Can Presuppositionalists Use Evidence

The Role of Evidence in Presuppositional Apologetics

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today we are going to be covering a topic related to presuppositional apologetic methodology, and we're going to be covering a very common misconception about the presuppositional method.

Okay, and that is the role of the utilization of evidence and argument. Okay, and so what I want to do is I want to talk a little bit about some tidbits from the writings of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bonson, and I want to point out how oftentimes certain segments of their writing is misrepresented by many critics.

And then I want to put them in context with the purpose of showing you how the use of evidence and argumentation works very well within the presuppositional apologetic framework. Because here's the thing, when you're engaged in apologetics and you're reading all of the literature out there related to apologetics, I mean, you're looking at the classical works, evidential works, various philosophical works.

If you're reading up on apologetics, I know that you're reading books by William Lane Craig and other Christian philosophers, and you might actually resonate very much with some of the arguments that are used in those more traditional apologetic traditions.

And so when someone stumbles across the presuppositional method, which is very different in the way that it works itself out, folks who tend to resonate with that, they'll say something to the effect, well, wait a minute, but if I'm a presuppositionalist, does that mean I can't use some of these more traditional arguments?

Can a presuppositionalist use the Kalam cosmological argument? Can a presuppositionalist use the teleological argument? Can the presuppositionalist use the moral argument for God's existence? I mean, what role do evidence and argumentation play within an apologetical perspective that starts with the assumption that the word of God, the Bible is the word of God, and we assert that dogmatically in a sense, right?

So how does evidence and argumentation work within that paradigm? So we're going to be talking a little bit about that today. And of course, if folks are listening in, you can send your question in the comments there and I'll try my best to answer them.

If there are no questions, then we'll just wrap up the topic and then close and take from there. I know that this is a holiday week and some people might be on the road or going to bed earlier or whatever, but I'm here.

And so if you don't catch this specific live video, which is streaming on YouTube and Facebook, then perhaps folks will be able to catch the audio on the podcast. Also, with regards to the podcast, I want to say thank you for those who listen to Revealed Apologetics through the podcast.

We have a five star rating with all positive reviews. And so that's great. Not a lot of reviews, but they're all very positive. And so those who do listen via podcast, I am so, so appreciative of you guys.

And I'm appreciative of those who took the time to write a positive review. If you are blessed by this ministry and you're blessed by the content, I would greatly appreciate if you go on to iTunes and write a positive review.

And I love to read what people are thinking. And of course, I want to gear my content towards those who really, you know, I want to gear it specifically to your many needs. All right. I want to be a resource for folks to help them defend the faith.

OK. And again, sometimes we can be a little academic and other times a little bit more, quote, practical. OK. Here's the thing. Apologetics is a command in scripture. And when we think of apologetics, we tend to think of, you know, really smart people and, you know, these people who have YouTube channels and podcasts and things like that.

But listen, apologetics is a command in scripture for all believers to give a reason for the hope that's in them, yet doing so with gentleness and respect. And so everything that we talk about on this channel should be able to be broken down to the point that it can be used by the average believer.

Now, depending on your context, it's going to kind of affect the shape of your apologetic. But the method, especially from me being reformed, me being presuppositional in my approach, the method is going to be the same that undergirds the way we communicate with people.

But the way we communicate with people is going to is going to differ and it's going to depend on the context. So hopefully you guys are able to take some of the nuggets and the principles that I've laid down in past episodes and perhaps some of the stuff that we talked about within the context of interviews and things like that.

Hopefully you guys are able to listen to that and use it in a normal day to day interaction. Now, we do live in the world of the Internet. And so most people's interactions apologetically are also through texting back and forth and things like that, which makes apologetics take on a whole new flavor in that regard.

And so at any rate, however, and wherever God has put you to speak out for the truth of the gospel, I hope that the content here is helpful to that end. All right. Well, with that said, let us jump right in.

And before I do that, I need to do something very, very important. And that very, very important thing is to fuel up on my caffeine. So if you'll excuse me. All right, good. Now I'm all I'm all fired up.

I have my my my energy boost. Now, again, you might think you might notice it's a little dark here in the background. I'm not I'm not very technologically savvy. So I figured I'd try something new. I got my my lights here and kind of turn the lights off in the rest of the office.

You know, if it looks good, you know, give me a thumbs up. If it doesn't, maybe I'll switch it back. I know some people like to see what's in the background. You know what books I'm reading and stuff like that.

Actually, these books are just for show. They're not even mine. I'm just kidding. They're mine. They're mine. I haven't read all of them. OK, but I've read a little bit of most of them. OK. And a lot of people always ask me about where am I over here?

These these things here. That's not my movie collection. I graduated from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. Some some people might give me a thumbs up for that. Others might with the current controversies going on there.

Others might say Liberty. Well, be that as it may, I received a good education there. I did the online program. I received a master of arts in theological studies and a master of divinity with a theological focus.

I really enjoyed my time there. But these are the DVD lectures that I had to listen to for the courses. So for folks who are interested in that green thing in the background, that's what what those are.

So, well, at any rate, let's jump right into our topic for today. Can presuppositionalists use evidence? And the answer to that question is, of course, of course we can. And it's important to recognize that what a lot of people think about the presuppositional method is wrongheaded, because the number one way in which they learn about presuppositionalism is often through the critics of the presuppositional method.

And so you want to be mindful of that. OK, so. So let's talk a little bit about some of the common criticisms of the presuppositional approach. Now, amongst the many criticisms, one popular criticism is that presuppositional methodology is circular.

And I addressed that in the previous video in which I interacted with Frank Turek, who is a classical apologist and a very good apologist. But one of his criticisms was that presuppositional apologetics is circular.

So we address that today. We're going to talk a little bit about the nature of the evidence, the use of evidence within a presuppositional framework. So with that said, here are some quotes that I'm going to pull out from the writings of Van Till, the writings of Greg Monson.

A quote here from a man by the name of Jim Halsey, who is a presuppositionalist. And I want to point out what most critics of presuppositional apologetics usually misinterpret what's going on here. And so this is why it's important when we're reading someone, we want to make sure we read them in their proper context.

OK, context is key. You don't want to read piecemeal and then draw unwarranted conclusions from just a piecemeal presentation of the other side. And I see this a lot when I see critiques of the presuppositional approach from someone like a William Lane Craig or an R .C. Sproul or a Frank Turek or whoever.

Their misunderstandings are shocking to me, given the fact that many of these people are very brilliant and much better apologists than I could hope to be. But it seems like they're missing clear, clear aspects of the presuppositional approach that they would understand if they just read the specific areas that they're critiquing in their proper context.

OK, now that said, there are people who have read the presuppositional literature and have come out the other side saying, no, I don't agree with it. And that's that's just the nature of the beast. Right.

Not everyone's going to agree. Again, apologetic methodology is also linked with one's undergirding theological perspective. And so there are issues there as well. Someone might be convinced of a theological perspective.

But then the logical outflow of that apologetic methodology is going to be consistent with that theological conviction. Right. So if you're an Arminian in your theology, you're not going to employ a presuppositional method, at least along Vantillian lines.

Since Cornelius Vantill purposely developed the presuppositional methodology with the with the asserted goal that it was a consistent apologetic methodology with his reformed presuppositions. OK, so that's an important thing to keep in mind.

So at any rate, let me fix my screen here. There we go. Let's see here. Apologies. Here we go. We don't want that. Minimize that. Doot, doot, doot. All right. OK, let's see here. Yeah. Some comments on that.

Before I go, I just want to let you guys know if you have any questions, please feel free to put them in the comments there. And I will address them towards the end. If you're interested in supporting Revealed Apologetics in some financial way, you can send in Super Chats.

Super Chats are greatly appreciated. But it doesn't seem like we have a lot of viewers today. So we will be able to get to everyone's questions if you do have them. If not, sit back, enjoy. I hope that this is beneficial to you.

Van Til, Bonson, and the Misreading of Presuppositionalism

OK, so Bantill Cornelius Bantill said in his one of his apologetic syllabi, he had many. He said, quote, It is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only.

OK, I'm going to read that again. OK, it is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only. All right. Now, you would imagine how someone could construe that statement taken on its own.

OK, but again, as I said before, we don't take statements on its own. We want to look at the context of someone's writing and also the context, the broader context of their thought and their philosophy.

Here's a quote by Greg Bonson. The gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny. That's from Apologetics Foundations of Christian Scholarship, page 209.

That's Greg Bonson. I'll read that again. The gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny. So you see, so the gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs.

You see, so so therefore presuppositionalists don't give factual signs and logical arguments because we don't do that. Right. We don't want the unbeliever to be in in the place of judgment over God. Right.

So, again, statements like this would be taken and misconstrued in various ways. Jim Halsey says, quote, The Christian can point to nothing outside the Bible for verification of the Bible, because the simple fact is that everything outside the Bible derives its meaning from the interpretation given it by the Bible.

That's a quote from For Such a Time as This, An Introduction to the Reformed Apologetic of Cornelius Mantill, page 39. Now, again, I want to highlight this taken on its own. There are many quotations, many little sayings and phrases that when taken in isolation do, in fact, support many of the common criticisms.

But in its proper context, these criticisms fall by the wayside. Once you understand what it is the presuppositionalist is saying and that you make proper distinctions and allow for proper qualifications.

This is very, very important. OK. And by the way, it goes both ways as well. So the presuppositionalist critiquing those who are within the classical school of apologetics, the evidential school. We want to make sure that we are properly representing the other side as well.

And this is just a demand to be consistent and logically cogent when we're speaking with our fellow brothers and sisters. And they are our fellow brothers and sisters. Those who are not presuppositionalists are not defined outside the Christian faith.

OK. Let me see here. All right. Just doesn't feel like normal. OK. Sorry. Some of the comments. But be that as it may. We want to be consistent. We want to properly represent the other side. OK. So now here are some interesting interpretations of Vantillian presuppositional school of thought by various thinkers.

This is a quote from Clark Pinnock. Clark Pinnock was a systematic theologian and he is no longer with us. I think he passed away like in 2010 or something like that. But he was a noted systematic theologian and a critic of the presuppositional apologetic methodology.

And he had a particular understanding of what he thought Vantill was getting at and what were the implications of a Vantillian understanding. And here's what Clark Pinnock says. He says, quote, Because God transcends the world.

Nothing in the world of factuality is capable of revealing him of itself. OK. Therefore, Pinnock charges that Vantill, quote, believes he can begin with God and Christianity without consulting objective reality.

You see, so this is what the presuppositionalist does. We make assertions about God, but we don't actually consult objective reality. We don't we don't point to data points. We don't point to data points or evidences to make a case.

You see, because that's what presuppositionalists do. We assert. Right. We just assert it is fideism. Right. That's another common criticism. Right. R .C. Sproul accused the presuppositional methodology to be a form of fideism, which is something that is not the case.

And as a matter of fact, it is so opposite of fideism that I think that it is presuppositional methodology and argumentation seeks to demonstrate the truth of Christianity in an objective fashion and in a more objective fashion than the classical approaches, the evidentialist approaches and any other, in my opinion, any other apologetic approach.

So it is it is nothing like fideism. But again, this is based on the many misunderstandings. OK, now that was a Clark Pinnock. This is a quote from John Warwick Montgomery. Again, another noted Christian thinker.

He says Vantill eliminates. Check this out. Vantill eliminates all possibility, all possibility. He eliminates all possibility of offering a positive demonstration of the truth of the Christian view. I'm going to read that again.

OK, this is a quote from once upon an a priori page 387. John Warwick Montgomery, he says Vantill eliminates all possibility, all possibility of offering a positive demonstration of the truth of the Christian view.

And another Christian thinker, Gordon Lewis, says Vantill has left the faith defenseless. He's left the faith defenseless, given given the presuppositional approach. You cannot engage in apologetical defense because the nature of the methodology leaves it leaves the utilization of evidence and meaningful argumentation out of the picture.

I mean, you you you heard me read from Vantill and Bonson. Let's go back to that Bonson quote. I mean, you know, it doesn't get any clearer than this. Right. Bonson says the gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny.

And again, Vantill, as I said before, he says it is impossible and useless. It's useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only. And again, the critics of Vantill and Bonson and the presuppositional method have jumped on quotes like this to draw all sorts of implications that I think are unwarranted.

As a matter of fact, they are so unwarranted that I don't even have to formulate my own responses to to some of these allegations. OK, when, in fact, actually Bonson and Vantill himself responded to or anticipated these sorts of objections themselves in their own writing.

You take, for example, the accusation that the one of the fallacious aspects of the presuppositional method is that it's circular. I mean, when Vantill was developing his system, OK, when Vantill was developing his system, it wasn't as though the accusation of circular reasoning just flew over his head.

And he was just like, well, you know, oh, yeah, maybe someone might might say I'm engaging in. Now, of course, this is anticipated. OK, and it's addressed explicitly, not implicitly. It's addressed explicitly all throughout Vantill's writing.

OK, so so let's let's actually read what Vantill actually believes with regards to evidences and and the use of reason. OK, this is very important. So here's a quote from my credo. This is Vantill page 21.

If you have that that piece of literature there, he says, quote, and check this out. Quote, this is this is a presuppositionalist par excellence. This is Cornelius Vantill. OK, the one who says apparently that we cannot demonstrate the truth of Christianity as a historical religion.

You know, doesn't make use, doesn't have a place for evidence and argumentation. Here's what Vantill actually says. Quote, we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is, that non-Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved.

I'm going to read that again. Vantill says we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible. And not only do we present the evidence of what he says, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is, that the non-Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved.

Now, I have a couple of other quotes here, but I want you to take a look at this. Not only does Vantill repudiate the notion that we do not appeal to evidence, OK, he also puts forth the idea that not only when we put forth evidence, the unbeliever is capable of apprehending the evidence, which combats another misconception of presuppositionalism, namely that because we argue that the unbelieving worldview cannot provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience or knowledge, that therefore Vantill taught the unbeliever doesn't know anything.

That's another common misconception, which, again, is not Vantill's position. It was his position to say that given the truth of unbelieving presuppositions, man couldn't know anything. But from within the Christian conception, Vantill would argue that all men know that God exists and that all men do not, while professing ignorance of God, while professing their unbelief, they do not always act in a way that is consistent with that thought because the knowledge of God, the true genuine knowledge that they do have, that knowledge that they're suppressing, is rearing its head.

And so the unbeliever is never consistent in that regard. So Vantill would never say that the unbeliever knows literally nothing. He would affirm that unbelievers do have knowledge, and with regards to God, it is a knowledge that is suppressed.

So Vantill says, we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is, the non-Christian will be able to understand, in an intellectual sense, the issues involved.

Vantill, agreeing with another noted theologian, B .B. Warfield, says, quote, the Christian faith, now this is for those who think that presuppositionalism is fideism, nothing more than fideism. Vantill says, the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but is faith based on evidence.

It's a faith based on evidence. That's Cornelius Vantill. That's Cornelius Vantill. It seems to me that what the critics are saying kind of evinces this notion that they haven't even read what Vantill is.

They've just taken quotes and kind of taken them out of context. I mean, this is simple. I mean, it literally is a faith based on evidence. OK, so this is not a blind faith. Presuppositionalism is not fideism or anything like that.

We do appeal to evidences. We can appeal to various direct arguments. I know someone's asking a question with regards to the utilization of using evidences and direct arguments. I'll address that more specifically later.

But a presuppositionalist can do that. OK, and so I want you to keep that in mind. OK, also agreeing with B .B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, other Reformed thinkers, Vantill says, quote, Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason and is not irrational, but is capable of rational defense.

I'll read that again. This is from Common Grace in the Gospel, page 184. Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason and is not irrational, but is capable of rational defense. OK, so Christianity is capable of rational defense.

This is not the these are not the words that someone who believes that argument and evidence is kind of, you know, hogwash. That doesn't his words don't reflect someone who thinks that. But of course, that's what you're led to believe if you read simply the critics, the various criticism.

Now, again, the critics that I'm mentioning here are kind of of an older generation. And so there are probably more modern critics who perhaps clarify. I mean, I haven't read everything out there. And so, as a good friend of mine says, if a shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it.

If you're a classical apologist and a critic of presuppositionalism and you don't use some of these criticisms, then fine. That's fine. OK, but good. All right. So, yeah, someone's asking here, can I cite my sources?

Absolutely. Absolutely. So let me let me take those quotes real quick. I'll read them real quick and give you the. The page is here. OK, so Vantel says we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is the man is what the Christian says he is, the non-Christian will be able to understand it.

And in the intellectual sense, that's my credo. Page 21. Vantel, agreeing with B .B. Warfield, says, quote, The Christian faith is not a blind faith, but is faith based on evidence. That's from a Christian theory of knowledge.

Page 250. OK. And the other quote, Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason and is not irrational, but is capable of rational defense. That's common grace in the gospel. Page one hundred and eighty four.

Do I have that book here? I think I might. It might be in my other in my bedroom. I have another set of books, which some of my Vantelian books are there. But and here and here's the kicker. OK, this is this is this next quote is one of my favorites.

OK, because it really dispels a lot of this mythology with regards to some of these criticisms of the presuppositional approach. OK. And this was a struggle for me when I when I was studying apologetic methodology.

I first came into apologetics through the classical stream. OK, I was I came through the classical stream. So I was I was reading, you know, a lot of William Lane Craig. Excuse me, Josh McDowell, Frank Turek.

I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, by the way. All books that I highly recommend. I do recommend Christians read them, especially for presuppositionalists, who tend to be really good at kind of worldview analysis, but not very sharp with regards to some of the specific evidences.

I think there's a good, healthy balance that can be had there. If you're reading, you're reading widely. OK. But I came to apologetics through that more classical stream. And so when I was introduced to the presuppositional approach and was convinced of its truth, there was kind of this intellectual struggle.

I'm like, well, wait a minute. If I'm a presuppositionalist, does that mean I can't use these other things that I've learned so much from someone like a Dr. Craig or Frank Turek, a Gary Habermas or something like that?

And I grappled. I tend to I tended to to flip to the side. And as a presuppositionalist, I only use one form of argumentation. And then when I when I felt evidential and I flopped to the other side, I would I would use these specific evidences without considering, you know, the presuppositionalism.

OK, there is a healthy balance to be had. OK. And this balance does not come. And this is important. The balance does not come in jumping in and out of apologetic methodologies. I just saw a post today in on Facebook and the the the quote said something to the effect of, you know, is it OK to use presuppositional apologetics, evidential apologetics and classical apologetics?

And of course, people are, you know, writing out their comments and things like that. And and some people were saying, yeah, I see the value in presuppositionalism, but then sometimes I use evidentialism.

And this is completely based on a misunderstanding of what's going on here with regards to these apologetic methodologies. You cannot use presuppositional methodology while simultaneously using evidentialism as an apologetic methodology.

I'm going to say that again. You can't be a presuppositionalist sometimes and an evidentialist other times. You just can't do it. OK, it's these are methodologies. OK, and what the what the confusion comes in when when a presupposition list appeals to evidence, the fallacious line of reasoning of folks who think you can jump in and out of these methodologies, they think that when the presupposition list appeals to evidence, he is then therefore using evidentialism.

And when an evidentialist or a classicalist appeals to the importance of presuppositions and kind of argues in a presuppositional ish kind of way that therefore they are using presuppositionalism. This was an issue that came up when I had Dr. Jason Lyle and Dr. Hugh Ross on to talk about the whole young earth, old earth issue.

And in passing, Dr. Ross, who I greatly respect and I thought that conversation was great. But he said something, something to the effect that he said he tries to use all of the different methods, you know, given the context and you just you just can't do that.

OK, when a presupposition list uses evidence, that's not the same as engaging in evidentialism as a methodology. You see, such a misunderstanding presupposes that because the presupposition list can't appeal to evidence, that when he does appeal to evidence, he's now engaging in evidentialism.

That's not that's not the case. OK, the theological commitments that undergird a presuppositional methodology are necessary to the method. So if you're not engaging in a form of argumentation that assumes those theological convictions undergirding the methodology, then you're not engaging in presuppositionalism.

You see what I'm saying? And appealing to presuppositions is not presuppositionalism. Before, you know, before Van Til came along, there were many people who appealed to presuppositions. We all have presuppositions.

We'll hear, you know, in my criticisms of Frank Turek, when he said the problem with presuppositionalism is that it's circular. And then he kind of shared why he didn't agree with the position. He then said, but I do agree that we all have presuppositions, as though that was kind of a tipping of the hat to the presuppositionalist.

Well, wait a second. Whether you're a classicalist, an evidentialist or presuppositionalist, we all agree that everyone has presuppositions. That's not the issue. That's not the essential feature of presuppositional methodology.

OK, we all we all recognize presuppositions. OK, so you can't jump in and out of these methodologies in any consistent fashion. But at the same time, it's not an either or with regards to using evidence, reason and argumentation.

For the presuppositionalist can use all of those things. So much so that I'm going to share a wonderful quote by Van Til. And you might want to write this reference down after after I kind of quote it.

I'll quote the previous the previous quote and then I'll quote this one so you can kind of see, you know, what's going on here. OK, so so Van Til says, quote, Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason and is not irrational, but is capable of rational defense.

It's capable of rational defense. And with regards to the theistic proofs. OK, this is important. OK, with regards to the theistic proofs, that's the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument.

With regards to theistic proofs, Van Til says, quote, I do not reject theistic proofs. I'm going to say that again. Van Til said, I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as to not compromise the doctrines of Scripture.

That is defense of the faith. Page one hundred and ninety seven. OK, and Christian theory of knowledge. Page two ninety two. I believe that quote can be found in both those places. All right. So Van Til said, I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as to not compromise the doctrines of Scripture.

OK, he didn't reject them. All right. Now, you if those of you who are aware of, say, Greg Bonson's criticisms of some of the theistic proofs, for example, Dr. Bonson was very critical of the cosmological argument.

Now, this is important. The rejection of traditional proofs for God's existence is not an essential feature of the presuppositional methodology. I'm going to say that again. OK, the rejection of the traditional proofs is not an essential feature of the presuppositional method.

OK, you can be a presupposition list and think that the traditional proofs are completely valid and use them within their proper context. Or you can be a presupposition list, but think that the traditional proofs, maybe some of them, maybe not all of them.

Some of them are logically incoherent or the conclusion doesn't logically follow. OK, but the rejection of them is not essential to being a presupposition list. You can be a presupposition list and still, within certain contexts, use a cosmological argument.

As I've said in the past episodes, you guys know I'm a presupposition list. Obviously, I wouldn't doing this episode. I wrote out the cosmological argument on a napkin for someone and talked about, you know, whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause as a presupposition list. I can use that. There's nothing wrong with with appealing, appealing to that. OK, so so so what's going on here is interesting.

OK, Vantill says, I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as to not compromise the doctrines of Scripture. Now, that last portion is vitally important because that last portion of the quote really qualifies what Vantill is trying to say.

OK, he says, I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as to not compromise the doctrines of Scripture. What doctrines of Scripture? What what doctrines of Scripture does Vantill not want to violate when he is engaging in the utilization of theistic proofs?

Well, we did talk about in a past video and in other contexts, the twin intellectual sins of autonomy and neutrality. Any theistic argument that presents itself to the unbeliever in such a fashion that grants neutrality and autonomous reasoning, that is a unbiblical and unwarranted way of presenting theistic proofs.

And so that is what Vantill is talking about here. We want to we want to present proofs, but not in a way that assumes unbiblical conceptions of man's reasoning capacities and autonomous reasoning and neutrality.

OK, also not sacrificing the perspicuity of God's revelation, God's clear revelation. We do not give arguments with the implicit assumption that God's existence is somehow unclear. No, God's existence is very clear.

OK, and when we give these proofs, they're just further establishment of what is clear. And we're we're explaining, you know, a particular item of human experience as to how God, in fact, the God that is clear how he grounds those things.

OK, so using theistic proofs are appropriate when they are joined together with Christian presuppositions. And that's just like that's just the same as saying that the Christian worldview and the presuppositions inherent within the system provide the only the only intelligible or I'm sorry, they provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience is basically what we're saying.

OK, now, so so with all this said, what what gives right, can we appeal to evidences or not? OK, well, when we take Vantil's quotes, Bonson's quotes, Halsey's quotes and we qualify them, I think it's obvious and we have kind of unfolded this already.

OK, now, Vantil saw no use. I want you to I want you to pay very much attention to this. Vantil saw no use or validity in apologetic discussions of facts only. If we go back to that quote that I mentioned before, OK, Vantil says this quote, it is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only.

OK, that only is a very, very important qualifying term. OK, the word only is key in understanding what Vantil is saying. It implies that factual discussions are not absolutely ruled out, but are proper.

They're appropriate when combined with other necessary considerations, namely Christian presuppositions, because Christian presuppositions provide the necessary and cogent context in which our arguments even make sense.

All right. It's just to say that we don't talk about these facts and arguments in a neutral fashion. These arguments only make sense because the Christian conception of reality is true, because the Christian conception of reality is that by which meaningfulness can be had with regards to argumentation or anything else for that matter, not just argumentation, anything whatsoever.

OK, which is just the same as saying that Christianity provides the only necessary precondition for intelligible experience. Now, when Bonson made his quote, Bonson didn't run away from the utilization of evidence either.

OK, look, let's read the Bonson quote again. OK, the quote, the gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for evidences and reasons that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny. Notice the qualifying terms.

The gospel does not cater to what? Rebellious man's demand. OK, the gospel doesn't cater to rebellious man's demand for evidences. Why? Because it's the rebellious man that sets up the test to accept a proposition or reject it based upon his own autonomy, which the presupposition list will argue is unbiblical and is not real.

Man is not actually autonomous even when he pretends to be. OK, so the gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for evidences and reasons that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny. OK, when we give our argument and evidence, we give our argument and evidence, but we don't do it in a way that caters to the natural man's rebellion and to the natural man's faulty assumption of autonomous reasoning.

OK, notice the Vantill quote again. Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason. OK, every legitimate, that means there are demands of reason that are illegitimate. OK, and the illegitimate demands of reasoning would include the presuppositions of autonomy and neutrality.

Those are illegitimate, not because simply because I'm a Christian and that's what Christianity teaches, that these are illegitimate. But even philosophically speaking, once you actually critique autonomous reasoning, you see the history of philosophy bear this out.

It doesn't work. You cannot ground knowledge and intelligibility and things like that with autonomy. OK, you are often reduced to various forms of skepticism or logical incoherency and things like that.

And you see this in David Hume, you see this in Immanuel Kant. OK, so this is important. There are legitimate demands of reason and then there are illegitimate demands of reason. Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason.

OK, all right. So what Vantill denies is the existence of some sort of autonomous authority independent of Scripture and independent of the authority of God. OK, Vantill does not deny verification of God in the Bible.

He denies a certain kind of verification, a certain kind. OK, he doesn't reject evidence. He rejects evidence presented in a certain way. He doesn't reject argumentation for the Christian faith. He rejects a certain kind of argumentation.