Is Hugh Ross Correct About Presuppositional Apologetics?

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and it has been

I Don't know how long it's been. I haven't been on for I think maybe like a week or two or something like that Things have been a little busy on my end.

And so I haven't had the opportunity to to do a live stream in a while and The busyness

That I speak of is actually all good. I've been spending a lot of time with family today

I went to a wonderful lake with the family's went swimming so if you notice if I don't know if it's showing but If my face looks super red it's because I was outside for a long time.

So It should go away though. I am Puerto Rican and Puerto Ricans don't normally get suntan

I'm pretty good because I got the the dark skin already. So If I look like a big red monster on the screen,

I do apologize But that's what I did today. I've been spending just some time with the family and Yeah, blame it on the camera filter.

That's right But things have been going very well, I've got a couple of guests coming up in the future

So I'll let folks know what's going down in September. I think it's

September 2nd. I'll double -check I'm gonna have dr. Matthew Barrett on and if any of you guys are familiar with dr.

Matthew Barrett He wrote he wrote a bunch of books One of which really caught my interest especially because of the importance of the topic.

He wrote the book God's Word alone Which is a book Going through the historical development and explanation of the doctrine of sola scriptura

Scripture alone, so that's a super important topic, especially with the heightened level of discussion that continues to go on between Protestants and Roman Catholics and of course the becoming more popular in the and on the interwebs is is the discussion with Eastern Orthodox folks and so the issue of sola scriptura comes up a lot

I think it's a super important topic in short other people have covered it, but You know, it's good to kind of go over common grounds and and and remind ourselves the importance of these these great

Protestant Doctrine, so I'm looking forward to having dr. Barrett on to discuss to discuss that if those of you are interested in that topic and Even the topic of Eastern Orthodox, you might want to check out

Vocab Malone's channel. He's been doing a couple of things on Eastern Orthodoxy, which I think needs to be done

There's not a lot of at least to my knowledge not a lot of Protestants spending a lot of time discussing

Eastern Orthodoxy in any depth, so You guys should check that out Also, if you guys are interested,

I did have an interview a while back with Hank Hanegraaff the Bible Answer Man And then I had dr.

Tony Costa who is a reformed Apologist and scholar He came on I think two or three times after my interview with Hank Hanegraaff To kind of respond and give a kind of a critique of the

Eastern Orthodox Position of course, I've received messages from people, you know, obviously

Hank Hanegraaff is not the Representative defender of Eastern Orthodoxy. That's that's fine

So I'm sure there are other folks that people would would like for me to have on and I actually am very interested in Moderating maybe someone could kind of reach out to these people.

Okay. I'm very much interested in moderating a debate between James White and J.

Dyer, okay J. Dyer is an Eastern Orthodox guy, and he's

Got a pretty big channel. He I've listened to a lot of his debates He interestingly enough as an

Eastern Orthodox guy, he uses presuppositional apologetics And so that has come up on my radar

Folks have asked me to you know, is it possible to use a presuppositional approach in a consistent way from within a different Theological paradigm from that of say a

Protestant Christianity, and I think that's a good question You do have folks that differ on how to answer that from the perspective of Van Til, of course

The only consistent presuppositionalism that there is is one that flows out of a consistent

Reformed theology and that will include a reformed understanding of the doctrine of God his absolute nature and meticulous sovereignty

Again when Van Til was developing his apologetic methodology it was very much related to God's decree and that Everything that comes to pass has the meaning and significance that it does because it fits in the ultimate and absolute plan of God So a very reformed understanding of God the nature of man

All these sorts of things the noetic effects of sin the effects of sin upon the mind all play

A very important role within the presuppositional paradigm So one would argue or one could argue

I would argue that the only consistent Presuppositionalism there is if you're gonna go along say, you know

Van Tilly in lines is one that flows out of a consistently reformed perspective So I'd really love to see that debate if anyone knows

Jay Jay Dyer and I did reach out to dr. White, of course, these gentlemen are busy

There's a lot going on and and so I would completely understand if they don't read my measly email, but Hopefully I'll get a response from someone and maybe we could moderate a really interesting debate

Perhaps on the topic of sola scriptura or or even just the merits or lack thereof of the

Eastern Orthodox position so maybe we can have kind of a Moderated discussion. For example, if you've seen the thumbnail of this specific video,

I will be responding to a brief article or Response to a question that was given by dr.

Hugh Ross of reasons to believe but if you remember I had dr Ross on my show multiple times

Once by himself to talk about old earth creationism and perhaps my most watched video on my channel

I think it's the most watched video on my channel Is when I had dr.

Ross on and another astrophysicist and young earth creation is Jason Lyle And we had an awesome.

They had an awesome discussion and I was able to moderate kind of a casual Conversation as opposed to a more structured

Debate and so if you guys are interested in the whole old earth young earth perspective, you know

You definitely want to check out that video if you haven't already All right. So hopefully we can get something like that going on.

So I have dr. Matthew Barrett to come on to talk about Sola scriptura, and I will be having dr.

Michael Heiser on I think sometime in October, so we're trying to nail down a specific date, but I'm going to have dr

Heiser on to talk about angels and demons, which is a super fascinating topic

I understand that dr. Heiser has some interesting views and Quite frankly,

I I've listened to some of his books on audio and I've read a little bit of his books

And I know enough of dr. Heiser's position that I find his position interesting But I figured it'd be great to kind of have him on the show to kind of unpack in detail

What his view of angels and demons are, you know his whole issue with the Divine Council and things like that So I'm looking forward to an interesting show with with dr.

Heiser there. So All right. Well, let's dive right in. Okay, so there was an article that was shared by Dr.

Hugh Ross on Facebook and perhaps I guess some other platforms Where it was entitled

I believe thoughts on Cornelius van Tille and Greg Bonson's apologetic Okay, and so he's just sharing his thoughts on on van

Tille and Bonson, which is Fine that that's awesome But there were a couple of things that I read in his response and it's very brief

I'm actually gonna read the whole thing for you guys here But when I had him on my show to have that discussion with dr

Lyle, there were some comments when they kind of dipped out of the discussion of old earth young earth there were there was an issue where apologetic methodology came in and so He made some comments in that discussion that I kind of was like, well,

I'm not so sure I agree with that and that Point that I didn't agree with him on is repeated here in this brief response now that said, okay

I need to make a disclaimer. All right, and I know people say yeah. Yeah, Eli, we know I'm gonna say it Anyway, okay

This is not this this response here is not to bash or to talk down upon or to question the credentials of Hugh Ross as an apologist if folks are interested in apologetics with that scientific bent

I Highly recommend folks. Listen to dr. Hugh Ross. He is an expert in his field

And you there's a lot to learn from dr Ross and I know there are some hardcore young earth creationist who probably shaking their fist and saying hey, how dare you man?

you know Hugh Ross is a Deceiver Hugh Ross is you know a charlatan

Hugh Ross is a compromiser Listen, there are folks who they differ on certain theological topics and we need to understand that while those issues are important They are in -house issues and so I have no problem calling

Jason Lyle and calling Hugh Ross And even calling

Ken Ham the infamous Ken. I don't know problem calling them my brothers They disagree right and we talk about these things.

So This is just an opportunity when I read the his response here it was a teaching opportunity to kind of point some things out so that Clarification can be brought to the issue of apologetic methodology

This is not an attempt to undermine all of the work all the wonderful work that reasons to believe does and and by the way

What reasons to believe does goes far beyond simply? promoting Old earth creationism, of course, that's their their main focus at least as I'm familiar with it

But there are other things that they do. There's some great scholars and apologists that work for reasons to believe it so this is by no means trying to You know talk down to them or anything like that.

Okay. So with that said Let me share the screen real quick. Okay now what? What you're seeing on the screen is far too small for you to follow along Okay, so I'm gonna share

I'm gonna I'm gonna kind of magnify this a bit. There we go Okay. All right

So this is posted on reasons to believe Their website and of course on their Facebook page and I'm gonna read the whole thing to you and then

I'm going to comment I'm gonna read it again, and then we're gonna comment on it a bit. Okay, so you guys can see that Okay, and of course, this is not a self -contained video.

This is a live stream. So if if any point you have a question That you have in light of my comments here

Feel free to ask them if I'm able to answer them I will if I'm not of course,

I have no problem saying I don't know I've studied presuppositional apologetics for a very long time But I am

NOT the gram poomba in the sense that I know all the answers Okay, every time someone asks a really good question

It causes me to kind of go back and be like, you know, what what did Dan Till say about that? What did Bonson say about that? So I do appreciate your questions if you have them.

Okay. All right. Well, oh Oh, by the way, super chat questions go straight to the top.

You guys know how that goes I appreciate the super chats that I've received in the past and I do appreciate just the overall support that folks have been giving to Revealed apologetics.

I very much appreciate that stay tuned. I have an apologetics Online apologetics course that I offer that folks can sign up right now on my website

But I'm actually working on a systematic theology course, so I'll keep you guys focused It's one way you can support the ministry and also learn some basic Christian theology.

So, all right Well, blah blah blah. Let's let's let's move along. All right, you don't want to hear about that stuff You want you want to get into the nitty -gritty here?

All right, so dr Ross has this our article here or not so much an article but a

Response to a question entitled thoughts on Cornelius van Tills and Greg Bonson's apologetic

Okay, and so here's a question of the week that dr. Ross received here.

Here it goes What are your thoughts about the apologetics of Cornelius van Till and Greg Bonson?

Okay, and here is dr Ross's answer Okay, Cornelius van Till and Greg Bonson are two of the better -known proponents of presuppositional apologetics presuppositional apologetics presupposes that the

Bible is a divinely inspired and inerrant revelation and hence presupposes a biblical worldview the apologetics thrust of biblical

Presuppositionalism is to show the consistency of a biblical worldview while exposing the flaws in competing worldviews

I think both van Till and Bonson very well crafted the case for using presuppositional apologetics

Another very good presuppositional apologist. I would add to the list is Francis Schaeffer I don't think van

Till nor Bonson nor Schaeffer were against evidential apologetics as many of their followers have presumed

Good apologetics should include both Presuppositional apologetics is effective at demonstrating what is not consistent and what is not true

Evidential apologetics is effective in establishing what is consistent and what is true most unbelievers need to be exposed to both kinds of apologetics in order to come to faith in Jesus Christ as their personal

Lord and Savior in the book five views on apologetics Five theologians

Gary Habermas William Lane Craig Paul Feinberg Kelly James Clark and John frame Debated one another on which of the five different Modes of apologetics is the most effective the five apologetics methods.

They defended and debated were the classical defended by Craig evidential defended by Habermas Presuppositional defended by frame reformed epistemology defended by Clark and the cumulative case apologetics defended by Feinberg I am often asked which of these five methods

I espouse and the reasons why I think the other four methods are less effective My answer is that Christians need to be equipped to use all five methods and that the methods one chooses to employ

Depend upon the person with whom one is sharing their faith. Every non -christian is different from every other non -christian

I believe it is always wise to ask enough questions of an unbeliever to determine which one or a

Combination of apologetics methods will be most helpful in assisting the non -christian into becoming a follower of Jesus Christ The reason why

I focus so much of my ministry at reasons to believe on evidential apologetics is because the non -christians

I most frequently engaged need evidence especially new evidences in order to believe that the

Bible is inspired inerrant Word of God and that Jesus Christ is creator and Lord and Savior All right.

Well, that's it. That's that's very short. It was a response to a question there now there are a number of things that I Think are incorrect in his estimation of what a pre suppositional apologetics is and I think he's incorrect on on this idea that we can kind of use all these different types of apologetic methodologies, okay notice that he says

He says pre suppositional apologetics presuppose that the Bible is divinely inspired and inerrant revelation and hence presuppose a biblical worldview

Okay, and then he says I think Bantill and Bonson, let me see here He says

I think a Bantill nor Bonson nor Schaeffer were against evidential apologetics. Okay I think he's he's incorrect there.

They were against evidential apologetics. Okay. Now, this is very important. Okay there is a difference between the utilization of evidence, right and the utilization of Evidential ism as an apologetic methodology,

I'm gonna say that again because this is vitally important okay, all right, there is a difference between the utilization of evidence and the utilization of Evidential ism as an apologetic methodology.

They are not the same. Okay, that's why I often have to correct the false assumption that Presuppositional lists are against the use of evidences or presuppositional ism as a

Methodology is against the utilization of evidences. That's just incorrect. Okay for example when a presuppositional list appeals to evidence

He does not become at that moment as however brief it is. He does not become an

Evidential apologist. Okay when a consistent Presuppositional list who wants to be consistent to the principles of presuppositional ism as a methodology

Uses evidences he does so as a presuppositional list Okay, so there is none of this idea of you know

Well, I can use presuppositional apologetics to show that the unbeliever doesn't have a leg to stand and then

I'll use evidential or classical Apologetics to show look here's the positive the positive case.

You can't jump in between Methodologies in a while being consistent.

Okay, so so let's let's take a look again here So I'm gonna I'm gonna read this again Then I'm gonna stop at various points and then

I'll clarify and kind of expand on certain issues here. Okay. All right, so So back to dr

Ross's answer he says Cornelius van Til and Greg Bonson are two of the better known proponents of presuppositional apologetics. That's true

Okay, actually Francis Schaeffer that he mentions here is considered under the umbrella of the presuppositional camp

But again, you have in -house discussions amongst presuppositional list who is a presuppositional list truly

There's the pure, you know presuppositional apologists, you know If you're thinking in terms of being in line with van

Til, I think there are similarities that that Schaeffer has there But there are points where where Schaeffer veers off And doesn't really reflect.

I think I don't mean this in like a like ooh, look, you know Schaeffer's nothing.

Of course, he was a awesome Believer and contributed much in his literature and all these sorts of things

But what I'm saying is that if I were just if I were to compare for example, who is more Consistent with van

Til's approach if we're going to use van Til as the presuppositional paradigm, you know, someone like dr. Bonson or Francis Schaeffer, I would say

Bonson is probably more consistent with what van Til was getting at then Then Francis Schaeffer.

Okay, but Francis Schaeffer is part of that umbrella of presuppositional thought. Okay. All right, so Presuppositional apologetics.

Dr. Ross continues presupposes that the Bible is a divinely inspired and inerrant revelation and hence

Presupposes a biblical worldview, by the way, all Christians should believe that the

Bible is divinely inspired So even if you're a classicalist, right you should believe that that's the case, right?

But the issue is does that presupposition? Okay, that the Bible is divinely inspired and is self -attestingly true, right?

Along with all the biblical propositions that are within scripture. Does that inform? your apologetic, right that's where you're gonna have the

Different application there and of course classicalists and evidentialists will say well, of course it does But then we have kind of the the nuts and bolts disagreements as to how that that works out

Okay but at any rate presuppositional apologetics presupposes that the Bible is a divinely inspired and inerrant revelation and hence presupposes a biblical worldview the apologetics thrust and here's a point of Disagreement that I'm going to have

I think if there's a lack of clarity in this following statement And then I'm gonna have to differentiate to show you why it doesn't capture what presuppositional apologetics is all about I'm gonna differentiate between two schools of apologetics that I think need to be kept apart.

Okay, so Dr. Ross says the apologetics thrust of biblical presuppositional ism is to show the consistency of a biblical worldview while Exposing the flaws in competing worldviews.

Okay. Now that's not quite right Okay Because I think when you just when you define for example

Presuppositional apologetics in in terms of its major thrust, right? You know in that it's trying to show the consistency of the biblical worldview while exposing the flaws in competing worldviews this statement right here doesn't

Doesn't summarize Presuppositional ism along Vantillian lines nor Bonsonian lines if that's a actual word, okay, there is another presuppositional is that is not mentioned in this article of which

The thrust that's being described here actually reflects this other presuppositional is not

Vantill not Bonson I'll tell you why okay, I'll tell you who and then I'll tell you why. All right So dr

Ross says the apologetics thrust of biblical presuppositional ism is to show the Consistency of a biblical worldview while exposing the flaws in competing worldviews what's missing from this description of the apologetic thrust of presuppositional ism that was most definitely

Taught in Vantill and Bonson, okay Remember to demonstrate the consistency of the

Christian worldview is not the same as Demonstrating the truth of the

Christian worldview. I'm gonna say that again. That's that's ridiculously important. Okay demonstrating the consistency of the

Christian worldview is not the same as Demonstrating the truth of the Christian worldview now while it's true

That if the Christian worldview is true, it must also be consistent, right?

we're but the but Vantill is not merely arguing for Consistency, okay as a matter of fact the the presuppositional apologist the presuppositional

Apologist that is not mentioned here, but is actually this apologetic thrust as described by dr.

Ross here Who that is describing is actually? Gordon Clark okay, now this is important now

Gordon Clark if we were to have the umbrella of priests of Presuppositional apologetical methodologies a

Gordon Clark is considered a Presuppositionalist. Okay. Now another presuppositional is

Scott Oliphant points out I think a very important issue and that issue is with the nomenclature presuppositional

Okay, when we speak of presuppositional apologetics that term is not specific enough.

Okay, and so I actually agree with Dr. Oliphant that we shouldn't call presuppositional apologetics presuppositional apologetics

Because it's confusing and by the way The confusion is bore out is borne out right here in this description here is because now what is described in this apologetic thrust okay is

Clarkian apologetics Okay, it's not describing Vantillian apologetics because Vantill did not simply argue and Bonson as well did not simply argue for the consistency of the

Christian worldview. He argued for the truth of The Christian worldview you notice that that subtle difference here.

We're not arguing axioms, right? You know Clark for example argued if people ask me this question all the time, you know

Eli What's the difference between you know Vantill and Gordon Clark?

Okay, by the way If I can give a commercial a brief commercial here, let me get this out.

Let me minimize this real quick There we go. There we go Everyone always complains that my head's really big in these videos.

I'm so sorry I do all this stuff by myself. And so I can't have to reach the camera to adjust things.

So I apologize Okay. So what is the difference between? Vantill and Gordon Clark and this is an is important.

All right Gordon Clark appealed to axioms and He believed that you build the rest of your worldview from those axioms.

Okay, so You know For Gordon Clark his axiom his starting point if you will was that the

Bible is the Word of God okay, and when we talk about the Bible we talk about the 66 books of the

Bible of the Old and New Testament and he Believed that from all the propositions that are held within scripture.

You can build a worldview, okay You can deduce from principles in scripture a fully robust worldview system.

And by the way To demonstrate that that this was possible. I'm Dr. Clark wrote prolifically in all different areas showing that the

Christian worldview can inform all All sorts of aspects of the Christian world and life view by the way, while I'm not a

Clarkian I think Folks would be greatly blessed and greatly enriched to actually take the time to read

Gordon Clark I highly recommend Gordon because matter of fact is my kind of my dark dirty little secret

I'm at I actually Gordon Clark's actually one of my favorite Christian philosophers. I don't agree with him and everything but his presuppositional

Critiques of unbelieving worldviews is fantastic. I mean I have one of his books here.

Ah Okay, here is his really his masterpiece. Okay. He actually wrote let me get this here

He actually wrote a philosophy text. Okay entitled

Thales to Dewey. Okay, and he actually surveys The history of philosophy and Western thought literally from the

Greek philosopher Thales Examining all of the pre Socratics all the way up until modern times and he actually provides criticisms of a lot of these folks and the inadequacy of these other worldview perspectives to you know to provide a consistent a consistent

Worldview perspective right for for for Gordon Clark. The issue was not demonstrating the truth of your worldview

It was demonstrating that the Christian worldview was most consistent and this is important there's an important element of Gordon Clark's a methodology and Not only was consistency an issue for Clark Is that the

Christian worldview also answered the hard worldview questions it solved more more problems

Than some of these other inadequate perspectives and what Gordon Clark focused a lot of his work in doing is showing

The beautiful consistency of the Christian worldview when you start with his axiom the

Bible is the Word of God But here's the thing and here's the the key difference between Dr. Clark and and and Bantill is that axioms by definition?

Cannot be demonstrated Because you cannot validate the truth of your axiom by appealing to something more fundamental

To your axiom you see how that works. So so if I have an axiom, this is my starting point How would I demonstrate the truth of my starting point?

Okay. Well, I can't demonstrate the truth of my starting point by appealing to something more foundational to validate it

Because once I appeal to something other than my axiom my axiom is no longer my axiom, right?

It's no longer my starting point There's this other thing that I'm appealing to that's validating So so so for Clark, he believed you start with an axiom as a matter of fact, you can pick any axiom

Dr. Clark actually had no problem being called a fideist, you know He just had the starting point and this is the starting point, right?

And from that starting point you can build this beautifully consistent worldview Okay, now the difference between Clark and Vantill is that while while Vantill would agree that we have a starting point and He would agree that you do not demonstrate the truth of your starting point by an appeal to something more

Fundamental than your starting point he but he believed that but Vantill went one step further and said but you could still

Demonstrate the truth not simply the consistency of your system the truth of your

Axiom, he didn't call it an axiom. He kind of is it like, you know, I would say, you know One's ultimate presupposition

Vantill believed you can demonstrate the truth of one's ultimate presupposition Transcendentally, okay.

So whereas Clark says you can't go beyond the axiom. You can't really demonstrate its truth Because you can't go anywhere, you know, you can't go anywhere more fundamental than it

Vantill says you could demonstrate the truth of your axiom if I could borrow that term by arguing

Transcendentally by the impossibility of the contrary and he presented his indirect argument to try to do that.

Okay now this is this is Aside from the fact as to whether you think

Vantill successfully Provided a transcendental argument or whether you think Bonson Defended the transcendental argument for the

Christian worldview regardless if you think it works the key differences is that Bonson and Vantill Did not simply argue for consistency.

They argued for the truth of the Christian worldview And so when

Hugh Ross Dr. Ross says the apologetics thrust of biblical presuppositional ism

Which I'm assuming he's referring to Vantill and Bonson because those are the two folks. He's he's talking about here

This is to show the consistency of a biblical worldview while exposing the flaws in competing worldviews

You see that that's that actually is not quite what they were doing as a matter of fact Bonson at the beginning of his debates would say that I believe okay is kind of almost a direct quote

He says I believe that the Christian faith is Objectively demonstrable.

He actually believes you could demonstrate it objectively So it's not this we're just shooting for consistency here but as I said before if a position is true, it is also consistent and Part of the presuppositional task is to show consistency

But it's not mere consistency if you if you stop at mere consistency, then you're not really at Vantill and Bonson You're really in the

Clarkian realm where you're shooting for consistency and then pointing out inconsistencies in someone else's

Perspective. Okay, so I hope that distinction is is understood I think it's an important distinction if you're gonna represent

Vantill and and Bonson again I'm not faulting you Ross for this.

I'm just based upon the things that he said in the past I think that's important to kind of clarify on these on these various points that that's all

I'm saying here. Okay. All right Let's continue. All right, let me change the format here

And again, if you have any questions If I'm if I'm able if I'm able to I will try my best to answer your questions

If not, if you don't have any questions, you're just kind of chilling and this was kind of last second You know, I kind of posted this and I was like I have some time.

Let me go live If you don't have any question that that's fine as well. Okay. All right. Let me switch the size here.

But if a boop and Let's go. Okay, so so he says the apologetics thrust of biblical presuppositional ism is to show the consistency of a biblical worldview while exposing the flaws in Competing worldviews now that part

I think is is correct Okay, so one of the aspects of the presuppositional methodology is to show the flaws in competing worldview systems

Okay, we would call that from within the presuppositional perspective. We would call that the internal critique

Okay, the internal critique and this is vitally important if you're gonna understand how to do presuppositional apologetics

Well, okay Van Till taught and I'll kind of share the screen here again in a moment

Van Till taught that when we defend the Christian worldview We're defending the Christian worldview as a system as a worldview system.

Okay And so we're not we're not arguing in in what Van Till would say a blockhouse

Fashion, we're not, you know building one fact here and then building another fact here and then conclude that Christianity is true we're arguing for the truth of the system, okay, and Because we're arguing for the truth of the system when you are engaging in Objecting to the

Christian faith. It doesn't do any good to bring objections to the Christian faith

From outside From another worldview perspective while standing on the unbelieving perspective you are in essence throwing rocks at the

Christian perspective But wait a minute when you have the engagement between the believer and unbeliever you have a clash of worldview systems

Okay, and so if you're going to throw rocks from one worldview to the other what's gonna happen?

Well, the Christian is going to take that rock or that argument and interpret it in light of his own Christian presuppositions in life fashion

When the Christian throws rocks from his or her worldview to the unbelieving perspective What is the unbeliever gonna do the unbeliever is gonna filter that through his unbelieving presuppositions?

And if you don't think this happens Watch various debates and you'll see that when push comes to shove when you get down to the foundations one of the reasons why unbelievers reject

Various arguments and Christian claims is that at a fundamental level they don't have the same worldview presuppositions

They have different epistemologies different theories of knowledge They have a different metaphysic a different theory of what the nature of reality is.

Okay, they have a different ethic okay, and and what is inherent within these non -christian perspectives is the assumption of autonomy with respect to human reason and Neutrality, let's look at the issues, you know and follow the evidence where it goes as though when you look at the evidence

You know that we just don't we don't have presuppositions that literally affect how we interpret the evidence. Well, of course we do.

Okay, so Understanding the worldview engagement the apologetic engagement as a clash of worldview systems if you're going to adequately criticize and bypass the filtering process so if I throw an argument from the

Christian perspective over to the unbelieving perspective in order to Fish effectively bypass that filtering where they're just gonna filter it in light of the presuppositions

You engage in what I think Hugh Ross is getting at here and I think correctly is the internal worldview critique, okay, and what is an internal worldview critique an internal critique is when you hypothetically grant the truth of the person's position and Show that on its own terms it falls apart

So that it doesn't fall apart because I'm hiding a Christian Assumption and then lobbing it over to the unbeliever and look he can't answer

No, no, and a good internal critique will show that given the truth of the person's system their own system

It falls apart. Okay, and so I would say I would agree with with dr

Ross here that that that element while I disagree with his first part that we're just doing the whole consistency thing

I do agree with him that a big important thrust is this internal critique aspect

So, you know while exploit says while exposing the flaws in competing worldviews

That's that's part of it and not simply not simply exposing flaws But also showing that if when the unbeliever

Makes a point or an argument that is intelligible. That does make sense

It is only because the unbeliever is being inconsistent with his or her own presuppositions

That's where you'll hear presuppositional is use the language. Hey, man, you're Borrowing from my worldview to argue against my worldview.

That's not just a bare empty claim Okay, because we think the unbelievers worldview is incoherent and we try to give reasons as to why it's incoherent

We don't just say it. Well, some people do but we don't just say it we try to show look There's some inconsistencies when they do lob some, you know

Good point we show. Well, wait a minute for that point to even make sense You actually have to be standing on on Christian ground and here's why okay

And now the here's why is important We have to be very careful not to simply just make claims because this is another thing that people accused

Presuppositionalists of doing you know when we say that the Christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary and people say well

That's a nice claim, but that doesn't make it true. It's true, right? Claiming something doesn't mean it's true.

There is an argument there and so if presuppositionalists want to be effective In their communication and their argumentation.

You need to be able to lay that out I mean, of course the way you lay out will depend on the nature of the discussion

These debates are not always, you know Nice and neat and you fold it here and this person says this and I say that you need to be able to Adapt right to the situation.

Okay. Okay So let's let's continue on here So I think both

Van Til and Bonson very well crafted the case for using presuppositional apologetics I I 100 % agree that that point

I think is important to To mention while Van Til often was is you'll find when you read his books is he can be difficult

I don't think he's as difficult as a lot of people think he is now That's not to say that he's not difficult

Okay When you read Van Til you might read and be like what in the world is he saying? But he is clear in a lot of other areas that I think make up for his lack of clarity and others

What Van Til was really good at was giving little ditties little examples little stories to kind of highlight some

Presuppositional point that perhaps he said in a more convoluted context. So, you know,

I just wanted to point that out Of course Bonson in my opinion was the clearest in Bringing the presuppositional approach of Van Til down to the everyday man.

I see dr Bonson as a bridge builder from the The Academic mind of Van Til to the average person on the streets matter of fact

Bonson was was very well known for saying that we need to take Apologetics to the streets when I spoke with dr.

Frame some years back. I actually had the privilege of meeting. Dr. Frame a long time ago actually before he retired and We talked a little bit about Bonson in his office

And he said that one of Bonson's passion was to just he just wished that people would take apologetics to the street

Which by the way is one of the reasons why I actually agree with Hugh Ross's the thrust of his response here in that He says that the unbelievers he deals with are looking for these sorts of things now while we help while we will have methodological differences

I do agree that presuppositional list need to know how to navigate the

Evidential landscape when I say evidential I don't mean evidential ism. I mean like evidences.

All right presuppositional list tend to be very Oops, they tend to be very good at the big picture right playing the shell game the the the worldview game, right?

It's kind of in basketball. I'm a basketball player, you know, I used to be back in the day

For you those who follow me on Facebook. You might have seen a video my cousin shared where I was struggling I'm getting old and my back is terrible and I have tendonitis.

It's terrible. As a matter of fact, I'm going to be 39 this month on the 30th, so It's not that old, but sometimes

I feel older than I am. Anyway, But if what I was playing basketball in high school, we played you can play

These two ways you can play man -to -man where each player will guard another player and you stay with that with that with that guy

So if I'm guarding, you know Kobe right? I'm gonna stay on Kobe if I'm gonna guard, you know,

LeBron, I have to stay on LeBron or In basketball, you can play the shell game You could play zone where you're not guarding any one person, but you're creating a shell a protective shell and it's a more

Cohesive way of defense right presupposition lists are very good at that big picture But they in my opinion, okay, and in my experience they do lack the ability to Talk about the specifics

Okay, they usually stay out in the shell and I think in that sense I agree with the thrust of what of what?

Dr. Ross is saying I do think that in a sense. We need to meet people where they are now I'm gonna be careful with that terminology, right because I know

Presuppositional is to watch that they'd be like, but wait a minute Vantill taught that there is no common ground between the believer and the unbeliever

Actually, actually, that's not quite right Vantill taught that there is common ground between believer and unbeliever what he taught wasn't the case

Okay, was that there was no neutral ground between the believer and unbeliever

Right, there is no neutrality. Okay, Bonson said this there is no neutral neutral ground between believer and unbeliever

But there is common ground and what is that common ground? That common ground is

God's ground It is not a no -man's land where I remove myself from my worldview assumptions and the unbeliever removes himself from his worldview assumptions

And we can kind of talk on this neutral plane. No the common ground between the believer and unbeliever is

God's ground Okay, the common ground is that the unbeliever?

Okay, whether he believes it or not is Created in the image of God That's right, mr

Unbeliever if you are listening to this whether you believe what I'm saying or not The Bible teaches that you are created in the image of God even in your unbelief.

You are valuable You are you have worth? That's why

I I hope that Christians showed genuine love and respect I know a lot of these sorts of debates can kind of get really ugly very fast and people can be very disrespectful towards one another

But when we look at unbelievers We look at them as image bearers of God Okay, and this image of God cannot be hidden even though the unbeliever tries to hide it

Okay, and the reason for that is you can't help but be an image bearer of God if Christianity is true

There's no way you can be anything other than an image bearer of God and hence when the presuppositional list.

Okay appeals to evidences Okay Sometimes it's good to appeal to certain evidences so that it could expose

Image of God in the unbeliever. Okay, that's why I think there is a great use and for example moral arguments

Okay I remember William Lane Craig said something to the effect that that his favorite argument for God's existence was the kalam cosmological argument

By the way, that's one of my favorite arguments as well Believe it or not, but he says that but the most important argument the argument that comes up the most that resonates with people

Is the moral argument? Okay whereas the kalam, you know when you're talking about, you know, the differentiation between Potential infinite and potential infinites and actual infinites, right?

And you tried to show that you know, you can't have it You know You can't have an actual infinite number of things and all this sorts of stuff and you can get into Quantum mechanics and Big Bang cosmology and things like that who there are folks who can go into those details much better than I can

That doesn't resonate with a lot of people there are people to which it does resonate but morality, right?

That touches us at a very personal level. Now, of course, you do have people who will flat -out I don't believe in objective morality

But but but but but but when the lights are off and the door is closed when something wrong happens They get pretty triggered about it.

I think that is a good example of the image of God The Bible says that God has written his law in our heart.

That's the image of God seeping out of the unbeliever I think one of the tasks of the apologist is to expose

Image of God in the unbeliever by using examples of morality Yes, you can use examples of science the preconditions of science and a logic and these are all points of Data that can be used in creative ways to expose

Image of God within the unbeliever Okay, and I think that's that's very very

That's a very very important thing to keep in mind. All right Now again, I want to encourage folks if you do have any questions

I will take the time to go through them and answer them the best I can But let me continue on I if you give me a thumbs up if you guys are following and not talking over anybody's head

Hopefully you guys are understanding this and hopefully this is a helpful clarification, okay all right, so let's move back to the article here

There we go. All right Okay, so I think both Vantil and Bonson very well crafted the case for using presuppositional apologetics another very good presuppositional apologist

I would add to the list is Francis Schaeffer. Yes Is he is he is he faithful to the

Vantilian stream? There's some differences there even Vantil took some issue with but hey

Francis Schaeffer's a brother and he's got a lot of great stuff you to totally check him out. All right Dr.

Ross continues on to say I don't think Vantil nor Bonson nor Schaeffer were against evidential apologetics

Well, if you mean evidential ism, then then that's incorrect They were very much against or at least

Bonson and Vantil were very much against evidential ism because these methodologies Often presented their arguments in terms of the assumptions of neutrality and autonomy with respect to human reason

Okay There is a sense in which Vantil had no problem with the traditional proofs.

There's even says it in his books. I don't Deny, this is not a direct quote, but just trust me that it's in the spirit of the quote

Okay, he says I do not deny The Usefulness of traditional

Arguments he did he didn't reject the traditional proofs What he rejected was the often the often assumed autonomy and neutrality that was embedded in these proofs in the manner

In which they were traditionally formulated and presented. Okay, so that's a very important key

So when we say that Vantil did not reject the traditional proofs That's not saying that Vantil affirmed therefore evidential ism or classical ism as a methodology because Inherent within those methodologies are things that Vantil Vigorously rejected the the assumptions of autonomy and neutrality and by the way

Some people might do this but not all classical and evidentialists say yes. I'm assuming autonomy.

Yes. I'm assuming neutrality No, it's not that they're going around saying those things necessarily, although there are some right

Sometimes the way they formulate arguments these assumptions are kind of snuck into the discussion and Vantil was pointing out

Wait a minute Hey these arguments some of them are really good, but you want to you want to formulate these arguments in a way that doesn't sacrifice

Consistency and faithfulness to our biblical commitments and of which he believed Vantil believed, you know

Neutrality and autonomy is going against biblical principles because he thought that that was it was against scripture Okay, so very important things to keep in mind all right, so Where am

I? Okay, so dude, dude, dude presuppositional Okay, so he says

I don't think Vantil nor Bonson nor Schaefer were against evidential apologetics as many of their followers have presumed

We just addressed that good apologetics should include both. Okay well good apologetics is not the conjoining of presuppositional ism and Evidential ism that's not good apologetics.

Okay, that's Inconsistent apologetics. All right. All right, you can't you can't mix those two

Methodologies because they have they are diametrically opposed to one another in as much as one methodology

Presupposes whether explicitly or implicitly neutrality and autonomy. Okay, this is very important.

All right So, I don't think that's that's a good apologetics now what I what

I would agree with dr Ross and I think is his thrust is that we should use many things

Within the apologetic arsenal right when we're discussing things with unbelievers. I agree with that Okay, so with the spirit of what?

Of what? Dr. Ross is saying. I agree. All right, for example at my church There was a gentleman who had some questions about the resurrection of Jesus.

Okay, he is not a Christian but nice nice fellow the pastor sent on my way we got coffee and we

We discussed things and I tried to give you know Evidence for the resurrection, right?

Now when I give evidence for the resurrection when I engage in kind of a historical

You know apologetic, you know, I'm not ceasing to be a presuppositional

As a matter of fact Vantill said now this is a direct quote when in reference to talking about the resurrection and the reliability of the

New Testament Vantill said and I quote I would therefore engage in historical apologetics

Okay, so it wasn't against historical apologetics, but when engaging in historical apologetics,

I think he would encourage us to do so Presuppositionally, okay If you want to know what that looks like I do think there are two people that come to mind that I think do this well

And and this is regardless of what you think about them in other areas. I do think they do this well, dr.

James White, I think does a good job in speaking evidentially from within a

Presuppositional framework you see this in his debate with Dan Barker What was does the triune

God of Scripture exist I think that's the name of the debate I did another one with him as well But I think dr.

White does it well and Michael Kruger? Okay Michael Kruger is an expert in the area of Canonicity right the biblical canon why you know, how do we know which books are to be a considered canonical things like this?

He is interesting He tackles this whole issue of canonicity and the historical and theological development of the canon from within a presuppositional framework.

So James White Michael Kruger who by the way I had on my show as well one of my favorite discussions

It's an older one But if you haven't listened to my discussion with Michael Kruger scroll through the videos take the time and listen to it

It is absolutely an excellent discussion as a matter of fact after I did that That interview with dr.

Kruger in which he was talking about the evidence, but also being consistently presuppositional I received the message from a gentleman who says

I was an evidentialist but because of this interview I am now a presuppositionalist because I thought that to be a presuppositionalist.

We couldn't use evidence He's like, but now it makes sense. So whether that converts you or not, okay, that's not the issue here

But it is definitely a good discussion to listen to if you haven't already. Okay. All right Let's continue on All right, please.

I was in about a little bit about okay So we're doing as many false good apologetics should include both.

We just mentioned the issue there Presuppositional apologetics is effective at demonstrating what is not consistent and what is not true.

Okay. Now this is again I think dr. Ross's Mistake here in assuming presuppositional apologetics is equivalent to say

Presuppositionalism in the clarkian sense, right that presuppositional apologetics is effective at demonstrating was not consistent presuppositional apologetics is good at critiquing other perspectives, but It's not adequate to show the truth of the

Christian worldview, right? Right, that's what he's getting at to do that.

You need evidential apologetics Okay Evidential apologetics is effective in establishing what is consistent and what is true

Okay And then he goes on to say most unbelievers need to be exposed to both kinds of apologetics in order to come to faith

In Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. Okay, so I hope you see the the the subtle Mistake that's being made here

Presuppositional apologetics is effective at demonstrating what is not consistent and what is not true. How can that be the case if Vantil and Bonson argued for the truth of the

Christian worldview via a transcendental argument What is the difference between say an evidential sort of argument or a classical sort of argument and a transcendental argument?

Well, it comes in the difference of kind of this direct and indirect form of argumentation So a direct form of argumentation would come in the form of a lot of the traditional arguments

You know if I were to use the kalam, you know, whatever begins to exist as a cause the universe began to exist Therefore the universe has a cause and then we kind of defend the premises.

You're using a positive Case, okay Vantil used an indirect case for the truth of Christianity, but it was an indirect argument for the truth of Christianity not

Demonstrating simply that it's consistent. Okay. So again, I think this is a common mistake here

All right, so he says see that I got kicked off my own show

Look at that Sorry about that. I don't know what happened So, um,

I think I got kicked by something literally a big thing across the screen said something went wrong. Thanks a lot stream yard

Anyway, all right. Are you guys you guys can see me? Okay now someone give me a thumbs up somebody

Let me know that I'm still here Okay All right, any anyone thumbs up?

Okay. I'm just gonna keep going. All right, that made me lose my train of thought So I don't know where I was going I was going with that Okay, now

I need to reshare Okay, thanks for the thumbs up. Let me share my screen again share share share doobie doobie doobie

We want to share the article not the not my Amazon shopping list. Maybe I should X that out

There we go. And when you guys Care about what I'm shopping for. Okay Okay, so he says my answer is that Christians need to be equipped to use all five methods

So again, so I hope you know why that's that shouldn't be the case. You shouldn't know how to use all five methods

Okay, you want to use your method that is consistent with your other presuppositional?

Commitments you don't want to be inconsistent in in that regard. Okay um Okay, so he says my answer is that Christians need to be equipped to use all five methods and that the methods one chooses to employ

Depend upon the person with whom one is sharing their faith Okay, again, I disagree and I agree in a sense.

Okay, so I'm a presuppositionalist. All right Am I going to speak?

The same way to everyone that I encounter right Am I always going to say when

I engage an unbeliever when someone says well, how do you know christianity is true? You know am

I always going to say because of the impossibility of the contrary? No, am

I always going to say hey, you know god, but you're no i'm not going to say that either. Okay um, there might be a context to say some of those things but um

Conversations are sloppy. Okay. Well, you're not always having this ordered discussion where all these things kind of fit nicely in the conversation

All right. I try my best to meet people where they are and engage their direct questions.

Okay And when the question when I give responses and there's some pushback and the reason for that pushback is

This kind of this underlying presuppositional thing then I bring those things into play

But there are some people say hey, you know, how how can I know that? You know, what are some good reasons to believe that jesus rose from the dead?

And I say, okay Well, here are some good reasons reason number one reason number two reason number three reason number four reason number five

And then I answer questions related to but what about this? What about this? You know, what what about the spoon theory? What about the hallucination theory and I give responses here and the person says?

All right, that makes a lot of sense. You know, you give me a lot to think about Do I say wait wait, mr.

Unbeliever? You can't leave. Okay You need to first consider that along with all these other things.

You can't make sense out of any. No, I wouldn't do that Okay, while it's true and that point needs to come out at some point if if you know when the situation calls for it

There's nothing wrong with meeting people where they are Okay, common ground not neutral ground common ground and answering their questions directly

You don't always need to launch into A transcendental argument and appeals to universal logical laws and things like that Okay, they have their place but presuppositional apologetics is not only that as a matter of fact, there's another good book

Take it It's an oldie and I don't even know if you can get it.

So this might just be a tease Um, but if you're interested in how a presuppositionalist might use evidence

There is this little book called van till and the use of evidence Now if you look it up, it's probably like a thousand dollars on amazon as a matter of fact

Let's do something here. Let's see here if I go to amazon right now. How much is this bad boy?

Okay uh Van till And the use of Evidence let's see if it's on sale anywhere.

Nope. Not available. Okay. It's not even available in like a crazy expensive. Uh, Well, I guess you can't buy it

Okay, you can't buy it. But um if you could find it somewhere, okay

I I I knew a guy who knew van till and he had a whole bunch of books Obviously, it looks super old.

This is a good book. Maybe you can find it online or something like that. But at any rate Um, yes, the presuppositionalist can use evidence.

We can answer people's questions directly Uh without having to always say by what standard okay, but by the way

If you're a presuppositionalist and you get a lot of heat because we often say by what standard

Don't worry about it because by what standard is a perfectly good question to ask Okay, and you should not be bullied by your classical friends or your atheist friends who say up here

He goes again with by what standard okay by what standard is a perfectly valid question

And if you can't answer if you don't have a standard Then that that's that's a valid point to make so you definitely don't want to um,

Just repeat it over and over again. You need to be able to expand on your points, right? Um, but there there's nothing wrong in saying it.

All right almost done and then we'll go to some questions here Thank you so much for uh sticking around folks.

I think there are a couple of questions there So i'll try to get to them in just a moment uh, but let's Bring this back on the screen like not like that.

Okay like this All right Okay, so he says my answer Okay I believe it is always wise to ask questions of an unbeliever

To determine which one or combination of apologetic methods Uh will be most helpful in assisting the non -christian into becoming a follower of jesus christ

Okay, again, I believe it is always wise to uh to ask enough questions.

By the way, I agree Ask questions. Okay not every unbeliever you're going to come in contact with is a

Internet atheist youtuber that's going to give you a hard time over things that he probably shouldn't give you a hard time

And if he just agreed on certain points, he can move on into the discussion. Not every unbeliever is like that Okay, there are some unbelievers who by the way the spirit of god may be working in and so that's why they're asking these questions

So you don't always have to assume uh the worse Uh, you know when an unbeliever asks, you know genuine questions, okay

Uh, so I do believe you should ask questions and based upon their answers that will affect how you'll go about Um engaging them, okay, but what

I disagree with dr. Ross here, right? He says I believe it is always wise to ask enough questions of an unbeliever to determine which one or combination of apologetic methods

Right, we don't do that. If you're going to be a presuppositionalist you want to be consistent But if you're going to ask questions that's going to help you so that it could inform how you will apply

Your presuppositionalism Okay, does that make sense? I'll say that again. It's important for us to ask questions not so that we can see what method we're going to use

Because we want to be consistent But to see how we will apply Our presuppositionalism in that particular context why because as a presuppositionalist

Who believes that presuppositionalism flows out of scripture? We want to engage the unbeliever regardless of what sorts of question they ask in a way that's consistent with those convictions

Okay. Now if you're a classicalist an evidentialist and you disagree, well, you know, that's fine But what i'm saying here as a presuppositionalist

You want to be consistent? All right, and so it is appropriate to talk about evidences, but evidence don't exist in a vacuum

It's okay to talk about facts, but facts don't exist in a vacuum But you don't always have to talk about The transcendental stuff all the time.

Okay, although it will be in the background It's the background music of your mind and you're always presenting the specifics with the context of the christian worldview

And when that comes up you need to address it. Okay So that's important. So I do believe you do need to ask questions

And then he says the reasons why I focus so much of my ministry at reasons of belief On evidential apologetics is because the non -christian

I most frequently engage need evidence Especially new evidences in order to believe that the bible is the inspired inerrant word of god and that jesus christ is creator

Lord and savior now for that I do not fault Dr. Ross, okay um, yeah, he has um

He has a ministry right, um, you see this, uh in the same thing with um with jason lyle who is an astrophysicist

He's a scientist, right? Um, so he has a specific focus. You're not going to see dr

Lyle, uh engage hours and hours doing videos on islam. He can cover it by the way

I mean he's addressed it in some of his books. That's not a central focus, right? It's not a central focus is creation right discussing evolution things like that.

Okay. Um, so I don't fault Um, you know, I don't fault Dr. Ross for that.

This is his ministry This is the area that he feels called to and I think he should be free to exercise Those gift things as as as he sees fit given that specific context

So yeah If you're if you're talking to people who? Are asking specific questions meet them where they are in the sense of respond to those questions

But you also always want to get to the heart of the issue um, because as you know as some presuppositional

Presuppositionalists are apt to say and someone mentioned psi in the comments there I've heard this from psi and I agree with psi in this regard

He says that it's pointless in arguing with the unbeliever For three hours over the complexity of the human eye when that unbeliever is going to hell

I mean that that that's that's simple, right? We want to get to the gospel

All right. And so this is something we um evidentialist are guilty of Classicalists are guilty of presuppositionalists are guilty of is that we can be so um enamored with the philosophical

With the evidential with the historical all of these side discussions, which are vitally important I'm, not undermining that at all

But we can so we can be so enamored with those things that we never get to the gospel And that should be our goal getting to the gospel

And so we need to be able to pivot those sorts of discussions, right? Talk about the evidence talk about worldviews talk about logic all these sorts of things

But we need to know when it's when it's appropriate to pivot To the gospel. That's why

I I really appreciate the presuppositional um apologetic methodology its desire to get to the exposing the image of god with the within the unbeliever because when that image of god comes through And it comes in the discussion in the conversation where he's like Hey, listen, man, the reason why you you're saying that is you are made in the image of god

You can't suppress this stuff for too long Because these things bubble up to the surface you are made in the image of god and at that moment we pivot

To the gospel. I think that's a very important Thing to keep in mind. All right. All right.

Well, we have just uh completed an hour uh and seven minutes and 16 seconds, um, and now i'm going to go through some questions and i'll try my best to answer some of them

Thank you so much guys for listening in and um, just you know, stick around as we're gonna go through here.

So, let's see here uh Okay, let's see here

I have to scroll through it one by one. That's my my primitive way of going through the questions

Uh, let's see here Okay, let's see here so slam rn says hugh ross said not against evidential

Apologetics not evidential ism. You seem to be parsing terms. Um, that would be true.

Uh, Slam rn How do you say is it just slam r? I just call you slam rn

Okay, you've come to a lot of the live streams. I appreciate your questions all the time in your comments. Thank you um

It would be the case that i'm merely parsing terms if that's all he he wrote but if you remember in the article he mentioned methods right using

Multiple methods. It's not simply Evidential in the sense of like using evidences.

He's talking about moving from evidential ism to presuppositional ism to Accommodate the sort of person you're engaging with right?

So if there's a person who you want to expose the inconsistencies in their worldview use presuppositional apologetics

But use evidential apologetics Okay, when you're trying to build up a case now Hugh ross is not an evident is not a presuppositionalist in the sense of You know that we would we would identify presuppositional apologists, right?

He is talking about jumping in and out of methodologies. I mean, let's take a look at what he says here Well while it's true

Where he says, uh here evidential Apologetics Um, it's clear that he's referring to method specific methods when he goes, uh goes on down here and he says

Um He says my answer Is that christians need to be equipped to use all five methods what methods?

well, the methods that are defended in the five views on apologetics See, so, um,

I think it's clear that that's what he is, uh getting at so I think you'd be correct I would be parsing terms if that is all he said if he just said evidential apologetics um evidential

Um is not necessarily evidentialism, but I think it's it's clear that it's evidentialism given the context of what he's saying

And what i've heard him say in the past, um as well. So thank you for that. I hope that clarifies

Let's see here All right

Let's see redefine living says because literal creation needs to be true for the for the precept argument to be complete

If he does not believe in literal creation because of an old earth position and he's not going to like the argument

Okay. All right. So there are a couple of things here and I think that i'm actually glad that uh, redefine living.

Um, Uh brought this up. Okay Now if if dr.

Ross was here He would tell you I believe in literal creation Okay But what literal what is being meant in this question by redefine living little creation is the 24 hour young earth position

Okay, so that's what that's what you're saying so If you guys have watched my past live streams on this topic i'm actually agnostic with respect to which view

I hold whether a young earth or old earth perspective and I I get a lot of flack sometimes I come to the dark side come no come to this side, you know

Come to the young you come to the young earth perspective. We have cookies, you know I people go back and forth and to be honest when

I read the the genesis It's not as simple as a lot of people, uh make it and so um,

I am an agnostic with respect to that now With respect to the relationship between um literal if we're going to talk about literal being the young earth position

Okay, and dr. Ross would argue his position is literal as well since you could have multiple literal. I am

Understandings of say for example the day yom, uh for day. Um Here's where I would actually slightly disagree with jason lyle

Okay, and I I say this carefully because I I appreciate lie. I think he's an excellent presuppositionalist

Um, but what I disagree is his necessary necessarily connecting um presuppositionalism

With a particular interpretation of genesis Okay, um, I it doesn't seem clear to me

That in order to be a consistent Presuppositionalist you must be a young earth creationist.

I don't I don't see the connection there as a matter of fact. I'm not the only Uh presuppositionalist who who thinks that I I think uh, dr scott oliphant, um took issue with that when he was on, uh on stage both with um, well he ross wasn't there but uh, jason lyle was there and he

He took issue. Um with this necessarily connecting young earth creationism with presuppositionalism

An essential feature of presuppositionalism Is a revelational epistemology

And uh the fact that god has revealed himself both in general and special revelation that the bible is the word of god that it

Is inerrant it is infallible, right? It informs our metaphysic our epistemology our ethic

Um, I think that if hugh ross wanted to be a vantillion Presuppositionalist and maintain an old earth creationist perspective.

I don't see how that would be inconsistent Because he's still holding The bible to be his ultimate authority now

You might argue but wait a minute. I know hugh ross He says the bible's his ultimate authority, but he interprets the bible in light of science, right for him

Science is the ultimate authority. Okay, regardless of whether that's it's true or not

Obviously if if science is lording over scripture, then then there's a problem But I think the big issue that dr.

Ross tries to put forth is the interpretation of scripture Okay Um now you might agree or disagree with his whole issue of the two books

You know the book of nature and the book of the bible the books of the by whatever. Um, but I um, I think that if you interpreted genesis

Because you think that that's what the bible's teaching within an old earth paradigm I'm, not even saying it's true

I'm, just saying if you believe that that's what the bible teaches for various exegetical reasons that you might hold and let's and let's be fair Okay old earth creationists

Um, they're not idiots. Okay. All right They do have biblical reasons as to why they hold their their perspective.

You might not agree with those biblical positions I might not agree with some of the arguments they use but they do argue from scripture if their interpretation is correct

I don't see how that affects their use of presuppositionalism Now if there is this inherent sneaking in of say something more authoritative than scripture say like science

Then yes, I would say that there's an inconsistency there in the application of a presuppositional paradigm. Okay, so, um,

I I Again, so I don't see that in order to be a presuppositionalist. You have to be a young earth creationist It just so happens that most presuppositionalists

I do know are young earth creationists Um, so so maybe there is something there, but I don't see the necessary connection.

Um, so that's just me. I hope that kind of Clarifies some things. All right

Uh, mr. C says one can do the same thing using lord of the flies as a worldview reference

Um, it depends what he means here so if he's saying if someone could say hey i'm going to use the lord of the rings as my foundation for Metaphysics and epistemology and things like that Have fun trying.

Okay I'm, not sure if mr. C is meaning to say what i'm what i'm saying, but a common misunderstanding of um, the presuppositional argumentation is that when we argue for the truth of the christian worldview

And that it provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience that that's merely an assertion So that's because it's simply an assertion you can substitute

Christian worldview is the necessary precondition of intelligible experience and knowledge You can substitute christian worldview with anything else, right?

You presuppose the bible as your ultimate authority I presuppose lord of the flies or I presuppose lord of the rings or I presuppose the quran or I presuppose the book of mormon

Okay, that's only valid if the presuppositional argument is simply an assertion.

It's not it's an argument You don't have to agree with the argument I'm, not granting that it's false. But even if it was false

Okay It to to make this assertion if i'm understanding mr C correctly is to completely misunderstand what the presuppositionalist is actually getting at.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. C for that Uh, let's see here

To do Yeah, slam rn says when gordon clark passed away

John robbins who studied under clark and greg bonson were at each other's throats through heated exchanges.

That is true As a matter of fact when I spoke with dr. Frame all those years ago uh, one of the things he spoke about briefly was just the um the unnecessary division

That a lot of these in -house Discussions have have brought about and to that Um, I mean i'm not a leading voice in the presuppositional, you know presuppositional circles, you know, um

But I am trying my best To not do that. I hope that that my heart comes across in that even even in critiquing, you know uh some of uh, dr

Ross's points here. Um, I don't mean any ill will towards him and I think god can use both of us even in our disagreements right

Um, you know, we are all you know We could strike a blow with a broken stick in a sense. We're all broken sticks and we're just doing our best um to be used by god and so um, hopefully

Um, these sorts of discussions don't bring about that unnecessary division Which unfortunately was kind of the dark and ugly side of these earlier, uh debates.

So that's quite unfortunate um and uh Yeah, so yeah, you're right there.

There was some vigorous argumentation after after the passing of gordon clark Okay, let's see here

Please excuse me while I sift through the comments. All right, we got some more since the

I'm gonna isaiah the layman says love how you're correcting negation of p from his failure of doing an internal critique

Uh during your debate. Yeah, I debated a gentleman by the name of negation of p and um this that's why

I said it's important to understand the issue of external versus internal critiques because Because of uh negation if you can go back and listen to the debates on my channel

Um because of negation of p's inability to adequately internally critique the christian worldview

I think all of his arguments fell flat and the same thing happened with eric murphy Who is another atheist that I had a discussion with that that discussion could also be found

On my channel as well. Um It took a while for him to even understand the concept of external internal critique

And then when he finally got it, he did what he was supposed to do And internally critique my perspective now

The problem is he didn't internally critique it adequately because he misrepresented it and so I tried to point that out Um, but yeah, you need to know this and the importance of internal critiques and and and not only do we as christians

Internally critique the unbelieving perspective The unbeliever is going to internal if if he gets the situation.

It's like, okay I'm going to provide an internal critique of the christian worldview The christian needs to respond to the internal critique of the christian worldview

Okay, and I always tell people the best way okay is important the best way to survive

Okay, the best way to survive the internal critique of the unbeliever upon the christian worldview

Is to know the christian worldview you need to know the christian faith you need to be grounded in in solid

Christian theology you need to be grounded in what the bible actually teaches because when the unbeliever Hypothetically grants the truth of the bible and then tries to point out inconsistencies at various points whether it's

Apparent contradictions in the text or whether it's apparent contradictions within the very concept of the christian god

You're going to need to know your own faith so that you could adequately survive Um and respond to the internal critique being put forth against you

So, um, it's not simply the case that we're internally critiquing the unbeliever The unbeliever is also going to uh internally critique us and you need to be able to adequately respond to that.

Okay All right. Let's see here Okay, isaiah says how do you prove the impossibility of the contrary that christianity is true?

Transcendentally. Well, let's let's explain what a transcendental argument is. Okay A transcendental argument is an argument that asks.

What are the preconditions? For knowledge, what are the preconditions for intelligible experience?

What must be true? In order for anything to be intelligible, okay And so basically we're asking which worldview provides those necessary preconditions for those those things, right?

And so, um when we argue for the truth of the christian worldview by the impossibility of the contrary We're basically saying that the christian worldview system provides

The necessary prerequisites these the necessary environment for something like truth to obtain intelligibility to obtain

And so one of the ways that we demonstrate its truth is to show that the christian worldview can in fact provide those preconditions now when we speak of A worldview providing the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.

What you can't have is multiple worldviews both Adequately and sufficiently provide those necessary preconditions because you can't have two or three ultimate

Foundations that provide the preconditions for intelligible experience. You can't you can't have two when you have two you actually run into A uh a form of skepticism in which you have multiple metaphysical situations, but different accounts different metaphysics

But different accounts of the of the nature of reality and even though they're at odds with each other

They're both accurately describing reality. You can't you can't have that that actually is is incoherent You're actually stuck in kind of a metaphysical and epistemological pluralism at that point so you can only have one um necessary precondition for intelligible experience and so part of the task of demonstrating the truth of the christian worldview is to show

That the christian worldview actually provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience and you can go through various Points to demonstrate that now.

Here's the thing If christianity Can provide those preconditions and you're able to explain it and lay it out

Okay, if it is a worldview that provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience

Then it follows that it must be the only worldview Why? Because you can only have one worldview that provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience

You can only have one and if christianity is one it has to be the only one Now of course stating that and arguing that and laying that out your job doesn't stop because of course

The unbeliever is not going to think that's correct. He's like well surely christianity can't be the only one

What about this hypothetical one? Okay still if christianity is one, right?

You've actually demonstrated here here the necessary precondition for intelligible experience christianity supplies that if it is one it must be the only one

Now if there's a hypothetical one that we don't know about That perhaps is the true one

Well, I have a problem If the unbeliever states this hypothetical The unbeliever is not standing on the truth of that hypothetical because he a denies the christian worldview b

He doesn't know the hypothetical worldview and c he's making his argument from his current worldview Which hopefully if the apologist has done his job has shown to be in itself insufficient even to ground the intelligibility of the very positing of a hypothetical

Okay So, um if christianity is one it must be the only one And to demonstrate that we need to also engage the unbeliever to show that even when they argue against our position

Because the unbeliever's position has no ground To make any ground whatsoever. He has to presuppose the truth of the perspective that we've already demonstrated actually provides those necessary preconditions

Okay Now there's going to be more to unpack because there can be various Points that someone could raise but you take those points one by one sort of like when you're defending

Uh, for example, you know if you take someone like like dr Craig right and his debates and william lane craig and his debates lays out, you know, the cosmological argument the teleological argument the moral argument you know, he appeals to religious experience and then you know, he uh, he

Brings this case just as you lay out your case and you say therefore god exists

Your job isn't done Because you now have to respond to various uh objections. Okay.

Um, and that's just that's just part of the game and that's why we make a distinction between Uh, well the difference between proving something and persuading something persuading someone so I can prove for example

That the christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary, but that's not the same as persuading someone of my argument

That's different. Okay, uh, the persuasion is a is a different deal. My job is to prove

I mean in theological terms is actually the holy spirit's job to persuade right?

Isn't that right? That the it's the spirit that actually works along with what i'm saying, uh to change, uh, the heart

Uh things like that. So, um, that's how I would go. That's how I would answer that question Um, at least in a thumbnail sketch.

Thank you for that All right, let's see here Yeah, redefine redefine living says for example moral arguments against god.

Where did you get that moral standard? Yeah, that that's the the moral argument is a sort of transcendental argument, right?

now it's not the transcendental argument like that van till was giving like um You see van till's transcendental argument is different than transcendental arguments in general so you so you could have um

Localized transcendental arguments like the moral argument, right? What must be true in order for objective morality to exist?

You know, you're asking what the preconditions are for objective moral values and duties So it's in a sense a transcendental argument

But it's not the transcendental argument in the sense that what van till was getting was arguing for the whole package deal of christianity

But that doesn't make useless the moral argument the moral argument has its place to kind of touch on that moral issue which

I think is a good way of Exposing the image of god in the unbeliever, right when you bring those those points out.

Okay, so I think that's a um, There there we go. Those are my thoughts there. Let's see here Uh, let's see here

Yeah, okay redefine love redefine living you said I said something about presenting presuppositional arguments

You know in a respectful way. Sometimes it's hard not to get triggered. Yes, that's true. That's true But but what governs what governs you're not getting triggered well, it is your desire to defend the faith in a way that is

Honoring to god and consistent with scripture and what is honoring to god and consistent with scripture is defending the faith

With gentleness and respect, right? We're not to be unnecessarily quarrelsome.

We're not to be uh, you know argumentative for the sake of argument of being argumentative We need to be slow to anger

Right. Um, we need to be able to listen to the what the person's saying. These are all important communication skills

Which the bible talks about so you're correct. It is hard not to get triggered But maturity christian maturity requires that we don't get triggered

Right, so, uh that takes work. Yeah Let's see here, let's see

We're gonna go All right, mr C here says are you saying that an unbeliever can't have value outside of a book?

I know atheists that have much more personal value than experienced believers uh, well, um

Are you saying that an unbeliever can't have value outside of a book? Um, well, I would say that I wouldn't just say it's a book

Um, I would say the book that you're referring to is the inspired word of god And so I would say that an unbeliever can't have

Objective Right big picture capital o objective value

Okay, if there is no god, I agree uh, all is Sound and fury signifying nothing.

You could have Value in a subjective sense like you can create value for yourself, but that's not Objectively, that's not you know, that's not and you don't have intrinsic value in the ultimate sense, right?

Yeah I would agree. That's right. That's why and i'm not the only one who says this I mean, there are some atheistic philosophers, uh throughout history who have affirmed that without god

Everything's permissible right without god. There's no enduring ultimate objective value. Yeah, that's right Um without god now when you say just outside of a book, um, well my argument never is that you can't have value

Uh outside of a book i'm saying you can't have objective value outside of god All right, but good thing god exists and you have value mr.

C Uh, so i'll throw that in there you say I know atheists that have much more personal value than experienced believers, um

Personal value is personal value being equated with objective value And how do you gauge for example, mr.

C what gauge or what meter do you use? To measure who has more

Personal value than other people. How do you differentiate who has more value? Who has a more valuable experience the unbeliever or the christian what?

If I can say it by what standard, um again, I think that's something to consider Uh, okay

Uh, let's see here Redefine living ask, uh, would you consider the presuppositionalism argument an argument of its own

I'm, not really sure What you're saying? Uh, if you're saying like the transcendental argument

Which is often equated with kind of the presuppositional argument. I think it's a A distinct argument from say like some of the traditional arguments, so i'm not really sure what you're asking there.

I'm, sorry Mr. C says can't one do the same thing using allah as a reference?

Yeah, yeah, someone could someone could try so so if I were to say um, the truth of the christian worldview

Is proven by the impossibility of the contrary, you know Reject the christian world you have to presuppose the christian world even to make sense of your rejection, right?

That's we make the claim you kind of just like just uh, really quick someone say but wait a minute What if I what if you know, can't can't the muslim use the same thing?

Yeah. Yeah, they can They can they can say that the truth of islam is that it's true by the impossibility of the contrary

But you see what is that question assuming and I pointed this out before It's assuming that the presuppositional argument is simply an assertion without foundation

When the christian says that the christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary

We actually believe we could make good on that claim And so we're willing to go into the details

Now if a muslim wants to use the same argument he can right anybody could try to argue transcendentally for their position

But does their worldview have what it takes to pay the bills to make good on providing the necessary preconditions for knowledge?

Providing the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience. That is where I think when the muslim tries to uh

Use that argument is going to fail because he doesn't have the money so to speak to pay the bills on the claim

The christian does all right. All right. Thank you for that. Mr. C Uh, let's see here

All right. I got a lot of comments here and that's good. I do apologize if I uh If I skip over anything here

Mr. C Uh says if an apologist can help me then why not isn't that why we're all here?

Uh, sure. Yeah, Mr C, um, I appreciate your questions. I hope that I answered some of them adequately if if you're in, uh,

Kind of going back and forth with some folks Um, i'm hoping that people would uh go into some details with you and ask your questions

So, um, I encourage folks to do that if they're able to do that Let's see here. Let's see

Let's see, I think I think I'm finished.

I think that's it. Let's see. I think I was Trying to read some question Okay, so would you consider presupposition argument the same way you would consider kalam?

Oh, okay. Thank you for Okay, so a couple of new things here

Hey, I don't ignore people's comments Give me a break. Let me see here

Because I spend my time stealing managers in position wow a whole bunch of new comments came so if I if I do um, if I do skip your your uh

Your question it's I I promise it's not on purpose. So I do apologize I have to go back up because it's just like reloaded a bunch of other stuff here.

Let me see here Okay. Wow a lot of do

I support? infant baptism No, I don't support infant baptism.

Um I understand the argument Um, but it presupposes a specific Continuity of the covenants that I don't see explicitly in scripture.

Um, so, uh when you're dealing with infant baptism that's directly especially within the context of say like protestantism, so there's a differentiation between um infant baptism within protestantism and reformed theology and Infant baptism within say like eastern orthodoxy or roman catholicism.

All right, so that's a important distinction there. Um Within the reformed perspective infant baptism presupposes a specific continuity of the covenant

So that children were included in the old covenant And so there's no mention of them being excluded in the new covenant.

So therefore we should assume a continuity um I understand the argument.

I understand the thrust of the argument and I know that there are Um really sharp guys that defend the position

Um, but one thing that gets me and I know it's a kind of common objection that like baptists bring up but I It keeps popping in my head when

I think about this if infant baptism was a thing i'm, just um I'm, just amazed that it's it's found literally nowhere in the new testament, um at all um,

I do know the counter points to that but I I mean paul addresses a bunch of different things.

He addresses baptism. Um, and I It would seem to me that if infant baptism was a thing something would be said of it in the new testament

Sure, that's an argument from silence. But I think the silence is is deafening. So I think the the lack of of Mention of it in the new testament.

I think is a sort of argument against it and um, i'm not sold uh, so to speak on the uh

The assumption of the specific understanding of the covenants, um as you know kind of presbyterians hold um

You know as I just mentioned before, all right, so sorry about that. I hope that answer the question

All right. Let's see here Thank you slam rn

I will call you susan. All right, that's much easier I want to call you slamming but it says slam rn.

I don't know how to pronounce it. So I'll call you susan. Thank you so much susan Okay, let's see here.

Someone said Someone said that I keep skipping their questions Okay, mr c um

Can you give your most powerful evidential statement that will prop? Put someone to listen to you further.

I don't know exactly what you're talking about But but here here's the thing even the question itself

I think is a little subjective Because there are certain people that will listen to me further and I don't talk so much about certain things as I would about others, so um,

I find that if I were to talk about the Resurrection with some people they would want to listen more because their interest is the history, right?

You know historically how do how do we how can we be reasonable to believe that jesus was raised from the dead? I mean that happened 2 000 years ago

What evidence is there for um, and then I would talk to someone about that and they perhaps would want to listen longer

This is that by the way, this is precisely what happened to me recently. I spoke with someone and and uh, you know um, they sat there and listened with interest so It's different and i've had people where i've argued transcendentally and they say hey, you know, that's interesting

I want to talk about that. Um, but the experience is different. Okay I could be saying stuff here on youtube

And you're kind of like I don't want to listen anymore. This is ridiculous There's something different about listening to someone on youtube versus listening to someone face to face

And I find that my interactions Uh face to face almost everyone I speak to wants to uh, listen further

Because there's this more intimate interaction the person can see and feel that I actually care about them

And even in their disagreements, uh, they're willing to kind of like sit down and be like hey man But what about this but what about that and so um, it's not an issue of the most powerful, um evidential statement that's subjective

Okay, I can go I can um bring up an issue in science and for some people that that's not powerful

But for the person who's more scientifically oriented that might be powerful Right the average person that I talk to I can just talk about my experience as a christian

Right and that's powerful enough to keep them to keep them listening further So, uh, the question there is there's no one powerful evidential statement that one could say

That will lead someone to stay and listen further. I mean people are different I mean, you know,

I I there are certain things that i've given very powerful evidence I'm, like man, surely this person's gonna be and they're not interested. So it's a kind of a subjective thing.

I think All right uh You can give me a thumbs up if you are okay, i'm going to try to go through the rest of them

Um, as long as my my my throat allows let's see here

Determinism Someone asked about I wanted to get to that. What do you think about accommodationism?

Uh, susan asks, what do you think about accommodationism like john walton and michael hyzer i'm not familiar with that So I I can't really speak to that um

Sorry about that Let's see here So, uh augur

I'm, so sorry augur Augur, I don't know. I don't know how to say it.

I'm, sorry He says determinism isn't necessary for intelligibility. Oh, yes it is

Uh, here's here's the thing. Here's what I said before that that there was a necessary connection um between presuppositionalism and reform theology is that presuppositionalism, uh presupposes an absolute god

Who creates all facts and gives facts the meaning that it has and gives history the direction that it has so that it is right there in line with god's decrees god's creative decrees and his

Purposes and all the things that he accomplishes that there's nothing outside this all -encompassing

Absolute god nothing outside his will so I would I would actually um disagree with augur

I think a determinism of a of the calvinistic flavor

I think is an essential feature to the presuppositional paradigm and that's why um, you don't have many um, arminian presuppositionalists running around Okay, because it runs contrary to their to their theology um now determinism again is a is a loaded term and that needs to be uh, you know

Tethered out a little more folks might want to listen to the discussion I had with the french philosopher guillaume beignet where we talked about determinism in depth

Uh, but no before anyone types it he was determined to say that that doesn't that doesn't solve the issue

So, uh, but yes, I think it's a very important feature of the the whole package there All right.

Let's see here Do You can't transcendentally is that what he said transcendentally prove determinism sure you can

That's of course you can right if you can transcendentally Okay using van till right using his transcendental argument

If you can prove the truth of the christian worldview, which for van till was just calvinism Okay, uh calvinistic understanding of the of the nature of god his decrees

Man man's place in in the world man's relationship to god the creator creature distinction

Remember when we say we argue for the christian worldview. We're arguing for a package deal And so if determinism is taught in scripture

And i'm arguing for the package deal transcendentally And if I successfully argue for the package deal transcendentally then determinism, uh falls into that if determinism is the correct view

Um, you would actually prove the truth of the system Of which determinism is part of that system.

So so yes, um So I would argue yes, you can prove it transcendentally in that sense because we're not just arguing for piecemeal points

We're arguing for an entire system, right? So, all right Thank you for that.

Uh So, sorry Uh Sire hey vincent debate flowers.

No, thank you. All right I actually was on uh late in flower show a while back.

We had a really good discussion You guys should check that out over his channel. It was a really good discussion people. Uh, were really um receptive of it and uh, um,

I enjoyed it. Um, although I listened to enough flowers that I Uh, i'd like to moderate a debate with him

I think debating him would be a little frustrating on my end and I say that with respect I mean he and I have a good uh, not that we're friends but um, we've

Interacted a little bit here and there and it's it's very respectful, but not sure i'd want to get into a debate with him Uh, but thank you for that Okay Trying to skip through stuff that I already

Answered i'm a covid skeptic. Oh my goodness. Hey, hey vincent the sire.

I actually uh, There we go. The sire. Here we go. I actually uh wanted to talk to you about something so don't go away

Uh, well, actually I won't talk to you about it now because it's late. So when I'm end the live stream I'll probably go to sleep, but i'm going to reach out to you.

Maybe on discord or something like that All right, and I wanted to ask you a question uh Let's see here

Okay, there are a lot of good comments and discussions going on. I don't see any questions Um Okay, please be patient with me uh

Come on Orgrr. Eli ignores all my comments. You don't understand how difficult it is to scroll through these things sometimes

Whole new comments kind of just load and kind of push all the things up. So I do apologize Come on,

I think I took some of your questions All right. Let's see here Uh, let's see.

Let's see It's all right Uh, and then we directly goes down.

Yeah Yeah Okay, I think that's it I think that's it right susan the the only christian here

Susan says I have to get ready for church tomorrow. Good night all Maybe maybe I should do that.

I have church tomorrow too. So thank you so much. Susan I always appreciate you coming in. I think that's it for now.

Um, I went out an hour and 44 minutes I definitely went into this thinking that I was going to be like 15 to 20 minutes, but uh,

I hope I hope That folks understand The points I made with respect to what dr

Ross, uh pointed out there in his answer to the question that there is a difference the kind of the gist of what I Want to get and i'll wrap things up here um, uh

And well, there's one more question there We'll take that but I want you to understand the difference between the use of evidences and the use of evidentialism as methodologies

Okay, so you don't you don't dip in and out of different methodologies and do so consistently Okay, but I do agree with the heart of what dr

Ross is saying That we should be able to be flexible in the way. We defend the faith because people ask different questions.

All right So if someone has a historical question Give them historical answers if they're asking philosophical question engage them all doing so In a way that is consistent with your biblical commitments.

All right. All right. Well one more question here. Uh, let's see here All right.

So victory street ministry, uh asked the question. What's your favorite question to ask? an atheist

Oh, that's that's a good question. Uh, oh man Oh, uh

Okay, um my favorite question to ask an atheist It might sound like philosophical and abstract but and I and I answer and I ask it genuinely because i'm curious um

I'm curious as to how atheists, um answer this question So so like an atheist will acknowledge his or her own finitude, right?

Okay, and he exists in the world, okay Um, so I ask like context questions

What is the metaphysical context? That gives meaning and intelligibility

To uh Derivative facts so facts that are derived from something more ultimate

Okay What is that ultimate context out of which derivative facts derive and have

Meaning and context the reason why I asked that question is because i'm curious how the atheist

Okay If he's philosophically knowledgeable and has his world you kind of worked out and he has something to say to these issues

How does he get beyond himself? To a broader Context of reality that gives meaning to the facts that he asserts

So he asserts a fact Facts only have meaning within a context Within the context of reality and then in its relation to other facts

But because the atheist is finite and has um has no

Access point to that which is beyond himself He's going to have to build an epistemology his epistemology presupposes

Metaphysics, how does he ground the intelligible meaningfulness of derivative facts?

I like that question because it forces the atheist to really think about His own limitations, you know, how do

I get behind beyond myself? To reality such that I could understand these other facts that i'm talking about, right?

Um, and it's not a trick question. It's not like a gotcha question. I honestly want to know how how they get there

Okay, because many atheists that i've spoken to uh, they'll say I don't know what the ultimate context is, right?

That's where you have for example, the the the problem of hard solipsism, you know, how do I know?

I'm, not the only mind that's in existence, right? You guys are just a figment of my imagination Oh, that's just silly.

So we'll just assume that's not true. But wait a minute If atheism is true And given the situation you have no access outside how do you how do you ground the intelligibility meaningfulness of the facts you assert without knowledge of the metaphysical context and the relation

That each derivative fact stands to one another see for the christian Our metaphysical context that which is metaphysically ultimate

Okay Is a personal god Who reveals now if you're an atheist, you don't believe that's fine, but from within christianity

Okay. Um The ultimate grounds of foundation is a personal being who reveals so while it's true that on christianity i'm limited

Because I don't have in and of myself access to the metaphysical situation

The god who knows all has created all and has given meaning to all Has revealed the nature of reality to us such that the aspects of reality.

He reveals to us. We can know them Okay, so without an ultimate personal

Metaphor without a personal revealing metaphysical ultimate. How does the god denier?

Get access to the metaphysical situation such that he can make sense out of the facts

He asserts that's kind of my favorite sorts of questions to ask again um Maybe an atheist has an answer to that and i'd like to examine it but that that's the sort of question

I'd like to ask because it gets really to um Kind of the foundational issue of knowledge.

I think it it sufficiently shows that um that given atheism

The the individual atheist is cut off From the metaphysical context that would give him the meaning of the facts that he asserts.

Okay um You know, whatever assertion or position whatever the however the person, uh holds their atheism

I would say given Atheism given the assumption of atheism. I would say I would ask those questions

Okay, and again, it wouldn't be a trick question wouldn't be a gotcha question. I'm curious How does the atheist?

Get beyond himself so that he can ground The facts that he asserts about anything and yes atheist assert facts

We all make knowledge claims and those knowledge claims the intelligibility of them And the fact that we know them presupposes certain metaphysical and epistemological assumptions

That need to be accounted for and you can't just assert them just like the christian We can't assert our metaphysic.

We should explain our metaphysic and say hey given the christian package Here's how we know, you know, um, here's how we know a b and c blah blah blah.

We argue from there Okay, so that's my favorite question to ask. I'm, sorry if it sounds kind of philosophically abstract, but uh,

I hope I hope it makes sense I mean because metaphysical metaphysical situation, you know from christianity we have access to it because a personal god reveals that that's why um from the for the presuppositionalist

Revelational epistemology is so important Because it is through revelation That the creator of all things connects us to the broader context

And gives meaning to the specific things that we experience. Okay. All right That those are great questions man, uh,

I hope that answers, uh, it kind of makes sense but um That's all I have for this live stream.

Stay tuned okay, i'll be doing a live stream where um I don't know the exact date when i'm gonna do it because i'm gonna be starting up work soon getting a little busy

But I want to do a live stream where I kind of lay out all of my um, all of my theological positions

Um, and why I hold now, I think that'd be a fun topic and then you guys could ask questions and hopefully in the questions

Uh that you ask me about my own theology it will um It will encourage me to get into some other topics that perhaps you know, what?

I never thought about that. Maybe I should study up on that. So Um, so stay tuned for that again, dr. Matthew barrett coming in september, uh second and Uh, dr.

Michael heiser sometime in october. I'll keep you guys updated. All right. Thank you so much. Um, uh, thank you whoa it's like Okay, so all augur

He says i'm a priest up who affirms libertarian free will okay. All right. All right

Again, whether you can do that consistently Is going to be the case and appealing to plantinga

Plantinga is is not a presuppositionalist along vantillian lines He would probably be within the umbrella of presuppositionalism but I think he would he would fall right into some of the problems that um other folks who affirm libertarian freedom would fall into so Um, but again that throws a wrench into it and it's time for another another live stream

All right. Well, that's all for today guys. Thank you so much for listening to me blab about a whole bunch of stuff

I hope you're learning. I hope it's informative And stay tuned for that systematic theology online course that i'll be creating where folks can sign up for it.

Um, Online and if you want to take my apologetics course, uh where I go into some of this metaphysical context stuff much deeper

You could actually sign up for that right now in which you'll get all the course content the outlines the powerpoints you can work

Uh at your at your own pace so you guys can check that out. Uh, Argerger, I love you.

Eli. Thank you so much, man. I love you, too I appreciate the the good spirit of these questions So, uh, keep asking questions keep thinking studying read your bible

And if you're an unbeliever keep asking questions christians go easy on them, but engage them

Uh challenge them and do so with gentleness and respect. That's all for this live stream. Take care. God bless.