Is Hugh Ross Correct About Presuppositional Apologetics?

Opening Remarks and Upcoming Guests

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 ground and and and remind ourselves the importance of these these great Protestant Doctrines, 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.

Presuppositional Apologetics and the Eastern Orthodox Question

Okay. I'm very much interested in moderating a debate between James White and Jay Dyer. Okay, Jay 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 presuppositional ism 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 Presuppositional ism there is if you're gonna go along say, you know Van Til Ian 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 creationist 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'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.

Hugh Ross on Van Til and Bonson

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 Older 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 and so this is by no means trying to You know talk down to them or anything like that.

Clarifying Presuppositional Method and Evidential Method

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 tell 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 Tille and Greg Bonson? Okay, and here is dr. Ross's answer.

Okay, Cornelius van Tille 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 Tille 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 Tille 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 in an errant 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 Presuppositionalists 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 Presuppositionalist 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 Presuppositionalist who wants to be consistent to the principles of presuppositional ism as a methodology Uses evidences.

He does so as a Presuppositionalist. 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 presuppositionalist who is a presuppositionalist. Truly. There's the pure, you know presuppositional apologist, 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's 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 Presuppositionalism along Vantillian lines. Nor Bonsonian lines if that's a actual word. Okay. There is another Presuppositionalist that is not mentioned in this article of which The thrust that's being described here actually reflects this other Presuppositionalist 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 Presuppositionalism 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 presuppositionalist 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 this 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 Bantill is that while while Bantill 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 Bantill 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 Bantill 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 Bantill 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 Bantill 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 Bantill 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 Bantill and Bonson because that 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 Bantill 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 Bantill 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 chillin. I mean, 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 Vantill taught and I'll kind of share the screen here again in a moment Vantill 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 Vantill 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 efficient 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 you 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.

You know while exploits as well 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 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.