Apologetics Q & A

All right If you're following this is the not a planned

Live stream I was just doing this to test out some of my new technology, so I had got some new

New stuff to hook up my my webcam

Hopefully I got a little better quality joints going on here and so hopefully This is gonna work.

I'm I'm super excited. So there are a couple of things that are gonna be going on tomorrow. I have

Dr. Hugh Ross and Dr. Jason Lyle to talk about the issues of old earth creationism versus young earth creationism and so super excited about that just testing out some of my new tech here to make sure that Everything's a -okay for for that also on Friday I'm gonna be having dr.

James Anderson back on from Reform Theological Seminary to talk about the differences the methodological differences between Presuppositional apologetics and classical apologetics, okay

So a couple of great things going on. I have Greg Koukl coming on from stance or reason in Well on July 29th, and so I'll keep you guys

Informed about that and I'm in the works of having dr. Frank Turek on from cross -examined to talk some apologetics now again if you're familiar with What I tend to focus on I tend to focus on presuppositional apologetics, but you'll notice

I have people from a wide range of Apologetic traditions coming on and I like to keep things fresh

I don't like how oftentimes people who focus on these specific Methodologies or a specific theology tend to exist in like an echo chamber and I don't want that to happen so I want to be able to promote apologetics in general and also promote presuppositional apologetics in particular, so I want to get a wide range of voices to speak to that and hopefully even if we disagree with the methodology that there's something that we can learn from and Enjoy, so so with that being said

I want to Open up the floor for some

Q &A so I have no guests now this is kind of a test video that I'm doing to make sure that you know, the quality the camera quality is up to par we want to try to freshen things up a bit and Heighten the quality of what we're doing here.

So if you like the the picture quality, give me a thumbs up Let me know if it looks good on your end. And if you have any questions about apologetics theology or whatever

Feel free to ask them now and I'll put them up on the On the screen there.

All right, so I'm just gonna wait a couple of minutes here Someone's asking me to invite them on who are you?

I don't even know who this person is Sentinel apologetics. Oh my goodness.

All right at any rate Okay, so let's pop up some questions here of a question from Sentinel apologetics.

Am I a young earth creationist? I don't know what view I hold as actually is kind of my dirty little secret

One of the reasons why I wanted dr. Hugh Ross on with Jason Lyle. Dr Lyle is because on the specific topic of the different views of creation.

I don't know where I stand I actually don't know what position I hold to so I figured let me get some leading proponents from these two very well -known perspectives to Convince me so tomorrow when

I have dr. Ross on and dr. Lyle on it. Hopefully this will be an opportunity for me to be Convinced one way or the other so I'm open.

I'm open. I what I find when we're studying the book of Genesis. I Resonate very much with the young earth interpretation

However, there seems to be something more going on that when I read Genesis, it doesn't seem that simple

I mean, that's just me again. If you hold to a young earth perspective I mean all the more power to you but it is definitely a discussion that I want to pursue a little more and I think having someone like Hugh Ross on and Dr.

Lyle on would be very helpful. Now. I do understand that there are those who disagree with either of those positions

So we have people who are theistic evolutionist now I'm not a theistic evolutionist and I know that I'm not a theistic evolutionist

But I do like to hear different perspectives and things like that so So, yeah, so I'm excited about that.

I don't know if I'm what position I hold on I'm agnostic when it comes to my my creation Perspective.

All right. So let's see what we got here Sentinel apologetic says you are everywhere.

I don't know. What does that mean? I'm everywhere. Only God is everywhere. That's actually heresy God is omnipresent Eli is not so there you go

Here's a question from Jay, how do you teach systematic theology to your students from a presuppositional approach?

I know it's an odd question, but hopefully you understand what I'm asking. Actually, it's not an odd question

It's a very important question because I'm very much convinced that our apologetic methodology is an application of our theology

To the specific area of unbelief if you guys have heard me say in the past One of my favorite definitions of apologetics was given by Scott Oliphant over there at Westminster Theological Seminary And I've had him on the show a few episodes back where we discussed this in a little more detail

And I'm not sure if this definition of apologetics is original to him but I really appreciated how he defined apologetics as the application of theology to unbelief and so our apologetic methodology flows from a

Theology Or it flows out of our theology. And so the apologetic application should be consistent with our theological convictions, right?

so when I teach systematic theology to students whether they are Middle school high school or if I'm speaking to kind of a college aged sort of group that people want to learn

Theology and apologetics and doctrine and things like that. I always start with our

Fundamental foundation the authority of God's revelation the authority of God's Word and how that informs everything else that we do and so in that sense,

I teach systematic theology from the bedrock of Scripture God's authority that authoritative role

How what role does God play as our foundation within our broader worldview perspective? And so I teach it from that perspective.

So whether I'm teaching middle school or high school And if there may be different topics I teach

Bible So if I'm teaching Bible that focuses on the stories of the Bible or I I'm teaching

Doctrine which focuses on doctrines of Scripture. I always begin each class every class

It doesn't matter what topic the specific topic is I always begin each class on the topic of authority and that it's through that Lens of the authority the foundation of God and his word that we interpret everything else

And so I think that's very presuppositional right that it's only upon that that Foundation does everything else make sense in his light.

We see light as the book of Psalms tells us So I think when we teach systematic theology or anything else, we always start with Foundations, right?

How do we know the objects of systematic theology? Well, it's grounded in Revelation. And so we're going to have to ground that also in the authority of God who reveals these things

Propositionally through Scripture and of course he reveals things to us through Natural revelation. All right, so all those things

I think are important aspects. That's how I go about Teaching these these topics. All right.

Well, I got a bunch of questions coming in Let me see. Let me see. Let me see. How do I how do

I interpret? Let me see here How do I interpret Hebrews 6 4 through 6? I don't know.

Let me go turn there. Hold up. Let me see Sorry Okay Hebrews, let's go there

I have my my eye my trusty iPhone I Use the the ESV app.

I don't know if you know this particular Oh, you can't even see it. Well, anyway, there's a really cool app.

It's just called the ESV I like the ESV is the Bible of the Reformed right every Reformed Church has that translation.

I like the ESV I'm not a KJV only us. Although I do like the KJV New King James as well.

I like that So Hebrews, let's see Hebrews Hebrews Hebrews chapter 6

Verses 4 through 6 Let's see where it is impossible in the case of those who have once been enlightened who have tasted the heavenly gift and shared in the

Holy Spirit and have tasted the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the age to come and Then have fallen away to restore them again to repentance since they are crucifying once again

The Son of God to their own harm if the basis of what you're asking

And I can have to try to read your mind here if you're asking in essence Do I believe this is teaching that one can lose their salvation?

I'm not sure if that's where you're going I assume that I can't give you a proper exit Jesus right off the top of my head

I didn't kind of prepare for this specific question but When we read the warning passages in Hebrews, for instance in Hebrews chapter 6 is it gives us some of those warning passages

What I like to do is consider the scriptures systematically. Now, of course, we want to exegete the particular passage within its specific context but there are there are some

Ambiguities in passages like this and that I think it's very important that we follow the principle of interpreting

Ambiguous passages in light of clearer passages and so just off the top of my head.

I do apologize I'm not gonna give a verse by verse exit Jesus of this passage at this moment But in a general sense when we ask

What do you think about the notion of whether Christians can lose their salvation or fall away from their faith?

I would say that there are much clearer passages in Scripture that teach us What's up with regards to that topic and I believe that a true

Christian cannot lose their salvation And I think there are other passages that clearly highlight that now we have to take those passages and the implications of those teachings and then when we come to something like Hebrews Chapter 6 or some of the warning passages

We need to bring these two passages that at first glance seem conflicting, but they're not and bring them into balance

I think when you do that you consider all of what scripture has to say I think The best understanding of the issue of salvation is that a genuine

Christian cannot lose their salvation again You can go much deeper into that. I know you're probably asking me to exegete more specifically

Hebrews chapter 6 verses 4 through 6 Although I don't want to jump too much into that because I haven't prepared for that I kind of as I said before if you're just catching it

I got a new camera set up and I'm just hoping that everything's working for tomorrow's interview that I have with dr

Lyle and dr. Ross on old earth young earth debate And so I do apologize if I if I didn't answer that question to your your satisfaction

Here's another question here. Eli. Do you think that a congruous the closer a Molinus can get to Calvinism can be?

consistent Presuppositionally, okay Congruism is the it has been said by dr

Craig and if you watch dr Craig's defenders class where he talks about the the form of Molin ism that can get you closest to Calvinism without being a

Calvinist The person's asking I think is that form of Molin ism consistent with presuppositional methodology

Now here's my answer to this and again, you could pursue this in more detail and I would highly recommend you read works by Cornelius Mantel by the way

Cornelius Mantel's magnum opus is his most popular writing and I think his best book is

The defense of the faith. It's actually on sale on a Kindle for like three bucks Read that book and he addresses issues of the importance of having in a reformed theology that undergirds our apologetic methodology

So if you know anything about presuppositional apologetics van Til was developing a methodology that flows out of a consistently reformed

Understanding of things which would by extension relate to one's understanding of the nature of the will so if you're holding to a

Molinist perspective even a Congruist perspective if that model of Molin ism

Adheres to a libertarian freedom of the will with regards to to human persons then

I think there might be some conflict there since since the presuppositional methodology and the form of argumentation that a presuppositional is used are

Are very much connected to our doctrine of God our doctrine of man man's ability the effects of man's ability of The effects of sin upon man's abilities mental capacities the noetic effects of sin

All of those things are baked into the method since I would argue that presuppositional methodology

Presupposes reformed theology and that the methodology is a consistent outflow of that And so I'm not sure that one could hold to that I mean because on my understanding of Molin ism is that you have to at least adhere to some form of libertarian freedom whether it's

A hard libertarian view or a soft libertarian view. So I don't think that they're necessarily consistent.

Although you can be a Molinist and argue Presuppositional ish presuppositional ish

Again, whether you're doing it consistently is going to be something you want to pursue in a little more depth

All right. I hope that I hope that makes sense Again, there is a debate As to whether one needs to be reformed in order to be a presuppositionalist now

I would argue if you're going to be consistent then I think that Presuppositional apologetics and reformed theology are married together.

I think one is an extension of the of the other and so that's my view There are people who do speak of jumping in and out of methodologies

I think this is very inconsistent when someone says sometimes I use classical apologetics and other times I use presuppositional apologetics

You know, you can't do that You see because we have to be very careful that when a person appeals to presuppositions in the apologetic encounter that does not make them a presuppositionalist in like fashion when a presuppositionalist appeals to evidences and more traditional art forms of argumentation that doesn't make them an

Evidentialist or a classicalist you see for the presuppositionalist when they employ evidences they always do so within the broader context of the necessity of the

Christian worldview and there is a way in which the presuppositionalist can use evidences

Presuppositionally, so once a presuppositionalist uses evidence, that doesn't mean they're reverting to a classical approach or an evidential approach was

Vantill himself did not did not reject the use of say the traditional proofs like the Cosmological argument or the teleological argument or the ontological argument or the axiological argument or a lot of these arguments that are

Associated with Kind of a more classical approach Vantill did not reject them per se He rejected a particular way in which they were usually presented usually with the assumption of the autonomy of man and the assumption of neutrality

So these are important issues to keep in mind So I hope that answers somewhat of your of your question here, okay?

well Okay, let's see here. You are on the right track. Keep going brother Hugh Ross will be great and helpful

Lyle is dishonest Okay, all right, well I've spoken to dr.

Lyle and In an informal kind of a very briefly informal said he seemed like a genuine guy.

I don't think he's being dishonest I think he holds to a position that many disagree with And some people think that for example the young earth perspective is a foolish perspective

Because the evidence seems so strongly against it and so clearly, you know You either are being deceptive or you're just really ignorant not to see how this view is implausible well again, not

Taking sides just yet. Okay, because again, I honestly am pursuing this topic but I With regards to the young earth perspective.

I do agree with dr. Lyle and and and not just dr Lyle others would would it would see this as well that the way we approach evidence that Clearly shows one view over the other is going to be based upon your presuppositions

Is your presuppositions are gonna govern how you interpret the data? Let's say the scientific data that so clearly points to an older.

Yeah I'm kind of exaggerating right now. But what I'm saying is I don't think that dr.

Lyle is being dishonest I think that he holds to his particular Understanding of Scripture his understanding of creation and he has a certain set of presuppositions

That are undergirding that and of course affect how he interprets some of that scientific data Which of course is going to disagree with people who see the scriptures saying something different with regards to this whole young earth

Old earth creationist debate. All right, so I think I would I would look at dr. Lyle with a little more charity

He just disagrees with the older perspective. I mean, what are you gonna do? This is why we have open conversations that I don't think calling people dishonest is gonna help

You know, I can't look into his heart the best I can do is ask honest questions interact with what he has to say and try to grapple with What scripture is teaching to see if what he's saying is more in line with scripture than another person

So I think that's the best approach that we could Handle that situation here. Okay, let's see here

Let's see here. I told you Ross Eli was young earth creationist now. I'll have to tell him

Eli is on the fence Hey, by the way, I own

I own Hugh Ross's books and I own dr. Lyle's books.

Let me see. I have his I have dr Lyle's book on On logic, this is actually good whether you hold to a young earth old earth perspective.

I have of course if I run over Back there somewhere have some more of dr. Lyle's book.

So I try to read both sides, but then there's probably someone watching Well, well, I'm a literary framework guy. So both of them are wrong.

I mean you're this is a very nuanced debate there are different perspectives out there and Again for me as a pre suppositionalist.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. It's our ultimate authority It's the foundation upon which we build everything else.

And so regardless of what view someone is going to share with me. I want to see Which one reflects best what

I think scripture is trying to teach and sometimes that's easy to find out sometimes It's not so easy. So again, these debates are they should be happening

But again, as I've made mentioned before when you're doing apologetics and giving a defense for an older perspective

Or you're giving a defense for a young earth perspective. Let us not forget. I'm looking straight at the camera I'm looking at people who don't who mess up on this all the time.

And of course, I'm guilty of it as well first Peter chapter 3 verse 15 says to set apart

Christ as Lord in your heart always being ready to give a reason for the Hope that's in you yet doing so with Gentleness and respect so even within these in -house discussions.

Let's not throw the terminology Dishonest or ignorant? Let's talk these things out examine our presuppositions and see which ones in line with scripture and be okay

With the inevitable disagreement in the end think about it God can strike a blow with a crooked stick

God uses older creationist to glorify him Even if that position may be incorrect

God still uses those people just as he uses younger creationists For his purposes and again, we want to be patient with one another working through these things and hopefully

Clarifying the debate as opposed to getting lost in all of the insults that are often thrown back and forth So again, if that's not you then, you know, you can just disregard what

I said But I think these things are important to keep in mind All right Let's see here

Let's see here Another one. Here's a question Eli. Do you think a dispensationalist can be consistent a consistent presuppositionalist?

well, if I want to be Consistent. I'm not a dispensationalist and I think

The most consistent Presuppositionalist is going to be the presuppositionalist who is more consistent with what the scripture teaches

So if I'm convinced that the Bible doesn't teach Dispensationalism then but someone who holds to a presuppositional methodology holds to dispensationalism.

I would say there's a disconnect because Dispensationalism is not an accurate a picture of what the

Bible's teaching So a presuppositionalist is only as good as he is accurate to his source material I do not think that dispensationalism is is the correct view

I hold to a covenant covenant kind of theology. And so I do think that that's the more proper lens to view scripture

But again, all of us are going to be inconsistent at some point The best thing we want to do is to try to be as consistent as possible

Because not all the time do we see the logical connections between say the application of my apologetic

Methodology and some other area of theology that I may or may not hold So sometimes it's difficult to see those connections but if you're dispensationalist and you're a convinced presuppositionalist like hey all the more power to you as long as we engage in these

Debates standing on the scripture being patient with those who disagree. I think the conversation can move forward in those debates

There's debates and everything. So Hopefully that's that's helpful All right. Let's see here.

Yeah, if I Let me see here I'm going to I think I'm Wow.

I went way down. Let's see so many questions. Huh? Okay, so how do you know

God's Word is the foundation and authority well First the Bible makes the claim that it is the foundation, right?

This is kind of a logical deduction Of what it means for God to speak and the authority with which he speaks and their explicit statements in Scripture which teach that Which teach that I'm sorry got it.

I got a text message and kind of got who's texting me. I should actually turn these off actually funny

Someone is watching. I guess they're watching a discussion that I had on the topic of Molinism And I think the person who interviewed me made a chart a

Molinism chart and they think I made the chart No, I didn't make the chart, but I'll text that person back later.

Let me see here. I will turn notifications up Alright, where was I? Oh, yeah. How do I know that the

Bible is the Word of God or the foundation, right? It's the foundation as a Christian because the

Bible says it is that's the teaching of Scripture now If you're really asking me, how do I know it's actually the foundation, right?

There's two questions here How do I know that that's the foundation as a Christian? Well as a Christian I hold to the

Bible as being God's Word God is the ultimate authority I know this by the very concept of God and I know this by the very teaching of Scripture, right?

When when God swears he swears he can't swear by anything greater than himself. So he swears by himself, right?

this is where he makes the covenant with Abraham so God is the The ultimate foundation if the

Bible is his word and it reflects his will then the Bible is going to give me information That is self -attesting.

It is not validated by appeals to sources external to itself that are more authoritative than itself

Rather, it's going to it's going to be vindicated by its own self -attesting authoritative nature Now if you're asking, but how do you know that that's actually the case now, you know, maybe if an unbeliever asked me

How do you know the Bible is the Word of God? I would argue presuppositional So if you guys kind of I could just go real quick here

If you take a look at the presuppositional transcendental argument For example the proof for the truth of the Christian worldview is that if it were not true

You couldn't prove anything at all. It's that the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience

I would argue the same way with regards to the Bible. How do I know the Bible is the Word of God and hence the foundation? Well deny it right deny that it's a foundation and see where it leads you

It's the same argument that if it wasn't what it says it is Then you couldn't make sense out of anything at all at all, right?

If you reject the Bible as the authority you're coming from a non Christian worldview and I'm gonna say that without the

Bible as the foundation you would have a you would lack a Justification for any form of argumentation at all now, here is the here is a warning

I want to get not so much a warning, but kind of just a Side note here me making that statement is not a bare assertion now a lot of people confuse

Well, when you say the Bible is the Word of God by the impossibility of the contrary, right? That's just a bear assertion It's not it's actually part of an argument in order that if I were to argue

For example that the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for say knowledge That's more than just an assertion.

I'm willing to argue it in other words I'm going to give you positively based upon what the Bible teaches about my met the metaphysical situation the nature of reality of the epistemological

Situation how we know what we know and the ethical situation how we should live our lives When we construct positively what the

Bible says about that and we show that the Bible does provide the context for knowledge We can account for it, right?

Then I'm going to tell you Reject that foundation and now build me a foundation for knowledge build me a foundation for the very objection

That you that you're gonna raise and in that case, I would argue you can't do it again I'm willing to interact with with a person who who challenges the

Bible at that level But again, it's gonna it's gonna depend who you're talking with right? So it's just not simply making assertions

I think it's very important to keep in mind, right? That's not what we're doing So when someone says and this is kind of a word of caution for presuppositionalist when we say well the

Bible is the necessary preconditions Right or by what standard right? You can't stop there

You actually have to explain why the Bible is the necessary precondition? Otherwise, you've burned the bridge of communication

The person doesn't know what you're talking about when I said that the Bible self attestingly true. Sometimes it doesn't even click

What does it mean for the Bible to be self attestingly true everything we prove we often? Appeal to something else to evidence to prove why something's true

Why is the Bible different that we don't appeal to something external to itself to validate it, you know

What's up with that not everyone for everyone who engages in these discussions that doesn't always click and so I think we're gonna have to do a little bit more and Expanding upon what we're trying to say when we're saying things like the

Christian worldview or the Word of God provides Necessary preconditions for knowledge for logic all these sorts of things.

So there's a much broader discussion that needs to be had In the in these sorts of discussions

Okay. All right. What is God's Word? Yeah, that's a good question God's Word can it is

God speaking? Okay. No again that even that is kind of anthropomorphic I don't know the exact way in which

God speaks, but it in other words, it doesn't have a mouth. But when God communicates

It can be considered his word now that can manifest in Scripture So God speaks through language in that regard with that regard, but also with respect to general revelation, right?

God's revelation in the Creator or the Bible says that the heavens declare the glory of God that in a sense is

God's Speaking, although he does not use words with that in that regard So when we say what is

God's Word, there are different forms of God's Word that we can kind of Walk through a scripture is being well, you know one of the forms of God's Word now in Wayne Grudem systematic theology, there was an entire section on Different forms of God's Word that if anyone's interested you can look that up on Wayne Grudem systematic theology on the chapter on the

Word Of God impacts that in more detail. Good question Let's see here.

Ethan asks the question. Do the apostolic gifts continue today? If you're speaking about the charismatic gifts like speaking in tongues and prophecy and things like that again, this is another

Area that I'm I'm agnostic and and again, I do have Conversations with people on this particular.

I grew up in a Pentecostal Church now I'm I'm reformed in my theology now, but once upon a time

I I Was I was in a Pentecostal Church? And so there were things that appeared to be people moving in these charismatic gifts

So I don't know what to make of those things I have heard arguments on both sides the cessationist argument the the idea that the these gifts ceased with the closing of the canon

Robust forms of the argument make a lot of sense to me, but There's nothing in Scripture that I read that would lead me to conclude.

Yes conclusively the gifts are no longer for today So I'm kind of I'm open to that discussion I think that's an interesting and important discussion to have now if you're asking the question apostolic gifts

Or maybe the role of Apostles or something like that I don't think that there are modern -day Apostles or you know When someone says

Apostle so -and -so is going to be sharing my glasses of Apostle so -and -so So I would make a distinction there in a way

When I teach this in my classes I always make a distinction between capital a Apostles and lowercase a

Apostles so that the uppercase Apostles are the Apostles that were used to write

Scripture and I think that Apostles at that level are no longer for today But if you take Apostle in like a generic sense like the word

Apostolos means Sent those who are sent. Oh, yeah in a sense We're all Apostles, but not in that particular role which the

Apostles themselves functioned in So I don't think that there are Apostles today in that regard.

So I hope that that clarifies Okay, here we go Sentinel apologetics is all over the the live chat today.

That's okay Why would I judge reality via ancient Near Eastern law codes that the

Old Testament Utilizes, how can that be applicable for a 21st century context?

Let me read this. Why would I judge reality via an ancient Near Eastern law code that the

Old Testament utilizes? Well, I think there's a logical issue with this.

What does it what does it have in other words? Because it's a

Near -eastern it has certain law codes in the Old Testament what does that have to do with whether we should follow it or not if it is

God's Word and It is revealed to us and God happened to reveal to himself within the context of the ancient

Near Eastern law codes Then if it's God's Word, then it is applicable. Now if you're asking, well, how do we know it's

God's Word? Well, that's a different discussion right now. We're doing apologetics is why I believe the Bible is true Yada, yada, yada

But if the Bible is true and God has revealed himself through these law codes within that particular context then

I think we're obligated as Christians to Understand what God is trying to say and try to apply those things where it's appropriate

Okay Now, of course when you talk about the Old Testament Then you get into the very interesting question about the relationship between Old Testament laws and the

New Testament life, right? Do Christians today for example in light of the New Testament, are they obligated to follow the

Old Testament? And again, that's a very important discussion and a very large discussion that I'm not going to get into here

But I do believe that there are aspects of the Old Testament law that were fulfilled in Christ And so therefore we are not obligated to hold those specific things

For example sacrificing animals or not eating certain foods. I think these things provided Guidelines for the people in the

Old Testament and they were They pointed forward to things that would be fulfilled In the ministry of Jesus Christ and again the way that this is fulfilled is shown beautifully in the book of Hebrews So again, so when you ask the question, why would

I judge reality via ancient Near Eastern law codes that the Old Testament utilizes? Well, if the

Old Testament is the Word of God, that's like asking why would I judge reality via? The Old Testament. Well, if it's the

Word of God, then you should incorporate that into how you interpret reality If you want to interpret reality based upon something other than God's revealed

Word Then I would I would say you'd have a problem there or get down to the presuppositional apologetic methodology, right?

How can you interpret reality not on the basis of God's revelation?

That's an important question And so that's the kind of line of questioning that I would pursue if I were talking to someone like that But again is more in -depth, obviously, there's more to iron out there, but I hope that satisfies

Just you know, it satisfies you. All right. Yeah sentinel apologetics is all over this man. Let's see here.

Okay Let's see here Corinth asked when are you finally going to install the cat cam?

Oh, man, I don't have a cat Matter of fact, here's a deep secret deep dark dirty secret.

I don't like cats. I know that sounds terrible You probably I probably lost like 50 subscribers there

But by the way speaking of subscribers reveal the apologetics has just reached a thousand subscribers Thank you so much for those who subscribe and follow the channel greatly greatly appreciated.

I don't have a cat cam I don't have a cat but I might have how about this one?

How about the dolphin cam? Okay, we'll keep the dolphin We'll keep them over here in the background

But anything moving in the background, I would I'm just gonna be distracted. So it's not gonna work out. Sorry Okay, Charles, hey

Charles, how's it going? NASB and ESV not a question. But if you're asking me which translation

I like better. Oh That's a hard one. I do like the ESV in the way that it reads but if you put a gun to my head and force me to choose between NASB and the

ESV I'd probably pick the NASB and not because of its ease of wording but more

I tend to lean towards the more the more literal

Translations and I think NASB is a very literal translation and I think that's better for word studies and more in -depth

Exegetical study now again, the ESV is great as well, but I tend to to lean more towards those more literal translations

And of course, you know James White uses the NASB, you know, I trust his exegesis now.

I just again lost another 50 50 subscribers. I like James White. We actually had him on the show.

We talked about Molinism I love the way he exegetes, you know, the passages defends a reformed theology and things like that.

That's just me Just saying so NASB is the one for me All right

Let's see here. We deserve a cat cam. Sorry No, I don't have a cat.

Let's see Classic book recommendations on apology. There we go Alright, so Jacob asks classic book recommendations on the apologetic articulation and the use of the one and the many

Now, I don't know what you mean by Apologetic articulation.

Are you just saying classic book recommendations on like good apologetics? Yeah, I mean

Yeah, anything by Bonson Presuppositional apologetic stated and defended great book always ready by Greg Bonson good book, by the way

These are on Kindle super cheap You can download it on your phone or something like that super super helpful now books on the one and the many

Here's an oldie have fun finding it. This book is literally called the one and the many by Rush Dooney, okay.

Excellent book on this specific topic However, I'm going to recommend the superb book by Brant Bosterman Okay, and I'm gonna get the title up here just to make sure that I don't screw up the title

I highly recommend the book that I'm about to share with you and I highly recommend the episode where I have

Brent Bosterman on where we talked about the Trinity and presuppositional apologetics We talked a little bit about why

God must be three must be tri -personal. So very very Great episode

I think okay So Brant Bosterman you want to get the book the Trinity and the vindication of Christian paradox the

Trinity and the vindication of? Christian paradox, that's an excellent book on the one in the many

God's tri personality And of course if you could find it, you know, you're gonna find you're gonna probably pay an arm and a leg for it

But it's out there so by Rush Dooney So, I hope that's that's helpful and of course by things by Van Til Van Til's apologetic readings and analysis, which is dr.

Greg Bonson's Thickest book where he provides a running commentary on all the difficult aspects of Van Til.

I think this is One of the best books now Here's an interesting thing Someone contacted me

Okay I'm not gonna mention any names because we're gonna have a meeting and talk a little bit about About what

I'm about to mention here, I think I think I'm gonna be the first person to share this with you By thumbs up,

I don't have to hear you say yeah, how would you like all of Greg Bonson's audio lectures his lectures on philosophy ancient

Renaissance modern philosophy Christian philosophy entire lectures entire lecture series the lecture series on transcendental arguments

How would you like every bit of Greg Bonson's audio lectures

Available for free online. I don't know about you But I would love that there's a lot of things that I learned are from those very lectures

They are there you have to pay for them at Covenant media calm But I'm in talks with someone who has shared with me that they're in the process of buying the rights to Greg Bonson's audio library

So that they could make it available for everyone for free on sermon audio That means if this works out on sermon audio, you could access every nook and cranny of Greg Bonson's lectures his walkthrough of the book of Proverbs the book of Revelation Everything everything that he's ever recorded available for free at sermon audio when

I get more detail on that I'm gonna share that with you and and and and kind of tell you guys what you can do

To help make that happen since the person who is getting the rights to this audio library has to raise some money

So if you think this is a very important thing, I think continuing. Dr. Bonson's legacy is very important to me because I think the presuppositional approach is the approach we should use

And I do think that Greg Bonson's the best represent representative of that approach I do think that it would benefit the body of Christ greatly if we can make his audio

Lectures available to people and there are countless I can't even count how many there are

There's so much material that he put out that are just excellent that people aren't listening to Because they're just not available.

And if you want to get them, they're tucked away in a website and you have to pay for it So if you're interested in that,

I'm gonna keep you guys You know, I'll keep you guys notified once I get more information. So that's gonna be super cool.

All right Let's see here Okay, there we go

Slam or an is that we say slam or in I'm stoked for tomorrow's debate Is it going to be in debate format?

How much time did you allow? How much time did I allow? How much time are they willing to give for me? I could have them on for four or five hours

It's probably gonna be between an hour and a half to two hours and it's not going to be a formal Debate it's going to be

An open discussion in which I will be giving questions related to their respective positions

So I'm going to give a question I'm gonna allow them both to interact a little bit with each other and then I'm gonna enter to interject here and there to press

A little bit on each person's perspective And so that's how it's gonna go kind of an informal discussion

I love formal debates, but I think dr. Lyle and dr. Ross have had a formal debate

I think people benefit greatly from kind of this open discussion format. So I hope that is something that That that you guys will like all right, let's continue on Let's see, let's see.

Let's see That's not a question. Okay, that's a good this is a question. Okay.

So how do you use? Precept to debate the reliability of the scriptures. Okay. Now, that's a great question

Remember when we debate the reliability of the scriptures, we're going to appeal to history. We're going to appeal to things like textual criticism we're going to appeal to things like that as Historical historiography and things like that When we engage in those things

Evidences if you will for the reliability of the Bible remember that the use of evidence is

Consistent with a presuppositional approach, right? So what we're going to do is Not only do we understand that facts and even the very concept of evidence only makes sense within a

Christian context But once we assume that then we can engage in the disciplines already standing on the coherency of God's Revelation Okay, and then talking about Indicators that just confirm what we already believe about the

Bible now, you're probably gonna cry out. Well, that's circular reasoning Well, yeah, and if you know anything about presuppositional apologetics

We do not recoil at all forms of circular reasoning for if you understand these issues at a worldview fundamental ground level

Every perspective is at that base level circular, right when you're talking about ultimate presuppositional authorities, so we we engage in facts and building evidences within a context that provides

The necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of even engaging in those sorts of things So a good example of how one would argue

Presuppositionally for the reliability of the New Testament. Let's take a look at dr. James White's Debates and lectures on this very topic.

Dr. White is a presuppositionalist. He'll readily admit that he's a presuppositionalist yet He engages with Muslims liberal scholars and he uses evidences

And so again, these things can be brought in a you know in a consistent fashion together

In which you could argue these things Presuppositionally while using evidence again another episode that I had with dr.

Michael Kruger over at Reform Theological Seminary. We're talked about Canonicity and presuppositional methodology.

He talks a little bit about what this looks like so you can check out that video and that discussion There's a lot of content there

All right, all right, Jess says this is awesome. Oh, well awesome. I think it's awesome that you think it's awesome.

So I appreciate it Let's see here Okay, yeah people still still pressing me on the cats

I'm so sorry Let me see. Yeah. Okay.

How effective is okay. Here we go Atomic apologetics asks the question how effective is precept against black lives matter or even debating pro abortion?

Well, I haven't spoken much to the black lives matter issue to be perfectly honest.

Just been so busy doing other stuff. I Feels like the world burning around us I haven't been able to engage in some of these important issues that are going on around our country, but Remember when you ask the question, how do we argue?

Presuppositionally against anything much less black lives matter or abortion We always start with the foundation of God's Word and argue that if that is rejected then there is no

Foundation for anything else we do, you know So for example, if you do not assume a biblical worldview to ask the question or you know if we ask the question do black lives matter say for example, does black lives matter count or Speak to the issue if you are coming from an atheistic perspective.

Well, if you think about it Reject the Christian worldview you're an atheist and you're fighting for black lives matter

Well on atheism no lives matter if you think about it, right where you're on accident, right? I'm adding matter like a subjective sense an objective sense, right?

So I would argue With someone on this topic from the foundation of my worldview now again, we'd have to talk about specifics though The black lives matter is a very, you know, it's a movement

It has certain goals and things like that, but not everyone in the movements the same They bring up some people bring valid issues.

Some people bring invalid issues I would try to talk with people and see which ones are a little bit more in line with my

Christian presuppositions and those who Veer away from those Christian presuppositions. Those are the areas where I would press especially with abortion as well

If you're a Christian and you support abortion, I'd hold the Christians feet to the fire With regards to the standard of Scripture if the person is not a

Christian and supports abortion Then I would hold their feet to the fire to be consistent with their worldview and again We'd have to talk about what worldview they're coming from.

So that would be a much broader Discussion. Okay. Hope that's helpful Let's see here

Okay, okay, that's not a question Just more more

So and so being dishonest again, I can't speak to those to those points because I can't read people's minds.

I'm sorry Let's see here. Someone's calling me a closet young earth creationist.

Okay. All right I don't know what once they earn it.

They ignore it. Okay. I don't know what that person's saying Okay But by the way those who are anticipating the discussion between dr.

Lyon, dr. Ross at the end We're gonna make room for live Q &A as well. So if you have questions

You you know you when you listen to that discussion you can ask them and hopefully we will get to them, okay

Let's see here. Okay. Whoops. Whoops. Whoops. Not that we'll get to that one next. All right real apologetic What is your view on eschatology if you research this area doesn't matter in apologetics evangelism with unbelievers

Even if it is indirect or indirectly or implicit well,

I'm a partial preterist and a Tentative post -millennialist if that makes sense

Okay, so I'm a partial preterist. I'm to give you a context if you know, Gary DeMar Kenneth Gentry I hold two views similar to that.

I Reject full preterism or hyper preterism. Matter of fact, I'll be moderating a debate on The issue of preterism in August and so I'll give you some more information on that later on But I hold to the partial preterist perspective

In a nutshell. I'm not looking forward to a future Great Tribulation I do believe that for example

Matthew 24 Luke 21 mark 13 the Olivet Discourse was pointing to events that were fulfilled prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, although I do believe that there are aspects of Scripture that do

Point in fact to a future coming of a bodily coming of Jesus Christ So that's along the lines of where I hold with regards to my eschatology

I say I'm a tentative post -millennialist because I tend to think post -millennialism is true But that's another area of my theology that I enjoy open discussion on to hear that You know the different views in that regard now the interesting thing about eschatology

Is that it was through my study of eschatology that I got into apologetics, right? So it was actually let me see if I have the book here

I might not have it but a book that was very influential to me and it was a book by Gary DeMar We're on earth.

You see you would think that I would know where all my books are I don't know where all my books are. There's the book The Last Day's Madness the obsession of the modern church

And that book got me thinking for the first time And kind of led me out of my dispensational leanings, right?

And it was through reading that book that I learned about Gary DeMar in American vision and it was through American vision American vision where I learned about Greg Bonson because they sell his books there and that kind of changed the game for me so it's interesting kind of I I came to apologetics through the back door of the study of eschatology, which

Everything is interesting Yeah, circular reasoning the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true that is circular reasoning and that is

Not the kind of circularity that we're talking about with regards to presuppositional apologetics, right?

We would say that the Bible is true Because the Bible declares itself to be true, but there's an argument there, right?

In other words if my presupposition is that the Bible is the Word of God someone how do you justify that presupposition?

Well, we'd ask the question how do you justify an ultimate foundation? Okay, if this is my ultimate foundation

Bible's the Word of God, how do I justify that? Okay, I do not justify it by appealing to some external source to validate it because if I do that Then this is not my ultimate authority this other thing that I used to to validate this mouth and authority

So, how do we validate? ultimate foundations From the presuppositional approach we would validate that ultimate presupposition not by appealing something external but by appealing to its own

Transcendental necessity. That's what a transcendental argument does a transcendental argument provides us an argument to justify fundamental presuppositions but the way we justify a

Transcendental presupposition is not the same way. We would justify say something like how much does a big

Big Mac cost in McDonald's? Well, I'd have to appeal to something, you know I'd have to we can walk over and we see the menu we can we can see look there's evidence for this

There are different ways that we justify things when we're justifying our ultimate foundations I would argue the only way to do that is transcendentally.

So we appeal to the Bible's Transcendental necessity if if the

Bible isn't true Then there is no foundation for the very disagreements and argumentation that we're using at this moment again

More has to be done there. It's not just an assertion. We'd have to argue that in a little more detail Okay, um, so we're not just saying the

Bible's true because the Bible's true and that's it. All right, although some people do unfortunately All right

Let's see here Good, but it's not in the circle of stars with God which book the

Bible do I look for Elizabeth? Which book of the Bible do I look for? Okay Let's see here

Sentinel apologetic strikes again. Holy smokes Do I know who I apologize

Sentinel I do I know who you are I probably should know who you are you you asked me to invite you on which

I would have no problem inviting someone on But I don't remember Who you are.

Can you maybe you typed in your name? I have so many different questions Flowing through the stream.

I probably missed it. So I do apologize But here he asked the question what a second temple Jew argued from a presuppositional context in regards to the

Old Testament No one in the first century thought of the honest us with presuppositions Well, I don't know about that last part if you're saying the honest us though.

The Word of God is inspires breathe God breathe I would say that The Jew who held to the

Old Testament as the Word of God would have understood it as the Word of God It was that ultimate authority.

The Word of God is the standard so I don't know I don't know if I would agree with that that latter part

Now you're saying a second temple Jew would they argue presupposition Lee? I don't know Just like today.

I am a New Testament Christian and you know person asking this question is probably a Christian as well You know, do you argue presupposition

Lee like not everyone argues? Inconsistent ways with their foundation, right?

You understand the early church was heavily influenced by Greek philosophical thought And so there are some

Christians who argued along the lines of Greek philosophy Which probably would have strayed a little bit from some of the foundations of the

Bible. So it really depends I don't know what a second how a second temple Jew would argue. I suppose it would depend so now good question

Let's see here Okay, there's a fun one

I will write my own Bible Okay, I will write my own

Bible and if you disagree it is because you have no faith. How would you answer that? Uh, well again when we say that the

Bible is The Word of God is true by the impossibility of the contrary this statement here almost assumes that we're just making an assertion

That can be replaced with anyone any other assertion so say for example The Bible is the necessary precondition for knowledge and then the

Muslim will say well No, the Quran is the necessary precondition knowledge and then we're just stuck with these, you know These bare assertions and that's a common misconception of the presuppositional approach and the nature of worldview a transcendental argumentation but the reality is

When you say I have a Bible and if you don't believe it you lack faith I'm not a believer in your newly written

Bible. And so I'm gonna challenge you, you know How do we know your Bible is true? Maybe say well my

Bible is true because my Bible says so again That's not a bare assertion if you argue if you don't assume my

Bible then you couldn't have a foundation for anything The other person writing this hypothetical

Bible can say that as well But now he has to back it up show me That if I don't assume your

Bible that I lack the necessary preconditions for intelligibility See, so the transcendental argument doesn't just make the assertion you need to actually now

Demonstrate this is why this particular perspective provides those necessary preconditions Christianity can do it

And I would argue your hypothetical written Bible is not going to do it Okay, you want to I mean we it would be the same interaction any religion, you know

Isn't that the case with Mormonism? I mean, I don't hold Mormonism to be true Someone wrote a book and claims that it's the authority.

How would I argue with a Mormon? I would argue the same I would argue with the atheist right reject the biblical perspective and your position will be reduced to to absurdity

And I'm not just making the statement. I'm willing to engage in the apologetic encounter and work those details out again

We have to be careful Presuppositionalism is is rife with a lot of cool one -liners

And not a lot of content a lot of people the popular level argue with the one -liners with no content

We need to bring those one -liners into union with the content that backs up what we're saying Okay, because the presuppositional approach

I think is a very powerful approach and it's a very effective methodology But we need to be able to Navigate those discussions with content not just bear

Stand bear assertions like by what standard although by the way by what standard is a valid question

But what I'm saying is you need to move a little bit beyond that and show, you know, why? That question is important.

Okay. All right. Hopefully that makes sense All right Okay, Eli. Is it presupposition

Lee true that Paul thought? Believe that a woman's hair is a substitute for male testicles.

I have no idea I have no idea first Corinthians 11 15, maybe I'll Yeah, I'll look that up later on.

Thank you for sharing that. Okay Sorry, I don't know. Okay Let's see here

Let's see here Vanessa says any Christian who rejects the six -day creation presented in Genesis with the evening in the morning emphasizing each day is not

Consistent in their faith. Well, that's the that's the argument, right? That's that's that's the whole thing so for example, if you

Interpret the days of Genesis as literal 24 -hour days and you believe that that's true And that it's supported by the text and again, you could argue for that which obviously younger creationists do if if someone disagrees with you and you're engaged in the argument then part of your burden is going to show is to show that someone who rejects that particular interpretation is in fact being

Inconsistent and perhaps you think you could do that all the more power to you, right? That's why we have these debates.

Okay All right Let's see here Apologetic strikes again.

All right Is is it presupposition Lee true? Oh, I I clicked on that one again.

Wow. Look at that. Let me see Let's let's get that awkward question. I don't know Let's see here

Okay, God is a product of expression maybe Okay, all right Okay So here's a good one

God is a product of the expression of human weakness and the Bible is a collection of children's fables

How do you respond when when the wicked make such statements God is a product of the expression of human weakness?

Okay. Now you take a look at that statement. What's the problem with that statement? All right God is a product of the expression of human weakness

So the problem with that statement is that it is easily reversible Right if this person is an atheist, for example,

I would say atheism is a product of the expression of the fear of judgment now

Does me saying that demonstrate it's true. No When someone quote when someone says God is a product of the expression of human weakness does saying it make it truth

No, he's made an assertion now. He has to demonstrate it again If he makes the assertion, he has a burden of proof

It's not my job to respond to that if someone says, you know God is a product of the expression of human weakness. How do you know that and then what does he gonna do?

He's gonna give an examples of people who? Are insecure maybe they are they characterize this human weakness?

but again the fact that you can point to people who hold to religious views because of various weaknesses and insecurities doesn't prove that that's

What the notion of God is based upon you see so there's a there's a fallacy there Okay, so God is a product of the expression of human weakness.

The problem with that is that's reversible He really said anything threatening to the Christian position. I can just turn it around so if someone says

God is is you know, the belief in God is just for those who are You know afraid we just want someone to comfort us

I'm gonna say well You know The disbelief in God is a human invention for people who want to trick themselves into thinking that one day they won't be judged for Their sins see the problem the the the phrase is reversible.

And so it really kind of makes it a meaningless point in debate And the

Bible is a collection of children's fables of children fables prove it hey make the assertion

How do you know? It's a book simply of children's fables when I read the Bible by the way Even if I wasn't a

Christian when I read the Bible I get no indication that it's fables It's they are fables for children

If you read the book of Judges, for example doesn't really look like a book written for kids So again bear assertions they need to back it up just like when we make assertions we should back it up All right, but don't do any heavy lifting where you don't have to this person makes the the assertion tell them to back it up All right.

All right Eli have you read John MacArthur's book battle for the beginning and if not, will you consider reading it?

Of course, I would love to read it As I said before this debate over young earth and older positions again

Some might be thinking I'm kind of presenting a false dichotomy here. I do understand that there are other views When I say

I'm agnostic with respect to the views What I'm saying is I'm not sure if I would if I hold to young earth or older Other options for example, like theistic evolution is a position.

I don't hold to so I'm not agnostic with regard to that I don't hold to that view and I have my reasons for it but young earth creationism and older creationism are two views that I think are are

The more plausible views out of the options again, that's just me I know there are people who disagree with that that's fine So I'm open to reading

MacArthur. I've read Lyle's ultimate proof for creation. I do have

Creation basics and beyond by dr Lyle where they're where there's a bunch of authors there where they defend various points of young earth creation

And so I do look into these things but again, this is an area that I'm continually looking into and trying to You know get some clarity on so that that's why

I'm excited about the discussion for tomorrow so hopefully the questions that that I'm gonna ask are hopefully questions that many of you are thinking about and they're questions that I think about so So hopefully, you know

Tomorrow, I'll be convinced one way or the other probably not but who knows who knows definitely not close to it

Okay, so let's see here Hmm So when we believe in sola scriptura, okay, we believe in sola scriptura, sorry people who know how to read

We believe in sola scriptura. So what do you say to people who insist that God specifically speaks to them?

They say God spoke to me gave me a word for you, etc, etc, etc Well again, um, is it is it impossible for God to speak to someone audibly such that it's appropriate for someone to say

God told me well, I'm not gonna say it's impossible But what does the Bible teach us that we are to test all things?

And so I'm going to test in accordance with the Word of God What this person is saying that they apparently got from God and I'm gonna hold them to the fire

Say for example, if someone says God told me this and doesn't come to pass. I'm gonna hold them to the fire I'm gonna call him out, right so we test things by scripture

I'm not gonna deny the possibility that God can speak But if you're going to claim that God spoke to you you're using that that's a very heavy claim

As you better be sure that God is speaking speaking to you But again, if you're gonna say something to me that for example, whatever

God told you is now binding on me I'm gonna test you with scripture and You know, we're definitely gonna hold your feet to the fire in that regard

So we test all things against the standard of scripture. All right So that's how

I would approach approach that now so the issue with sola scriptura You do have people who debate this issue that if God can speak to someone audibly does that challenge the doctrine of sola scriptura?

I'm not sure that it does maybe it does again That's a topic that I probably would have to think a little bit more and discuss with Some friends of mine that are actually very knowledgeable in this topic that helped me work through some of these issues

All right, so hopefully that that somewhat helps All right. Let's see here

Okay Alyosha Alyosha, that's a really cool name. Alyosha. I hope I'm saying it right

Probably messing it up. What is your criticism of? Eastern Orthodoxy well, um to be perfectly honest

I have not studied Eastern Orthodoxy in any depth. Although I just rate recently

Downloaded a book. All right. Let me see if I can get the title up here to help me Now now

I have the the the iBook app and then I have the Kindle app and then I have like a redonkulous amount of Books in each one of them.

So I have to now find which one Did I? Download it might be on my

Kindle. I think I downloaded it on my Kindle. Let's see here Eastern Orthodoxy a very interesting time.

By the way, every time I ask people about Eastern Orthodoxy I always get the same answer especially from people who are supposed to study this stuff like myself and others

I can't find it, but it was a book summarizing Eastern Orthodoxy and I was very much

Interested in the the energies the discussion of God's energies So there are aspects of their theology of Eastern Orthodoxy that interest me

But if I could just say off the top of my head I disagree with Eastern Orthodoxy's rejection of original sin.

I do believe original sin is biblical I do Disagree with the

Eastern Orthodox view of the role of the fathers Again, I hold to Sola Scriptura I would imagine that an

Eastern Orthodox person or Eastern Orthodoxy does not allow for Sola Scriptura I believe it that that's the correct position.

I'm a Reformed Christian and I'm a Reformed Christian because I'm convinced it's true I'm not just generically Reformed where I just, you know,

I hold to this position and whatever. I think it's true So I do reject that aspect of Eastern Eastern Orthodoxy If I don't again,

I haven't studied in depth, but if East Eastern Orthodoxy rejects justification by faith alone, I would disagree I believe that justification by faith alone is biblical and can be defended and I think

Reformed theologians have done so quite convincingly. So those are some aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy that I would disagree with but again

When you take a look at the history of Roman Catholicism Eastern Orthodoxy and just the church in general There are things aspects of each traditions within the traditions of heirs that I would agree

One thing I greatly appreciate about the Eastern Orthodox is their heavy emphasis upon the Trinity And I think this is something that a lot of evangelical churches almost never talk about at least in my experience

Growing up and going to different churches and different denominations. There's not a great emphasis on the Trinity in Teaching and the

Bible studies. So one thing I do appreciate about Eastern Orthodoxy is its emphasis upon the Trinity But those areas of disagreement, those are big for me.

And so that's why I would reject Eastern Orthodoxy. All right, that's my view on that Yes more on the cats, yeah,

I'm sorry, let's see here Let's see here

Do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do. Oh Man, this is a good one. Do you adhere to absolute divine simplicity or the essence energy distinction?

by the way, that's what I was talking about that aspect of Eastern Orthodoxy that I really like is You know

Their discussion of the essence and energy distinction. I do again It's a topic that I'm looking into I have a book by James Dalas all and The book is called this this one

I could find let me see There we go, there's the book

God without parts divine simplicity and the metaphysics of God's Absolute something or other and then he has all that is in God evangelical theology and the challenge of classical something or other

I say something other because the titles cut off So a lot of what dollars all says I think he holds to that very absolute divine

Simplicity view I do resonate a lot with what he's saying. And so I'm not sure it's a very heavy handed book

I don't I have to work through some of the concepts there But I do tend to hold to the divine simplicity view.

But again Tentatively, I do that. I do understand that when you talk about Absolute divine simplicity.

There are asked there are versions of divine simplicity that does not Force someone into that more strict sense of it.

So there are Within the spectrum. Yes, I would hold to the divine simplicity again

I haven't studied Eastern Orthodox theology and so I'm not up on the energy the essence energy distinctions but again that's another aspect of theology that one of the aspects of Eastern Orthodoxy that I find very interesting and I am currently reading if I Can find that darn book somewhere in my

Kindle. I have a lot of books in my Kindle library How many books do I actually have? I don't even know. Okay, let's see No, yeah,

I don't know I have a lot maybe like 400 something I need to scroll through at the type in the thing, but it's definitely a topic that I I think is is

Is interesting. All right More on the cats. My goodness Okay, Jesus took on flesh and suffering

Could have died before he took on sin is just a sense. Okay Let's see if we can read this

Jesus took on flesh and endured the effects of sin Even though he was sinless and his suffering culminated on the cross after he took on sin.

My question is is it hypothetically possible? Here's a continued could have died before he took on sin in The just sense to be perfectly honest.

I have no idea what that question is. I'm so sorry I have no idea what that question is asking.

So I'm gonna have to skip it Because I don't know. I don't know. I'm sorry

Let's see here, let's see Okay, here we go. Kyle Munson says hi.

I love listening to your podcast your channel I was wondering if you can think it is possible to use evidence for the resurrection in a precept framework, of course

Yeah, absolutely Evidence works within a presuppositional framework again surprise surprise contrary to popular opinion van

Til did not reject using evidence for the resurrection

Appealing to historiography and things like that never rejected it never and people might think he did he didn't okay the thing is that when we argue evidentially it is always within the backdrop of a

Consistent Christian worldview. We do not appeal to evidences Assuming the autonomy of man and his ability to gain truth

Autonomously, and we do not present these evidences in a neutral fashion

That's what van Til rejected. He did not reject appealing to these evidences He rejected to appealing to these things in a neutral fashion and with the assumption of human autonomy with regards to man's reasoning and Abilities to gain knowledge.

Okay, so that's an important point here So yes, a presupposition list can use arguments for the resurrection as long as he does it within a consistent presuppositional framework

All right. So let's see here if you see me looking down here. I'm just kind of scrolling through to see

Let's see here Okay I Have most of Bonson's lectures already, but still

I'm all for it. I wasn't a day done. It's an audio. Okay? Oh, we have some Greek Orthodox folks

Orthodox people in the in the audience. That's fun Let's see a lot of comments here,

I don't see any questions Okay, see here

I've always been incentive just saying Okay, a lot of a lot of chatter about cats,

I'm sorry if I insulted anyone didn't mean to Okay, the tough question.

Thanks for again. I was showing his general blah blah blah Okay, so here here's an explanation of a question that I skipped over here so She's asking could

Jesus have died before he paid the price for everyone for everyone's sins, okay Well, I'm a

Calvinist. So I think he paid for the sins of the elect not like literally everyone So that that would be a caveat there

I'm but if this is what the person's asking Remember Jesus Christ is called the Lamb of God that was slain before the foundation of the world

So if Jesus is the Lamb of God that was slain before the foundation of the world That means Jesus Christ was slain before the world

For the foundations of the world that means it has always been God's eternal plan to redeem a people for himself through the sending of a son and the payment of the the blood atoning sacrifice that he made to pay for the the sins of those that God has

Given to the son that was part of God's decrees so if you're saying is it possible for Jesus to have died before he accomplished the will of the

Father and Dying for the sin of the people given to him then I would say that's impossible That's equivalent to asking is it possible for God's decree to not come to fruition?

No, it's not right So I would say it's impossible for that to be the case. I hope that answers the question here

All right. Okay You can show that someone knows about the evidence, but he won't admit the truth

All right. All right. Well, I have been going for an hour and 11 minutes again.

This is a random Streaming again, I didn't plan. I have no notes in front of me.

I just have my you know My phone here and I'm just trying to make the best sense out of the questions being asked here but um,

I Think that's it for today. Not not because I don't appreciate your questions, but I think

I'm losing my voice I don't want that to happen. I Thought I had water. Look at this. I have nothing around me.

There's nothing so I'm gonna I'm gonna stop this stream here Thank you so much guys as I said before revealed apologetics reached a thousand subscribers

I greatly appreciate those who have subscribed even if you disagree with the stuff that I that I That I teach and say

I do appreciate that. You're following the channel. Perhaps you're still finding these discussions and these interviews useful

I do very much appreciate that you know share these videos to people if you if you do follow and you do agree with what

I'm saying I share these videos With people and and let people know that there's great content here and I'm just doing my small part

I know that there are many Apologetics YouTube channels out there. I'm just doing my small part to edify the body and hopefully through the work that we're doing here

You know the body of Christ can be built up and of course those who do not know Christ will come to know him Hopefully these discussions will open up some doors there where people will pursue these things with a little more depth

Okay well If you have any specific questions or suggestions on any topics you want me to cover a person you'd like me to interview on the

Show you could always email me at revealed apologetics at gmail .com Okay, and if you want to financially support the ministry, you could also email me and I can

Tell you how you can go about doing that. That's also greatly appreciated if you appreciate the nice camera quality

We have here that is because people have been generous and have given to the ministry And so that's always helpful and appreciated.

All right. Well, I Told you I'm losing my voice. That's it for today. Thank you so much for joining me in this apologetics question and answers session

And that's it for today. All right. Thank you so much. Take care and God bless Bye.