Intro to Presuppositionalism Talk with Eli Ayala

Alright, well welcome to the Reform Rookie video podcast. Today I've got a special episode for everybody.

I'm going to be interviewing a very good friend of mine and fellow apologist and all around great guy,

Eli Ayala of Reformed Apologetics. So Eli, why don't you say hello and tell people where they can find you online.

Yeah, my name is Eli Ayala. I am, I guess, the founder of Revealed Apologetics, which is an apologetics,

I guess it's not considered a ministry, if I want to be official, I guess an organization,

I suppose, where I focus on promoting presuppositional apologetics.

And I know that's a mouthful, but it is a, without getting into too much detail now, just basically in a very surface level, presuppositional apologetics is a methodology of defending the faith, which

I think is the biblical method. And so I try to promote that methodology and try to clarify various misunderstandings of it.

And you guys could, if you're interested in that sort of stuff, you could find me on Facebook, Revealed Apologetics Facebook page.

I have a podcast, Revealed Apologetics, on iTunes and other formats. And then of course you could subscribe to my

YouTube channel, in which I do interviews with people on topics on apologetics, theology,

Calvinism, Molinism. I have a couple of debates there. So if you guys are interested in seeing what a presuppositional method looks like in debate, you can check that out as well.

Yeah, I can testify firsthand that Eli has done a banner job with speaking to atheists in such a friendly, congenial manner.

I want to use the word attacks. He attacks their worldview without attacking them, which is really the way we're supposed to do apologetics, with gentleness and respect.

And then again, using the presuppositional method, which is really not the most popular method of doing apologetics.

Eli is building bridges with people who are evidentialists and classical apologists, which maybe we'll touch on tonight to just talk about what the differences are.

But I too take a presuppositional view and think that it's the best way and the biblical way to defend the faith.

Now, I'm nowhere near as an expert as Eli is. I'm the reform rookie, so I just dabble in both.

So this would be a great opportunity for someone who hasn't heard of presuppositionalism or wants to know more about it, maybe they heard the word and don't understand what it is, for us to talk to somebody who really employs the method well, respectfully and gently, but at the same point in time, with force and with authority.

When you see Eli talk to atheists, he's very friendly with them and they end up liking him, which is a great thing.

We, as Christians, should be loving towards people created in the image of God and hopefully win their soul to the

Lord. So why don't we start with just a basic definition? What is presuppositionalism?

Yeah, presuppositionalism is a school of Christian apologetics. Like I said before, it's an apologetic methodology that believes that the

Christian faith, the Christian worldview, is the only basis for rational thought.

So the entire worldview promoted in Scripture is that intellectual context that can make sense out of everything that we experience, whether that's knowledge, a coherent view of history.

Basically, we believe that the Christian worldview provides a basis and grounding for anything rational.

And so presuppositionalism is infamous, if I can say the word infamous, for starting with presupposing the truth of the

Christian worldview. So presuppositionalism is not a bottom -up approach to apologetics.

We do not argue up to the conclusion that God exists. Presuppositional methodology is a top -down approach.

We start with the truth of the Christian worldview and argue that if the

Christian worldview was not true, you would not have a rational basis for anything at all.

Okay, so in difference to other apologetic methods, where you're arguing from the existence of God to the evidence, not from the evidence to the existence of God.

That's correct. And it's important to note that one of the first criticisms, and this is one of the first knee -jerk reactions of people when they hear that, is that, well, you're just assuming

God exists, and then you're arguing with atheists and other versions of unbelief.

They're saying that you're begging the question, you're assuming the very thing that you're trying to prove. And when people use that as a criticism against the presuppositional method, there are two conclusions that we can draw.

Number one, that the person is not aware of the nature of worldviews and methodology, or the person has no understanding in regards to what it means to argue from your ultimate foundations.

So, usually when people say, you know, presuppositionalism is bunk, because you have to assume God in order to prove

God, that's circular. They say that, all the while ignorant of the fact that that is the same thing that everyone does.

Everyone has a worldview, everyone has a foundation that they start with, out of which they begin to argue about everything else.

The presuppositionalist just says, at the beginning, that starting point for us is the truth of the Christian worldview.

If you're not a Christian, you have some other starting point that you must assume in order to even argue.

So, for example, I'd like to use the example of the laws of logic. If circular reasoning is fallacious, then how do you demonstrate the validity of the laws of logic without assuming the laws of logic?

You have to assume them in order to prove them. And that's not a fallacious way of arguing.

It is fallacious, it is false to beg the question in some regards. You know,

I don't say God exists because God exists. But when you're talking about your ultimate foundations, we must assume our ultimate foundations in order to argue for our ultimate foundations.

Because if I were to validate my ultimate foundations by appealing to something external to it, then my ultimate foundation fails to be my ultimate foundation, rather the thing that I'm appealing to, to validate my ultimate foundation, becomes my ultimate foundation, if that makes sense.

Well, yeah, we're going to have to go slow and unwind that. So, basically, when you say, when somebody criticizes a presupposition, let's just say, well, you assume the existence of God, that would be our presupposition, correct?

The same way an atheist presupposes or assumes that logic exists and therefore wants to use logic in order to come to the conclusion that God exists.

Right, we all have presuppositions, things that we assume before we even engage in argumentation.

One of the things that we assume are the laws of logic. If you don't assume the laws of logic, then you run into some issues.

We also assume our own existence, right? Right, sure. I have to assume my own existence in order to prove that I exist.

So, there are certain presuppositions that we must assume even when we're arguing for it.

One good example is testing the reliability of our eyes. I must use my eye to show that it's reliable, right?

So, while some forms of assuming the thing you're trying to prove can be a false way of reasoning, that's not the case when you're dealing with fundamental, ultimate worldview issues.

So, could I say basically the way we're created in the image of God, that's basically our operating system that God wrote on our hearts, the laws of logic, morality, that type of stuff.

And that's why we kind of assume them from the start.

Well, from a Christian perspective, within the Christian worldview, part of the image of God is that we are rational just as God is rational.

So, we would say, for example, logic is not something that God creates.

It is a reflection of His thinking. And since we are created in His image, part of that image that is reflected in us is rationality and the utilization of logic.

When we're using logic, we are thinking God's thoughts after Him. And so, I would say that logic and rationality, reason, and all those sorts of things are an aspect of the image of God within us.

All right. So, that stuff basically comes naturally. It's part of our nature. It's part of the software.

So, if we're computers, my body is the hardware and my mind is the software, the software would include, my internal equipment would include an immaterial mind, right?

We are souls with bodies. And we can think rationally and employ these universal laws of thought because we were created to do that.

Right. So, you couldn't even think without assuming rationality and the laws of logic to begin with.

That's right. It would have to be a necessary presupposition. If you don't assume rationality, then how do you argue?

You have to assume it and even to demonstrate it. If you're going to say, I'm going to demonstrate that we must be rational.

Well, you're going to have to assume that rationality is a thing, right? And that we have to operate according to them in order to actually show that these are things that we need to use.

And a presuppositionalist would argue that rationality, and not just rationality, anything has a broader context.

So, I would say that the use of reason is something that we need, but it's couched within the context of a

Christian understanding of the world. Without that understanding of the world, I would say that you run into issues regarding rationality and logic and things like that, which perhaps we'll get into a little bit later.

Okay. So, two things real quick. Would it be fair to ask an unbeliever or an atheist to prove that the laws of logic exist?

I guess I wouldn't go that route. I know that he has to assume them. I wouldn't say prove that they exist.

I would say, I would probably show him that we need to assume them, even to argue.

And I would show that for the purpose of pointing out that when I assume God as my ultimate starting point, even when

I'm arguing for him, it's not fallacious if we are dealing with ultimate issues. You see what

I'm saying? So, that's the reason. I wouldn't say prove to me the laws of logic because he has to assume the laws of logic to prove it.

I think most atheists know that, that you have to assume it in order to prove it. My question for the atheist is, how do you have something like immaterial, logical laws of thought in a world that is purely physical?

If the atheist you're speaking with is the sort of atheist that assumes that all that exists is matter in motion, how, in that worldview, can you have immaterial, universal laws of thought?

So, I know that he would use logic. He has to. But I want to see how he accounts for it within the worldview that he has.

If the world is the way he says it is, how can something like immaterial laws of thought exist?

That's where I would kind of question the individual. So, you would basically line up both worldviews side by side, look at what each of the worldviews entails, and then say, okay, which worldview better accounts for the laws of logic, the laws of morality, the uniformity of nature, maybe?

Yeah, I would say which worldview accounts. I wouldn't even say better accounts.

I mean, my argument is that atheists cannot account at all for logical laws. I mean, that would have to be hashed out if anyone's listening and they say, well, that's a bald claim.

It really isn't. If you define the laws of logic as immaterial, invariant, universal laws of thought, if those are immaterial, how do immaterial things exist in a worldview that states that everything is material, if you're speaking with the sort of atheist that affirms that?

Right. So, if the laws of logic are, would you consider them concepts?

They are not. Yeah, well, they're laws of thought. I suppose, I mean, if you say concept, they're an idea.

Well, but they're more than just an idea. They are laws that govern our thinking. So, concepts, in order to be coherent, we must assume the validity of these laws even to form a concept.

Right? Frank Turek, a Christian apologist who's not a presuppositionalist, he's a classicalist,

I think, but I remember he once told me, when I met him a long time ago, we had a very brief conversation, he said it this way, he said, the laws of logic,

I hope I'm quoting him correctly, the laws of logic are the furniture of the universe. You know, they're kind of like those things that give structure and order to everything, right?

And our thinking and things like that. So, I would say that they are conceptual in nature, but they're not mere concepts, right?

Concepts about, you know, beauty, or concepts about justice, these very abstract notions, presuppose the validity of these logical laws.

So, they're kind of the undergirding thing that makes sense out of everything else.

Right. So, the reason I was asking and using the word concepts is because someone had once told me, well, the laws of logic are concepts.

And I asked, well, where do concepts reside? Right. And they said, in the mind.

And I said, well, did the laws of logic exist before human minds exist?

Right. And they said, no, at first. So, I said, was it true that the laws of logic didn't exist?

And he said, yes. I said, well, that's the law of logic, that's the law of non -contradiction. So, the laws of logic must have existed prior to, you know, human minds existing.

And if that's the case, and concepts like the laws of logic exist in the mind, there must be a mind that exists prior to human minds.

Right. And the interesting thing about these concepts is that they're universal. And so, if they're universal concepts, it would seem that they would have to reside in a universal mind.

And that's what we believe as Christians, that the laws of logic reflect the universal mind of God. And because we're made in His image, we think

God's thoughts after Him, and so we, by necessity, have to think logically. So, I would think they're related in that way.

Okay. So, now, you had mentioned Frank Turek. Would he be considered an evidentialist or a classical apologist?

I think he is a classical apologist. Classical apologists are usually associated with certain lines of argumentation.

They use what's called the theistic proofs for God's existence. So, from what I've seen from him, he uses arguments like the

Kalam cosmological argument, a certain form of the teleological argument, the moral argument for God's existence, and then he will narrow his approach to showing the historical reliability of the

Bible, and then some of the historical evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus. So, that seems like a classical approach.

Now, if people aren't familiar with classical apologetics, classical apologetics is called classical apologetics because that has been the classical method throughout history as to how people defended the faith.

The classical method uses a two -step approach to defending the Christian faith. The first step is to demonstrate the existence of a theistic

God, and they usually do this through these theistic proofs, like the Kalam cosmological argument is one of the more famous ones, it's broken down in three premises.

Whatever begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, therefore the universe has a cause.

And then, once they get to that conclusion, then they go through what is called a philosophical analysis as to what it means to be a transcendent cause of the universe, and from there you get the characteristics of the traditional conception of God.

And so they would try to demonstrate the existence of a theistic God and then narrow down the options by showing the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

So there is that two -step approach. I think the best way that this is summarized is in a book by Braxton Hunter, who is over at Trinity Radio, they can find

Braxton's stuff online on YouTube, he's got great stuff there. He's a classical apologist and a friend of mine. And he wrote a book, and by the way, as a presuppositionalist, this stuff is still helpful.

I think we can learn a lot from our classical brothers. But I love the way he broke things down.

He wrote a book called Core Facts. And I know, Anthony, you like acronyms.

So Core Facts is an acronym. Core, C -O -R -E, the

C is cause, and then you go through the cosmological argument.

The O is order. Right? And you go through the different letters, so the letters that are represented by the word

Core are different theistic arguments. Facts, F -A -C -T -S, are different aspects of the evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus.

So Core Facts, you can remember some of the arguments for God's existence. Facts, you can remember some of the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

So there's that two -step approach implicit in that acronym, which I think Dr. Hunter summarizes well.

So it's a slightly different approach than the presuppositional method. Sure. So yeah, you know,

I came up with that acronym called CODE, which stands for causation, order, design, ethics, evil, and morality.

So that kind of gives you those same theistic arguments that point to the existence of God. So classical would be the two -step method using theistic proofs to get somebody to understand that God exists, and then point them to the resurrection to show them that this

God is Jesus in the flesh. Right, and they do this through use of rational arguments.

For example, the Kalam cosmological argument is structured in what is called the deductive argument. And a deductive argument is an argument with premises that if true, the conclusion logically follows.

And so you have step one, step two, therefore, conclusion. And so the deductive arguments, they're formulated usually in a deductive argument to get to the conclusion that either therefore

God exists, or there's a cause of the universe, and then we philosophically analyze what it means to be the cause of the universe and get to the conclusion that God exists.

So classical apologetics has a rational basis in that it starts with these sorts of arguments, which makes it different than something like an evidential approach.

I was just going to ask you, okay, so how would that contrast to an evidential approach? What would be the major differences?

Yeah, I think it's important for people to be somewhat familiar with the rational, or rather the philosophical frameworks within the different methodologies.

Classical apologetics is rational in its approach. That doesn't mean it doesn't use empirical evidences and appeal.

Because look at the Kalam. The universe began to exist. How do defenders of the Kalam cosmological argument defend that premise?

Well, they can appeal to the empirical data, the Big Bang, and all that other stuff. The use of empirical data is not exclusive to the evidential approach, but there's a rational basis for the classical method where you come up with these kind of deductive arguments and you take an item of human experience and try to show deductively that, hey, look, here's the conclusion.

Evidential apologetics is more empirical. It looks at historical data.

It looks at the evidence for miracles and things like that. It's a slightly different approach in its framework.

Although there are many things that a classicalist and an evidentialist might touch on. You know, the resurrection of Jesus and the reality of miracles is a big emphasis on the evidential methodology.

Would an evidential apologist look at testimonies and how

God has changed people's lives as evidence for the existence of God? Sure. An evidentialist wants to look at data points and then we'd have to explain, well, what best explains those?

Transformed lives is a data point. It's not taken independent from other data points, right?

Because there can be the Mormon who says, look, Mormonism has transformed my life. But you take the data point of a transformed life and the data points of the facts surrounding the resurrection of Jesus and the data points and the argumentation that one can make for miracles and you have a kind of more robust presentation as to why the

Christian perspective is true. A lot of these methodologies overlap with one another.

I know classical apologists who, in some cases, argue very much like a presuppositionalist. And there are some cases where a presuppositionalist can, in a sense, argue similarly to a classicalist, right?

As a presuppositionalist, I think that there is evidence for God, and I don't mind talking about those specific evidences, right?

But these different methodologies will try to, will use different ways to make their point.

You have a cumulative case methodology where, you know, you take this you know, which worldview can account best account for all of this data that we have?

It almost sounds like a presuppositional method with some variation. So they all cross over at points, but I think each methodology does have distinguishing features that make them unique from other perspectives.

Would you say that presuppositionalism offers explanatory power where maybe the other methods don't?

Yeah, I think that the explanatory power is really the bread and butter of the presuppositional method.

Because what is, what does a presuppositionalist usually employ when trying to demonstrate the existence of God? They employ what's called

TAG, the Transcendental Argument for God's Existence, which is usually in popular parlance, we say that the proof for the truth of the

Christian worldview is that if it were not true, you couldn't prove anything at all. We are positing the entire

Christian worldview as the necessary precondition for intelligibility and knowledge.

And so what we're saying is that the Christian worldview not only has explanatory power, we're making the even bolder claim that it is the only worldview that has the explanatory power to ground any item of knowledge whatsoever.

So it does have explanatory power because it's arguing for the certainty of the

Christian worldview, not the probability of the Christian worldview. For example, if you focus on a historical method, and you use historiographical methodologies to derive certain conclusions, history and historical study is very much based in induction and inductive reasoning.

And when you engage in inductive reasoning, you do not get certain conclusions. You get probabilistic conclusions because inductive line of reasoning is not meant to get you certainty.

You can't get certainty by exploring something historically. Certainty must come from a wider philosophical framework that someone holds, right?

So, you know, if you have a more scientific approach, science is based on induction, and you're only going to get probability.

Yeah, go ahead. Slow down, because what is induction? Because I'm sure many people, this might be the first time they heard induction, and they're thinking maybe an oven that they have the induction of.

The cookies in. So what is induction? Yeah, when we deal with inductive reasoning, we take a general principle, something that is normative in our experience, and then we project into the future what will probably be the case based off past regularities.

So, for example, a form of inductive reasoning would be that because the sun has risen every single day in the past, it's reasonable to believe that the sun will rise tomorrow.

And notice the probabilistic conclusion. You see, because I've always experienced the sun rising in the past,

I say probably it will rise tomorrow. But I don't know that for sure.

You see what I'm saying? I'm reasonable to posit that it most likely will. That's inductive reasoning.

That's different than deductive reasoning, where you have premise one, premise two. If these are true, then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily.

So you get a more firmer conclusion than you would if you were using a form of inductive reasoning.

Excuse me, inductive reasoning. Greater level of certainty? Yes, yeah. Yeah, that makes sense.

Does that make sense? Sure, absolutely. When we're talking about how things go, let's say similar to the fine -tuning argument or the physical constants, those things are constant for a reason.

The atheist says, or the naturalist says, it's just that way. We say, well, in a random chance universe, how could it just be that way?

We shouldn't expect that things remain the same tomorrow as they were today, because we're in a random chance universe.

Anything can happen. However, if God exists and he sustains the universe, which the scriptures say he does, there's a fixed order for the moon for light by night and the sun for light by day, and the seasons come and go, we should expect that tomorrow will be like today because God has fixed itself.

Is that the thrust of it? That would be the reasoning. Now, atheists would say we are reasonable to assume that the future will be like the past because of the regularities of the past.

They wouldn't say that anything can happen. They'll say there are certain aspects within reality that have restriction.

Certain things don't act these other ways. You know, kind of like you know, there are things that limit the behavior of things.

It's not literally just completely random. That's what many atheists would claim. I would agree with you that on atheism they couldn't know that.

What is that based off of? It's based off inductive reasoning that because these things have behaved a certain way in the past, that they won't behave otherwise in the future.

You couldn't know that. Right? If you claim to know that with certainty, then now you're jumping outside an inductive reasoning methodology.

Induction only gets you probability, and even probability presupposes certainty in certain things to even make sense out of probability.

But that's another issue. So the atheist that assumes that tomorrow will be like today has faith.

He doesn't have this empirical knowledge to say with certainty that it will be.

Well, he would have to rely on faith in the sense that he could not know for sure that tomorrow will be like the past.

And he couldn't even say, for example, well, we've never had instances of the sun not rising.

You know, the regularities of the past have just been so uniform that that gives us a good ground to projections of the future that tomorrow will be like the past.

You couldn't even say that on induction. Because then how do we know that tomorrow will be anything like the regularity in the past?

We're going to have to assume what you're trying to prove. So you'd be engaged in the very thing that the atheists or the critic of presuppositionalism would say of us, that we're assuming the thing we're trying to prove.

Okay, so between the presuppositional, classical and evidential method, is one really better than the other?

Should we be using a specific method and steering away from another?

Well, I think the really important thing is what does the Bible teach in regards to how we should be defending the faith, right?

A lot of people don't understand the differences between the various methodologies and so they'll create barriers where there are none.

For example, it is common online and in popular discussion that presuppositionalists don't use evidence.

And so you shouldn't be a presuppositionalist. Presuppositionalism is great if you're going to internally critique someone else's worldview.

But it's not really good if you're going to present positive evidence for the Christian faith.

And we need to make a very clear distinction between the use of evidence and evidentialism.

The use of evidence and evidentialism. I'm not an evidentialist in my methodology.

But I most definitely will use evidence because what is the presuppositional claim? Everything is evidence for God.

So we can discuss any data point in detail. I'm a presuppositionalist but in various contexts

I've used Kalam's cosmological argument. I've used various forms of the moral argument. So if I were to say what is the best apologetic methodology,

I think the best apologetic methodology is the one that is derived from Scripture.

And without getting into too much detail, because that would mean that's a topic that is large enough to dedicate multiple podcasts for.

Does the Bible ever teach us that we are to argue for the probability of God's existence?

When I read the Bible I don't see that. Am I going to argue? Probably not. Right, probably not.

Even this form of skepticism, I've heard a lot of Christian apologists agree with many atheists that we can't be certain about anything.

You see what I'm saying? We can't be certain about anything. So let's not try to seek after certainty.

Those are the certainties for those crazy presuppositionalists. Let's deal with rationality and science and blah blah blah.

I don't see the Scriptures teaching us that we are to argue in a way that we can't be certain about anything.

You know what I'm saying? I don't see people arguing in a way that allows for neutrality in our thinking.

I don't see the Bible teaching us that we are to defend the faith in a way that does not assume what

God tells us about the nature of the unbeliever, as opposed to what the unbeliever tells us about the unbeliever.

I think the Bible tells us, in a very profound way, that all men do know that God exists. And so when

I engage with the unbeliever, I keep that in the back of my mind. That when I'm engaging in apologetics,

I'm not merely giving new information for an otherwise ignorant person. What I want to do in apologetics, if I want to do it biblically, is

I want to unmask what the Bible says He knows. If you read Romans chapter 1, right?

That men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Well, they're suppressing something they have. There is, to some degree, they have sufficient truth about God that leaves them without excuse.

And so, I don't argue with unbelievers as though they're completely just like,

I don't know! I don't know! I have no knowledge of God whatsoever. If I were to adopt the unbeliever's assumption that they have no knowledge of God, then

I would be believing the unbeliever over what God says about the nature of man and their responsibility to Him.

Alright. It comes down to who's the authority? I mean, are we going to take man's word for it or God's word for it?

If you had to pick one Bible verse that would show somebody a presuppositional method or a reason to be a presuppositionalist, what would that be?

Well, you asked two questions there, and one is I would not say there's one

Bible verse that would convince someone to be a presuppositionalist. Remember, we believe in all of Scripture, so a presuppositional method is not laid out in one

Scripture. It's laid out, I think, it undergirds Biblical thinking, to assume

God as your ultimate authority and to argue in that way. So I would say that it is the whole of Scripture taken together that should convince us to argue in a presuppositional fashion.

However, there is a really good verse that illustrates the nature of our interaction with the unbeliever that I think is very presuppositional, and that is in the book of Proverbs.

Let me get the passage here. It's Proverbs chapter 24, I'm sorry,

Proverbs 26, verse 4. It says, Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest well,

I have the King James, we don't want to confuse people with that King James English, I know there's some

Reformed people listening. We're going to use the ESV, the Bible that the Apostle Paul used.

There we go. Alright, so Proverbs 26, verses 4 through 5 says, Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.

And the next verse says, Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

Now that's, verse 4 and 5 look like a blatant contradiction. In the one hand it says not to answer a fool, and the next one is to answer the fool.

Now this I think captures very wonderfully the presuppositional method in that when we argue with the unbeliever, we should not answer him in accordance with his folly.

We do not engage in apologetics, assuming what he wants us to assume. Let's just be neutral and follow the evidence where it goes.

Listen, no. No one's neutral. We have our bias. And our bias are going to affect how we interpret the data, and it's going to play an important role.

I don't want to adopt the foundation of the unbeliever. Answer not the fool according to his folly, lest you become foolish like unto him.

We can't be certain about anything, the Christian. You're right. We can't be certain about anything, but let's see where we can go.

We're not going to adopt that as Christians. I don't think that's a Biblical perspective. But then it says, answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.

The Bible also is teaching us that, in a sense, we should assume the position of the unbeliever for the purpose of showing its folly.

That is what you would call, in presuppositional language, an internal worldview critique.

I don't stand on the atheist foundation or the whatever non -Christian foundation, but let's assume it's true for the sake of argument, let's show where it leads.

And you see how this plays out if you've watched a couple of my debates. I've gotten some atheists to admit that if their view is true, then knowledge about anything would be impossible.

Remember that debate I had with that individual where he was a pragmatist. The truth is what works.

And I said, on your worldview, can you have objective truth?

And he dodged my question by saying, I can give you a definition of objective truth. I'm like, that's cool, but that's not what

I asked. On your worldview, can you have objective truth? And he kind of went off, and eventually he admitted, no, we cannot know truth, a capital

T, truth. Right? And so he just admitted, if we grant the truth of his perspective, then we couldn't know anything.

But of course, the question is then asked, if we don't know anything, how do we know we can't know anything?

Right? You can't escape making a knowledge claim. And so, such an internal critique, such an example of answering the fool according to his folly is a good way of showing the foolishness of the unbeliever's position.

Right. And it's kind of ironic, because in defending his pragmatism, he's saying that he knows things, but then when you look at the underpinnings of his worldview, he can't know anything.

So it's a self -defeating proposition, which should cause somebody to pause and think about their worldview.

Right. And on the one hand, this guy that I debated, he admitted we can't know anything, but then later on in the

Q &A, he was like, well, psychological studies tell us that. I'm like, oh, wait, now we can know these things? I thought you just said a moment ago, we can't know these things.

You see, so you're going to have the unbeliever be a walking contradiction. Why? Because what he says with his mouth is not consistent with what he knows in his heart.

The reality is he lives in God's world, and so he can't help but to make knowledge claims and to want to think rationally and logically, but his worldview can't account for that.

Cornelius Van Til, who is really the father of pre -suppositional apologetics, he says, unbelievers can count, and sometimes they can count better than Christians, right?

They can do the math, but they cannot account for counting. They're borrowing capital from the

Christian worldview, all the while denying the Christian worldview. And the role of the apologist is to point that out.

If what you're saying is, if you're going to have knowledge, if you're going to have science, if you're going to have a rational concept of history and things like that, you're going to have to assume things about the world that are inconsistent with your atheism, or inconsistent with whatever manifestation of unbelief that person holds to.

Right, and understanding this method and going through the Scriptures, we should have incredible confidence, knowing that, like you just said, even the unbeliever is living in God's world.

He cannot escape the image of God that is written on his heart, that he's created in.

So, when they put forth these different principles that he cannot live in accordance with, all we have to do is point that out, and show them how they can't live consistently with what they said.

Right, right. I want to read a quick quote, and I think this is a great quote.

It's from John Calvin, and I think it summarizes well why many people are afraid to argue in a way that reaches certainty, and argue in a way that assumes the wisdom of God's Word as the foundation out of which we are to argue.

Does that make sense? Say that again? People are often afraid, Christians are often afraid to argue from the truth of the

Christian worldview. We have to assume these kind of neutral categories of reason and logic, and then we have to work our way up there.

And even when we do that, we can't be certain about it, but the evidence points in that direction. I think there's a place for that sometimes, but not in the way that many do it where they deny certainty, or they do it in a way that's inconsistent with Scripture.

This is a quote from John Calvin, and he's talking, this is in regards to his commentary on 1

Peter 3 .15, which is the Christian apologetics verse, right? 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.

Here's what John Calvin wrote, contentious disputes arise from the fact that many think less honorably than they ought of the greatness of divine wisdom, and are carried away by profane audacity.

I'm going to read that again. Contentious disputes arise from the fact that many think less honorably than they ought of the greatness of divine wisdom, and are carried away by profane audacity.

These were written in his commentary of 1 Peter 3 .15. You see, when people argue from another position other than the soil of the

Christian worldview, Christians don't want to do that on purpose. I think a lot of Christians are afraid to assume and stand on the foundation of God's Word.

But Calvin's saying, you think less honorably of divine wisdom, the greatness of divine wisdom.

We need to stand on the surety of God's Word and argue from there with the confidence that the scripture, the biblical worldview that flows out of that reflects the greatness of divine wisdom.

It's the sort of wisdom that equips us to tear down intellectual strongholds.

It's the sort of wisdom that Paul professed. He says, where is the wise man? Where is the debater of this age?

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? How has God made foolish the wisdom of the world? And where can we find the wisdom of God that makes foolish the wisdom of the world?

Well, he finds it in scripture. And I think we need to do apologetics in a way that we have our feet firmly planted on that foundation with no compromise and stand in the confidence.

I'm not probably sure that God exists. No, I'm certain that God exists. And if God doesn't exist, we couldn't make sense out of anything.

Yes, that's a bold claim. Yes, it sounds arrogant, but it's not arrogant if it's true. And that's why we're willing to actually stand up and debate these issues and argue these issues and talk through these issues.

It always surprises me when a solid Christian is asked a question, are you sure

God exists? And they say no. And I sit back as a Christian and say, if I was an atheist, the very next question

I would ask is, so you have a relationship, a personal relationship with someone who may not exist?

You know, they caricature our belief as a man in the sky, an invisible sky daddy, an imaginary being.

And then, when we don't use the Word of God and argue from a position of strength and power, we admit, oh yeah, it's possible that he doesn't exist.

And it bothers me because the Scriptures tell us to come with boldness and full assurance of faith to God.

How can I possibly do that if there's a possibility he doesn't exist? And who do

I have a relationship with if he doesn't exist? He doesn't comport with me.

Yeah, I don't think that's the way that the apostles argued. I don't think that that is drawn from the lifeblood of a biblical understanding of how we should be thinking, how we should be arguing, how we should be engaging on belief.

I see a timidity. People are timid in making bold claims. They want their claims to be humble enough that it's okay and acceptable.

It's like, alright, well, let's argue on this basis. Like, well, no. You don't have to be cocky, right? You don't want to be prideful in presenting your arguments, but I think our claim is much bolder.

I think a lot of people don't want to have to defend the Christian worldview system.

They find it more manageable to defend a little item here or there. And in so doing,

I think they cut themselves off from, I think, a biblical way of arguing. Right.

I know a lot of times atheists will say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I can't think of a better argument back towards them than a transcendental argument that says if you deny these transcendentals, you end up proving them.

I mean, I think that's extraordinary evidence for the Christian worldview. During a Q &A at a debate with Greg Bonson, who is a famous presuppositionalist and atheist, said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And Bonson's like, you know what? I agree with that. And here is my evidence that if you do not assume my

God, you can't know anything at all. Wow. Extraordinary. That's what he said. That's great.

And we have to be very careful. It's not a mere claim. We're not just saying without God you can't make sense of it.

We're willing to demonstrate that through argumentation and interaction. I think a lot of people falsely assume that this is just the presuppositionalist claim.

No, we're willing to argue that. And that's why we lay our worldview out on the table to show that it provides those preconditions for knowledge and intelligibility and science or whatever.

And we ask the unbeliever to show their cards as well to see if their worldview can do those things.

You know, since you just said that, how would you go about defending that as Christians we can know something with certainty?

How would that be fleshed out from a presuppositional approach? Well, there are many things that we could know for certain.

Number one, I could know for certain that I exist. Right, no, how? Yes, yes.

Right, right. So when we know things for certain, you could know things for certain if the type of thing that you're claiming to know for certain is true by necessity, by the impossibility of the contrary.

So for example, how do I know that logic is valid and binding? Well, I know it transcendentally.

If I deny it, I have to affirm it. If I affirm it, I affirm it. So if I say

I know logic exists, then I affirm it. If I deny it, my denial presupposes the use of logic since to utter words presupposes logic.

So if I were to say I don't believe in logic, I've assumed logic to even make that statement.

You see what I'm saying? So it's known by the impossibility of the contrary. Deny it and you demonstrate it.

You see what I'm saying? And the same thing with your own existence. If I deny my own existence, I've proven my own existence since I need to exist in order to put forth that I don't exist.

So, apart from the laws of logic, how is saying that God exists irrefutable?

Well, when we say laws of logic are true by the impossibility of the contrary, that's just kind of a tip of the iceberg.

I know it's very difficult to talk about these things without getting into some of the philosophical issues because that's just the nature of the beast, right?

If people don't understand that, then perhaps they can re -listen to this or study these issues a little more. But what does it mean to say that the laws of logic exist?

Okay, what are they? I mean, do they just exist out there somewhere? There's this thing floating around called the laws of logic.

There needs to be a worldview context out of which something like universal conceptual laws can exist.

And so I would say that if you're an atheist, what do you have? I mean, you have matter in motion.

You believe in logic. Maybe you believe it's universal. How do you get a universal concept in a world that's purely physical?

You need a worldview. You need the kind of worldview that can house something like immaterial universal laws.

You can't account for these immaterial laws in a worldview where everything is material.

And so I would say that logic can't just exist out there.

I don't even know what that means. It would have to be if they're concepts, universal concepts, as you said before, concepts reside where?

In a mind. In a mind. So do concepts make sense independent of a mind? No. No, exactly.

So what does it mean to say, the laws of logic independent of a mind that houses them? That makes no sense.

Well, we all believe in logic. We believe in logic and we all use it, but which worldview can make sense out of something like logic?

And so if the universal laws of thought are a reflection of a universal mind, that's

God. That's what we mean by God. God is a universal mind. He's a disembodied mind. And of course, he has more details about him.

The Trinity, for example, which I think must be the case. You can't house the laws of logic without the

Trinity, but that's a much deeper issue that I don't think would go over many people's heads because it's pretty difficult to talk about.

Podcast number two. We'll do that. Yes. So, okay.

I love the method and I love the way you're explaining it. Is this just a reformed theology thing?

I mean, is it just reformed guys who use this method or are there other people from other different theological streams that do use presuppositionalism?

Yeah, well, presuppositionalism is not monolithic. There are different forms of presuppositionalism.

And for example, you had someone like Gordon Clark who identifies, he's a reformed thinker, a brilliant thinker, one of my favorite reformed thinkers, even though I don't agree necessarily with his apologetic methodology, the man was brilliant and definitely worth reading.

I don't think people talk about him enough. He's got so much good material out there. But he was known as a presuppositionalist.

But he was reformed. But you have people who are now even in Greek Orthodoxy trying to use presuppositional method.

You have that guy, Jay Dyer, who uses it. And he uses it brilliantly.

Whether it's consistent with his Greek Orthodoxy is a different issue. But people from different streams of theology use it.

I think your question is is it consistent for them to do so? I'm inclined to say that a presuppositional apologetic methodology, as it was developed by Cornelius Van Til, was developed primarily for the purpose of developing a reformed apologetic.

And so when Van Til developed this methodology from the principles of what he believed, the principles of Scripture, he believed that it flowed out of a

Christian worldview. And for Van Til, a Christian worldview was a reformed perspective. So the presuppositional method with all of its trappings assumed certain things about God, the creator -creature distinction, how we relate to God.

There are issues of total depravity mixed in there, how man is able to come to knowledge, the knowledge of God and man.

And all of these things are wrapped into the methodology. So I'm inclined to say that it is a uniquely reformed methodology.

However, that is an issue that is up for debate amongst various people. And that's something that I'm trying to explore a little deeper myself.

Okay. Yeah. I just see obviously presuppositionalism is always put forth by reformed guys that haven't seen anybody else use the method.

In fact, they criticize it. And I think it goes back to the reformed understanding of anthropology.

You know, man's inability to understand the things of the spirit. And it requires

God's revelation in order for man to understand those things. Right? Yeah, there are issues mixed in there.

It just depends where is the necessary connection. I think that's where it's difficult. Where is the necessary connection of reformed theology and the methodology?

There are points where they obviously you know, one flows from the other.

But I think it's difficult to, for me at least, I'm not saying that it's difficult for any other presuppositionalist, it's difficult for me to pinpoint exactly where those necessary connections are.

And as I said before, that's something that I'm going to be looking into myself. On my show, Revealed Apologetics, I'm going to be having

Dr. James Anderson on at some time in March. So we don't have an exact date set. But he expressed that he was willing to come on and that's one of the questions that I want to ask him.

In what way does the presuppositional method necessarily connect with a reformed understanding?

I think that's an important question. Absolutely. Absolutely. Well, buddy, I appreciate you taking the time.

You got any final comments or something that you want to lay out there and then just let everybody know where they can find you once again online.

So if they want to listen to your debates or sign up for your podcast, they'll be able to. Sure. I just want to let people not to be turned off by a lot of philosophical terminology.

I mean, philosophical terminology is just complicated vocabulary we use to talk about concepts.

Right? I can use philosophical terminology to describe a biblical truth. For example, the word Trinity is a philosophical term.

The word Trinity doesn't appear in the Bible, but the principles and the ingredients for it are there in Scripture.

All that to say, when we do apologetics, however you do apologetics, you want to make sure that your apologetics flows out of the soil of Scripture.

You want to be able, because it's possible to defend the faith unbiblically. And we want to make sure that our methodology is consistent with what we affirm in Scripture and what we see in Scripture.

That's something that's very important to me. If you're a classicalist and you think that that's what the biblical perspective is and you're convicted of that and you're able to defend it, all the power to you.

I'm not one of those presuppositionalists who create these boundaries where, if you're not a presuppositionalist, you're not a true apologist or whatever.

Listen, we're all on the same team. There are important disagreements, obviously, but they're in -house.

Ultimately, they're in -house. And so, as one of my friends says, he says, I like how I do apologetics better than how you don't do apologetics.

Right? So, if you're a classicalist out there doing apologetics and God is blessing that, go for it.

But I do encourage people, though, that if you're using an apologetic methodology, it's for the reason that you think it is biblical.

Okay? And I think that's a very important thing to keep in mind. Again, you guys can find me on Facebook, Revealed Apologetics.

I have a YouTube channel, Revealed Apologetics, and you can listen to my podcast, Revealed Apologetics, on iTunes.

I have a debate coming up in June, I think June 2nd, on Marlon Wilson's show,

The Gospel Truth, and so I'll keep you guys updated for that as well. That's great.

And I also want to thank you because you put your stuff up on the New York Apologetics Network, which is a big help over here.

We're so glad that you're on the team. You're on Long Island, and we're making a difference in the area that we've been planted in.

So, I definitely appreciate your friendship. I appreciate what you're doing for the Kingdom of God. Have at it, brother.

You're doing such amazing work. I'm blessed by it. Happy to be called your friend and fellow apologist, and we'll be having another conversation on the show again, if that's okay with you.

Absolutely, yeah. And what I would really like is if we do a podcast like this again, perhaps we can get questions that people might have about presuppositionalism and walk through them.

Because one of the things that are laid upon my heart is to clarify the position. And I'm not the best at clarifying it, but I try my best and hopefully people can have a better understanding of the methodology.

Absolutely. Well, friends, thanks again for joining us on the Reform Rookie video podcast.

You can look us up online at www .reformrookie .com. There you'll be able to tap into the podcast and a lot of the video doctrine series that we put up.

I also put up a catechism series that you can listen to or listen to with your kids. Watch it, because it's actually a

YouTube video that you can also download and listen to in the car and let your kids learn some theology.

I know Eli would agree with this. The Bible is the best apologetic book we can read. So the more you read your

Bible, the more you're going to be better equipped to defend the faith. Well, guys, thanks again for joining us, and we'll talk to you next time.