're not

I can talk to someone too, but the problem is a lot of those experts in those fields don't talk to people. Right. You know, that's the question. People are critical of what I do in my debates sometimes.

I say, great, what should I have said? What did I say wrong? What should I have said? You know what, do me a favor, send me a video of you doing it the right way. And a lot of times they're armchair quarterbacks.

Now, sure, sometimes it's a shot, sometimes it's tongue in cheek. I want to reach the lost. Who am I gonna learn from? What YouTube video do I get to go to and watch people engaging unbelievers? So I need to learn too, but I actually don't even care what you call the apologetic methodology.

Yes, I'm a presuppositionist. Died in the wool, true and true. Don't care what you call it. I don't care what you call it. I want to reach people for Christ. And so when I engage the person, if you have a better argument that uses evidences that does not call God a liar, let me hear it.

But the problem is they never get back to me.

Presuppositionalism, Scripture, and the Use of Evidence

Yeah, I like what you said too, is presuppositionalism is really just believing the Bible. I love the definition of apologetics. I think it was Scott Oliphant who defined apologetics as, apologetics is Christian theology applied to unbelief.

And I like that because it highlights the fact that presuppositionalism is not simply a methodology of defense, but it is a consistent application of a broader worldview that is grounded in the authority of scripture.