Breaking Down Bahnsen

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and Just to give folks a heads up I have been receiving

Messages not a big deal, but a lot of people saying hey, dude, why do you go live so late?

So for those who follow the show you guys know that I typically go live around like 9 p .m.

Eastern Which is really the only time I can go live because that's when when the kids are down and I have some free time so If I don't plan to go live in the evening

And you notice that I have You know, I'll be doing a show and it was completely unplanned.

You know, there are people's I dude I didn't even know you you were going live today. I don't I didn't even know you were doing a show In reality,

I don't even know when I'm doing a show sometimes so there are a couple of episodes that I have when

I have Special guests and things like that where I kind of plan a specific date But for the most part

I I go I wake up I go to work. I'm thinking about stuff I'm listening to a podcast or maybe something on YouTube and then on my way home

I lick my finger like this and I I feel which way the wind is is blowing and I say, okay

I think I'm gonna go live today. So And sometimes opportunities at home provide me an opportunity to actually go into You know

It provides me an opportunity to kind of do these videos. So for right now it is 601 p .m.

Eastern And I have been blessed with an empty house So my wife and kids are out of the house

My in -laws are out and about and so I had the opportunity right now to to go live

And so that's why I'm live today. It's completely unexpected and I posted and shared the the the link probably like an hour and a half ago, so hopefully folks

Will still watch the content. I know that I tend to get more viewers when I plan ahead, but hopefully

Folks are interested in presuppositional apologetics Because that's what we're gonna be talking about today.

So I've been covering a wide range of theological topics I've been doing a lot of things in with East Eastern Orthodoxy If folks are interested,

I was just recently on vocab Malone's YouTube channel the street apologist you type that in on YouTube and I joined him with his guest

Dr. Bob who engaged in a debate with an Eastern Orthodox? gentlemen over the issue of Was it baptism or the priesthood there we go the priesthood though We kind of commented and gave some of our thoughts with respect to that specific debate

So if you're interested, you can check out vocab Malone's channel now, there are a lot of apologetic

YouTube channels out there and some of them are They can be categorized within the range of kind of like easy and applicable and then you have kind of the highfalutin

You know YouTube channels that cover very heavy theological and philosophical topics and I suppose we cover some of those things as well

But today I am choosing to simplify. Okay, I want to talk about really my my appalled my

Apologetics hero. I have I have many he's definitely not the only person that I've been heavily influenced by but he's definitely someone that has exercised a great impact upon my own thinking

And so I really want to spend some time talking about Greg Bonson and his unique contributions to presuppositional ism

But then I want to move into kind of an outline that dr. Bonson provided in in many of his books

But one one of his books particularly and I want to kind of unpack that and perhaps simplify What Bonson has simplified does that make sense?

So so you have Bantill who is very difficult to read and then you have Bonson who dumbs down Vantill and I don't mean that in a pejorative sense

But he dumbs down Vantill and then I'm trying right now to dumb down Bonson. Okay, and hopefully

When I try to dumb down Bonson or simplify Bonson, you will be able to make a distinction between being

Simplistic and simplifying. I don't mean to be simplistic. I want to simplify and perhaps encourage folks to move beyond Apologetic theory.

Okay, a lot of people who are attracted to channels like this or channels that talk about apologetic methodology sometimes people just get all caught up with Wanting to learn about kind of this

The methodology issues the debates and things like that. I want to move beyond that I don't want to focus so much on the differences between presuppositional ism and other apologetic methodologies.

Listen Bonson said this multiple peoples have said this I have said this to people

I strongly believe that God can strike a blow with a crooked stick if you are not a presuppositional ist

Fine, I I wish you were I think it is the position that is reflected in Scripture But if you're not

I completely understand that God can use you and has used folks even in my own life

Has have used have used people from other traditions to help me and guide me and teach me

And so there is much to learn from those that you disagree with So I'm I'm arguing and all this to say

I'm arguing that if you are not a presuppositional ist Presuppositional methodology has a lot to offer in terms of gleaning from the general principles of the method and hopefully when you're in the apologetic context you can glean from those ideas and Make some segue by attacking the presuppositions of the unbeliever

And using that as part of your defense of the faith along with some of the other approaches that you may

Utilize now again, whether you're able to do that consistently is another issue But I don't want to get into those to those differences there.

All right. Well, I'm just real quick I've been out of the game for a little bit because I was recovering from the

Rona. All right, I had I had kovat Like two or three weeks ago And so I was out of commission for a while and I wasn't able to study or read anything

I thought I would have time I thought I'd have kind of the light symptoms, but it kind of hit me really hard so I haven't really been reading and studying a lot up until recently and so I Want to give people a heads up on the sort of things that I've been that I've been reading.

So Let's see here. So here's some light reading that I highly recommend.

I'm a presupposition list, right? This this is heresy what I'm about to put up, but I've actually been reading

RC Sproul a life which is by Stephen Nichols. And of course it is about the life ministry of RC Sproul who is a precious

Christian brother who is now with the Lord And he was an excellent excellent theologian and apologist and I could say that even with my strong Disagreements with respect to the methodology and of course with respect to some of the criticisms that he has lodged against the presuppositional method most specifically in his book

Classical apologetics, which I actually own. So I've been reading that I've been reading this classic.

This is a classic reformed Book on predestination by Lorraine Botner I don't know

I've been studying some of the philosophical issues But I wanted to kind of get into one of the the sorts of books that you read when you become kind of like a

Cage a cage stage Calvinist. It's usually something like this or maybe like, you know, a

W pink Sovereignty of God. I don't know. I like the way he writes. I like the way he communicates the reformed faith and so I've been dipping into some of these especially the chapters with respect to Irresistible grace, okay, and just looking for different ways to clearly present the reformed perspective

I've also been Diving into this book here the mystery of the Trinity a

Trinitarian approach to the attributes of God by Verne Poitras Who I actually had on my show to talk about the

Trinity. And so this is a really good book as well which I highly recommend and Of course now that I've kind of wet my whistle in those areas

I kind of want to return back to my focus on on presuppositional ism Because I know that the majority of people who watch this this channel

They're very much interested in learning the methodology. So since we are focusing on Greg Bonson today

I have to flex a little bit. Okay, you know, I got to throw down let you know, what's what's going down all right, so I've promoted these books in previous videos

But here are some new Greg Bonson books that have been put out by American vision the first one in the series of three

Was or is rather in this kind of awkward the camera is against. Oh, there we go against all opposition

Defending the Christian worldview by Greg Bonson. I mean it's based upon some of the lectures that that dr.

Bonson Presented I don't remember exactly I think there might be a mixture of various lectures that he that he presented and of course this new one that just came out

The impossibility of the contrary without God you can't prove anything and again Also based upon a series of lectures that That he gave to me some high school students or seminary students.

I'm not sure And then there's another book in the series, but I have the old school version.

Okay, and that is pushing the antithesis. Okay Yes, I see some comments there.

I call dr. Bonson the Tupac Shakur of apologetics If you know anything about Tupac, you know

West Coast a hip -hop rapper When he when he died He was coming out with albums even after he died.

So how's he got? How's he doing that? Well Bonson coming out with books even after his death But I have an old version of pushing the antithesis the apologetic methodology of Greg.

I get asked all the time What book should I go to to teach my teenager presuppositional apologetics?

Actually, it is very easy to be intimidated by a title such as pushing the antithesis however, this actually was

Based upon a series of lectures that dr. Bonson gave to high school students before they went to college

So while it sounds complicated, this is an excellent book complete with homework assignments

Possible projects you can do based upon the principles that he lays out in each chapter and there are some study questions, right?

You know read a chapter with a group of young people and talk about some of the study questions and you can kind of dig

Into some of the foundational issues of of the presuppositional method. So I highly recommend pushing the antithesis

All right. Um, of course, we cannot exclude this classic as well.

This is kind of a new cover I used to have the old -school one, but this again, I think this I ordered from I think

I ordered from American vision. And of course, this is Always ready. Okay directions for defending the

Christian faith And this is actually the book that I'm going to be focusing on in this video as I break down the methodology

So I'll be sharing the screen. I have a digital version of this highly recommend Folks read always ready.

This is typically the traditional go -to when someone says, you know, like I want to learn presuppositional ism Where do

I go? Most people point point folks to always ready which I think for valid reasons now

I do have a gem that I I think you cannot find anymore. It's not available on Amazon or if it is it it costs like a couple hundred dollars and your right arm or something like that.

I don't know why but this is by Jammin, I think it's jammin Hubner, okay, and this is the portable

Presuppositionalist if by some act of divine providence you are able to come across this

I would highly recommend the portable Presuppositionalist not only does it give you give you some of the historical background as to the development of presuppositional thought and van

Til's Influences that that led him in the direction of taking this approach, but it also has categories like Logic the

Word of God evidence and it actually has a list of quotes from presuppositionalist that really

Define those important elements of our theology and connects it with the apologetic methodology and towards the back there are transcripts of debates between atheists and Presuppositionalist and I think

Doug Wilson and Christopher Hitchens. There's a transcript of their cross -examination here There is a transcript in here of James White's debate with Dan Barker And so of course it highlights the cross -examination where there is a clear presentation of a presuppositional approach

There's some stuff with sites and Bruggen Kate and others and of course you have the famous Greg Bonson Gordon Stein Interaction and my favorite part

There's actually a good portion of the transcript of the debate between Greg Bonson and RC Sproul over apologetic methodology

So excellent resource if you could find it, you probably can't so this is a tease, but if you can all the more power to you

Also, okay This is a really good book If I mean this this episode is gonna be primarily focused on Greg Bonson the standard bearer of fesher if for Greg Bonson is an excellent

Excellent book the chapters cover topics that were near and dear to dr Bonson's heart and of course there is a laying out of those specific

Views, there's Bonson's eschatology in here. And of course probably his most popular article, it's not

Bonson's article, but written by Bonson's Student who was really kind of supposed to be the guy who the torch was going to be passed

But dr. Michael Butler writes an article on the transcendental argument and it is it's actually really good

I know some people you know in the presuppositional realm. They'll say well, you know, the Butler article is

Made some good points. It's excellent There might be some nitpicky points here and there but it is an excellent summary of a transcendental argument the impact and influence of Bonson and Answering some of the key objections to the transcendental argument.

I'd highly recommend this. I think this is still available on Amazon somewhere Also the question that always comes up with respect to presuppositional apologetics is well

If I'm a presuppositional list, does that mean I can't use evidence? No, that doesn't mean you can't use evidence

You can use evidence and there is a way to use evidence within a presuppositional framework So you might want to check out

Tom Notaro's book Vantil and the use of evidence. This thing is a tiny little guy. Okay and It covers a whole host of topics.

Matter of fact, let me see if I can go into the table of contents and Yeah, let me see.

There you go. Let me see if I can put that against the screen It might be blurry because I'm in the way. I don't know if this is even working.

Ah, I'm so sorry At any rate, it's a really good book. If you could find it totally pick it up And of course, you can't study presuppositional ism without studying the man

Vantil, okay Vantil is considered the father of presuppositional ism And so of course you want to engage

Vantil, but I would I would recommend that you enter the realm of Vantil through Bonson Bonson is kind of a way to grasp the general principles of what

Vantil saying and then Vantil of course is a much Difficult read although there his books are filled with Really helpful nuggets that summarize key components of the presuppositional method.

All right. Okay Well, that's that's it for me bragging about the books. I don't want to give any impression

I have a lot of books and when I say I'm reading books It's not like I'm sitting there reading every single chapter and taking these copious notes

I I read a chapter here a section here just to kind of have Elements of the methodology reinforced in my mind

I like to always encourage folks to when they study or they want to try to remember some

Theological point or whatever when you are studying material It's important to study in such a way that allows the content to be sort of like the background music playing in your mind

So when I read a book, for example I will also listen to material and it will be part of my drive to work or I take a walk around the block and I I try to have

Information that reinforces the specific things that I'm reading. So that's a helpful way that that I study and engage these topics

All right. Well, let's jump right in specifically to Greg Bonson.

Greg Bonson was a Christian philosopher from the Calvinist tradition

Denominationally that Greg Bonson was part of the OPC the Orthodox Presbyterian Church He held very traditionally to the

Westminster Confession of Faith But was infamous in many regards for his position concerning The role and importance of the

Old Testament law within our modern context So one element of Bonson that I have not

Taken the time to study as much as I would have liked is his positions concerning theonomy

So that is an interesting topic in and of itself and I'm actually not going to explore those elements

Here in this episode But be that as it may Greg Bonson was a reformed

Calvinist philosopher Apologist debater traveling teacher and speaker and it is important to mention if I'm going to be breaking down Bonson you cannot break down Bonson and Separate Bonson from his reformed tradition.

Okay, his reformed theology is Very much what informed his apologetic.

It was very much a part of what convinced. Dr. Bonson Of the truth and power of Van Til's apologetic.

Okay Thank you, by the way Stingray says here.

Let me put you up there Probably made a fool of myself K7 Stingray says

Jamin Hubner is pronounced Jamin Eubner Eubner is that because he got the umlaut going on there, right?

Yep, my bad I think I called him Hubner or something like that. Thank you for that. I appreciate that What look look what you did you threw you threw me off, okay, that's right

I know I know what I was talking about. So so yeah, so Someone is is saying in the comments. We have wolves do apologetics.

Hello, mr. Dumpy. How are you doing? He's a friend of mine He says does presuppositional apologetics rely on reformed theology

Actually, it does some people would disagree you even have people from different Traditions utilizing presuppositional ism, but I would argue that they do not do so in a way that is consistent

Okay, for example, you have certain Eastern Orthodox folks use presuppositional apologetics

You even have although the names escape me at the moment. You even have some Roman Catholics trying to argue

Presuppositionally, so I don't think that that's an appropriate way to do it. I don't think you can do it successfully and consistently

I very much am of the conviction that presuppositional apologetics is the apologetic methodology that flows from a consistent application of reformed theology to the realm of apologetics, okay

Bonson believed that van Tille when constructing the presuppositional method was purposely trying to develop a methodology

That was more consistent with the reformed tradition than what he perceived say The classical approach would have done we can easily acknowledge that there is a strong classical apologetic tradition within reformed theology

Van Tille acknowledges that but points out a in in adopting a classical methodology within a reformed context

There are some inconsistencies here and here's I'm gonna address them in my writings And so he tries to correct those things and highlights really the value of thinking along more presuppositional lines

Okay, so he's a Calvinist. He's a philosopher. They are not distinct from each other

They are very much unique and a part of dr. Bonson's apologetic and complete outlook on life

Dr. Bonson was not simply a philosopher in the generic sense. He comes from What is called the analytic tradition of philosophy?

And so he was an expert in areas of epistemology and linguistic analysis, which we won't get into detail but you have kind of two different philosophical schools of thought which

I think is very interesting because the school of thought that Bonson came from which was the more analytic tradition is actually very different than the school of philosophical thought that his teacher

Van Tille came from so Van Tille tended to be more of a in line with kind of a continental approach to philosophy whereas Bonson came from a more analytic approach now when you take a look at the more

The sort of philosophy that Van Tille held That sort of philosophy tends to be more of the big -picture approach to philosophical questions all right, and that's why you have

Van Tille speak of like systems and Worldview contexts and things like that whereas when you listen and read to you know, read

Greg Bonson's literature It's more specific and and taking a care and great accuracy with the utilization of certain philosophical terms and concepts

So you have again two presupposition lists, but are functioning within the backdrop of two very different Philosophical traditions.

Okay, and I think this is important because what Van Tille says with respect to big -picture

I think sets the groundwork the soil if you will For other aspects of the more specified nuanced terms that and concepts that must be used when we're engaging in apologetic

Interaction Bonson is able to clarify and focus and define some of those key terms and concepts in a way that's a little bit different than that bigger picture of of Van Tille, okay now when we speak of the contribution of Greg Bonson in terms of his specific application of presuppositional apologetics what

I would say is one of the biggest contributions of Bonson is Number one, it's more of a recognition of his gifted

It is his how can I say this in my opinion one of the best?

Contributions that Bonson gives to the presuppositional method is simply the clarity with which he was able to present it

Okay, as I said before Van Tille is a difficult read but when you listen to dr.

Bonson Which is very different than actually reading his books. Dr. Bonson's books are easy to read You can follow along but to listen to the lectures

Actually gives you a different side of Bonson. That is more clarifying than some of his books in my opinion

Dr. Bonson was a gifted teacher and a gifted communicator and to be able to bridge the gap between Academia and the average believer.

I think dr. Bonson was uniquely gifted in his ability to do that Okay And so that's why

Greg Bonson was very popular in the 90s and in the after his is

Gordon Stein debate In the mid 80s. Okay. He was able to communicate these sorts of things now

I remember when I visited a reformed theological seminary to pay a visit to dr. John frame

And and I don't want to give the impression that I'm that I'm name -dropping. I'm not personal friends with John frame

I was familiar with his work and I happened to be in Orlando and I happened to have a couple of hours to spare and So I was able to escape

You know My family for a little bit. They were doing something with some friends. We were staying with and I was able to visit

John frame and Unfortunately as I was talking to dr.

Frame Instead of talking about frame and his work I was asking a bunch of questions about Greg Bonson, which he didn't mind talking about at all

But he said here was the heart of dr. Bonson and I want you guys to listen to this regardless of the

Apologetic tradition that you come from. Okay, dr. Frame told me that the heart of what dr.

Bonson wanted to do Was he wanted to teach? Believers to take it to the streets.

That was a phrase that dr. Bonson used to take apologetics to the streets This is the risk and the danger of Consuming too much

YouTube apologetics. There's the same thing for this channel. It's the same thing for all the things that you listen to the danger in Listening to these things this this content is that you simply are drawn to it because of the intellectual stimulation

But you are not actually going out of your way and using the material in real life

Interaction, okay meeting people face -to -face engaging people in conversation creating relationships and prolonged relationships with people that show a true love and intentionality and care for the person that you're speaking with and Evangelizing and defending and these sorts of things.

Okay again, you can do those things through various mediums I'm not I'm not saying that the

Internet's a bad you you know, you can't do that. This is what I do Right, it can be done. But dr.

Bonson was very much into taking things to the streets And here's one of the ways that you can fulfill that.

Okay, and it's mentioned in actually in his fesh riff I'm not gonna try to find the page but One of the ways or one a few of the ways in which dr

Bonson tried to quote take it to the streets was that he very much wanted to bring this

Apologetic this presuppositional approach to the church being connected to the church and teaching

He gave lectures. He gave workshops. He gave various talks

He put on very well He was a part of various conferences and discussions and debates so that people can see the presuppositional method

What it looks like when you use it within the context of debate to see the strength of the methodology

Okay, let us not Stay in the meta Apologetic realm where we are focusing upon theory so much that we are almost never engaging in the practice teaching believers

Teaching them how to engage The apologetic task was something that was very much at the heart of what dr.

Bonson wanted to do And that's what he meant by taking it to the streets. Don't just learn presuppositional apologetics

Do it And there's a comment here I want to put this on the screen because I 100 % believe this okay

Redefine living says you can take it to the YouTube streets. Also. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes Okay, YouTube is really the new mission field Okay, some of the videos that I put out some of the videos that other apologists put out

This will be viewed by sometimes thousands of people hundreds of thousands of people

So when I say take it to the streets and again Bonson said that at a time where the internet situation wasn't the same, right?

Well, I guess I guess it's non -existent right I think he passed away in 1995, I'm not sure You know

He wasn't able to appreciate kind of the the technological advances that we have now I definitely would have been a game changer if he was around for that, but be that as it may

Yeah, take it to the YouTube streets. Okay, but be very very very careful This is the this is the this is the danger of taking it to the

YouTube streets, which I encourage we must do right We need and I'm and I'm so encouraged. I I am in the apologetics realm

I'm a youtuber myself and I know a lot of Christian youtubers. I am encouraged not only to see the established

YouTube channels that are doing well, but I'm encouraged when people express their desire to start their own

YouTube channels and Do interviews do teachings and things like that We need more of those sorts of things and I'm encouraged and that's one of the ways we can take it to the streets

But be very careful Because there's this weird thing about YouTube and using computers that tends to depersonalize our interactions

Okay when the first Peter chapter 3 verse 15 says That we are to set apart Christ as Lord in our hearts always being ready to give a reason for the hope for those who?

Ask us reason for the hope that's in us yet doing so with gentleness and respect We tend to leave off that gentleness and respect element when we're engaging online

And then we tend to kind of use the gentleness and respect for the most part when we're talking to people face to face

Don't ever allow Okay, don't ever allow the Internet and the computer screen to Negatively affect that Profound truth of taking these issues to unbelievers with gentleness and respect

This is vitally important. If you are not if you are not defending the faith with gentleness and respect and With an acknowledgement that even the unbeliever is made in the image of God, right?

If you are not treating that person with respect, then you are not doing apologetics

Appropriately and that and that means even if your arguments are ironclad

Okay, because it's not just what we say in terms of our defense It is also how we conduct ourselves how we conduct ourselves is part of the defense

I'm gonna say that again how we conduct ourselves is also part of the defense and you've heard me say this

Multiple times on my show. It doesn't matter what you say. If you're a jerk. No one's gonna listen to you

No one's gonna want to hear what you have to say. Okay, and And as I am a hardcore presuppositionalist, unfortunately within the presuppositional camp we tend to be very cutthroat and in a lot of cases very disrespectful which cuts off lines of communication and of course a

Presuppositionalism gets a bad rap because of the misbehavior of some presuppositionalists, which is quite unfortunate

Because I think presuppositionalism has so much to bring to the table. All right, and again, this was very much part of dr

Bonson's heart now, did he even do this, you know with perfection? Of course not, right? This is the ideal right that we're able to do things in a way that honors

Christ It is always a process of sanctification and all of this when we are engaging in apologetic interaction

It is a battlefield and it can be very difficult to do those things But I think with respect to how dr.

Bonson presented himself for the most part. I think he did a great job exemplifying Gentleness and respect while at the same time simultaneously demonstrating logical precision rational argumentation and an apologetic methodology that that flowed out of Biblical principles, which is very very important.

Okay. All right. So let's take a look at how Bonson Really laid out the methodology in summary form

Okay, and I want to walk through this and kind of expand on some parts that he's written I'm gonna share my screen and then towards the end.

I'll take some some questions. So, please feel free I do see a couple of questions as well Already in the chat as I always say preface your question with the letter

Q or the word question. Okay And then I'll address it. Okay.

All right Real quick. This is completely random, but I want to say this now before I forget since there are some people listening now

Before I didn't want to say at the beginning. I have scheduled on Thursday A an interview with dr.

Matthew Barrett on the topic of sola scriptura if you don't know who dr. Matthew Barrett is Let me just tell you

I'm very excited for this interview. We're gonna be talking about The question is sola scriptura true, which is a very important element even within presuppositional thought the idea of sola scriptura

There's a connection there, but unfortunately something came up and dr. Barrett had to reschedule

So I have given him a new date and I am waiting for his response He totally wants to come on.

He's looking forward to it, but I need to lock in that date So if you guys saw a post that I gave a couple of days ago

Talking about having dr. Barrett on the show on Thursday at 6 30 p .m.

Scratch that it's going to be later this month And I will definitely let people know when that's going down, but I'm super excited.

Here's the thing Greg Bonson believed in sola scriptura and Protestant Christians believe in sola scriptura

But it is very much connected to a presuppositional approach as well because it is related to that question of Ultimate authorities, which of course is vitally important.

All right now Whoo. Okay good Am I talking too fast if people can give me kind of a quick little comment here and there and I'll slow down I want to slow down even

More now that I'm gonna be going through kind of sharing my screen and walking through some stuff, but Whoo, let me slow down a bit.

All right, so Let's take a look Okay, I have here the digital copy of the book always ready directions for defending the faith

And the reason why I wanted to kind of take a look at this Book as a way to breaking down the apologetic methodology of Greg Bonson Is because there is an awesome section here where he summarizes an outline form all of the key components of the presuppositional method

That is actually one of the reasons Why I encourage people to get always ready because the way it's organized is actually very helpful when you're studying

Okay, so Let's take a look at the summary of the apologetic methodology.

This is from chapters Summarizing chapters 13 through 17. Okay. Now the first point that he has is kind of the category of which is going to cover is

Defining the nature of the apologetic situation. Okay. This is

Hugely important. Okay, I would say that Knowing the nature of the apologetic situation is a way to provide the context for the apologetic engagement

Okay, when you do quote Apologetics apologetics is never done and nothing is ever done in a vacuum

There is always a Context that gives meaning to the engagement that you are engaging in.

I guess that that's I think that I think that's right okay, and so an important aspect of understanding the presuppositional method is

Understanding the nature of the situation Okay, this is very very important.

I want you guys to listen very closely. Look what he says here point one The controversy between the believer and unbeliever is in principle an antithesis between two complete systems of thought

Involving ultimate commitments and assumptions. Let's let's rest there for a second.

This is huge. Okay Ben till Often told dr.

Bonson. He said Greg listen always remember To push the antithesis which by the way was the title of the book

Pushing the antithesis. Okay, that's on purpose the idea of in antithesis is a central feature of understanding the nature of The dispute between the unbeliever and believer.

It is not simply a dispute over a fact over here or a fact over there rather there is a point of Opposition and antithesis if you will between two complete systems of thought to complete worldviews

Okay, this is very important because it is related to the notion that van

Til discusses That when we are defending the Christian worldview, we are not defending the

Christian worldview block by block Piece by piece

I don't talk about the resurrection here and then build another case here and then build another case there and one by one

Oh, we are arguing a system that provides meaning and cogency and intelligibility to the individual elements of the system the fact that exists within the system

Only has meaning and significance as it relates to the broader system. That's why van

Til Focused on the big picture and highlighted the importance of the system okay, and so to the to understand the nature of the apologetic situation is to understand that it's not

One argument versus another argument you're going back and forth. It is worldview against worldview

Okay, and this is going to be very much apologetically useful when folks try to object against the

Christian faith and bring various objections You're going to have to push the idea that wait a minute Okay This objection that you're making actually is easily answered within the

Christian worldview because there are elements within my broader Perspective that when taken into consideration the problem you suggest is not in fact the problem

Okay, so we argue system not in piecemeal fashion Okay.

All right. Let let us continue here So he says the controversy between the believer and unbeliever is in principle an antithesis between two complete systems of thought involving ultimate

Commitments and assumptions. Okay, and this is dealing really this is really what?

It it may it allows us to understand why presuppositional methodology is called presuppositional methodology because we're dealing with ultimate commitments assumptions or Pre suppositions ultimate

Commitments everyone has their ultimate authority Everyone has if I can use the word everyone has their

Bible Okay, the Christian has the Word of God as the ultimate authority

Okay, but the unbeliever has his or her own Bible their Bible may be some commitment to a philosophical axiom

Some philosophical system or if you're speaking to people from other faiths, it might be another holy book or whatever

Everyone has an ultimate commitment and the nature of the apologetic interaction is ultimate commitment versus ultimate commitment worldview system versus worldview system and the nature of the conflict is that these two systems are in diametric opposition or antithesis with one another and we want to push that antithesis and Because we think as dr.

James Anderson from from RTS says he's he's the Christian worldview can pay the bills on its claims and We want the unbelievers worldview to demonstrate that they can pay the bills with respect to justifying their claims

That they make within their worldview context. Okay, so that is very important.

Okay. All right I see some more questions coming in excellent to keep keep them coming I'll be moving along again as always towards the back end of the the episode.

I will address them. Okay. All right point to even laws of thought and method along with factual evidence

The facts will be accepted and evaluated in light of one's governing Presuppositions, okay, and that's just to say that our presuppositions affect how we interpret everything about everything

Okay, how I interpret the nature of humanity. What is man? That is a metaphysical question and how

I define man will very much be affected by my worldview commitments Okay So the nature of the apologetic situation includes this this idea that presuppositions govern and color

The interpretation of the facts and that's kind of the background music that needs to be playing in your mind

This is not something you necessarily have to say in the interaction between the believer and unbeliever

It may be appropriate to say that but we're talking about this the nature of the situation Um, these are things that could either be playing in the background of your mind and form the context of the sorts of things you're gonna say or If the situation calls for it, you could you know, tell the unbeliever

Hey, this is how I see the nature of this dispute and here's why okay, and we can you go into the reasons? Why you feel that way?

Okay point three. Dr. Bonson says all chains of argumentation Especially over matters of ultimate personal importance trace back to and depend upon starting points

Which are taken to be self -evidence and thus and this is the kind of a controversial element of the presuppositional method

Thus circularity in debate will be unavoidable. However Not all circles are intelligible or valid.

Okay now again, this is important because this Defines for us the nature of the dispute when you get to that ultimate foundation

Circularity is going to become an issue, but he points out and this has been drawn out even more in dr

Bonson's writings van Til explains it and just about every other presuppositional book explains it not all circles are

Fallacious now, I do know that there are people who watch this show who may be listening to what

I'm saying They do not hold to a presuppositional perspective Perhaps they hold to a form of evidentialism and hence with respect to the justification of our claims and and ultimate foundations

There are people who hold to a philosophical perspective known as foundational ism So you do have folks who?

Will disagree with the necessity of starting with a circular foundation, but that's not a point

I'm going to address here. Okay, but there are people who challenge this notion and of course Presuppositionalists have their various responses to The objections to circularity.

Okay. All right point for Thus appeals to logic fact and personality may be necessary Okay, this is important, but they are not apologetically adequate.

What is needed is not piecemeal replies probabilities or Isolated evidences, but rather an attack upon the underlying presuppositions of the unbelievers system of thought

Okay, when we are engaging the unbeliever, we are not focusing simply on a piecemeal approach

Okay, because remember anytime you posit a piece of evidence or a piece of data

Against the unbelievers perspective. He's going to interpret those pieces of data in a way that's consistent with his presuppositions

And in like fashion, that's what we're gonna do as well Okay, we all have as it is, you know popularly said we all have our rescuing devices

And there's nothing in principle wrong with having a rescuing device. I suppose it's kind of an it's the nature of the apologetic situation

It's the nature of the philosophical situation. We have ultimate commitments We have presuppositions that affect our interpretation and when someone throws a monkey wrench into our system

We regiment our thinking so as to make consistent this apparent wrench in the system with our ultimate presuppositions

Okay, everybody does that that's no one. There's never a time where people don't do that. Okay, that's very important to keep in mind

All right. Okay The unbelievers way of thinking is characterized as follows.

Now. This is point five. Okay now I want to stop here Okay When we are discussing when dr.

Bonson is discussing the nature of the apologetic situation It is impossible for a

Christian to consistently discuss the nature of the apologetic situation independent of What the

Bible has to say about the apologetic situation? Okay, I'm gonna I'm gonna say that again. You can't really understand the proper nature of the apologetic situation without considering What the

Bible has to say now that is not to say That you have to quote a bunch of scriptures to the effect that well, the natural man does not understand spiritual things

The Bible says a fool says in his heart that there is no God. Look you're a fool There are appropriate contexts in which yeah, you can do something to that effect but Whether you say it or whether it's information playing in the background of your mind.

You must Understand the nature of the apologetic situation From within the context of the

Bible because the Bible while not an apologetics textbook Tells us the nature of the unbeliever the nature of the effects of sin upon the unbelievers thinking it gives us a glimpse into the hearts of unregenerate men and women and that Should inform the manner in which we engage with them

Be careful with the love of philosophy that Separates scripture, right?

Well, we can't really talk about scripture. Let's talk about this from a philosophical perspective. No, no, no Our philosophy and dr

Bonson would support this our philosophy must be one that is derived from the scriptures and always takes into consideration

What scripture has to say with respect to whatever we're engaging in whether it's our personal study in theology

Or it's the apologetic interaction. Okay, and so point five here.

Dr. Bonson points out he says Pardon he says the unbelievers way of thinking is characterized as follows by nature the unbeliever is the image of God and therefore inescapably religious

His heart testifies Continually as does also the clear revelation of God around him to God's existence and character

These statements by dr. Bonson are grounded in biblical principles.

This is important because my apologetic will take on a different flavor if I engage the apologetic situation with the knowledge of what is going on with the unbeliever is the unbeliever ignorant of God or is there in some way shape or form however difficult it may be to describe a sort of knowledge of a

God that Is being suppressed Well, if the unbeliever is not ignorant of the

God I'm speaking of but it's a some degree has a sort of knowledge in which That knowledge due through due to sinful suppression is being pushed down That is going to affect the nature of the approach that I'm going to take

I want to engage in apologetics in a way that takes into consideration those biblical truths about the unbeliever

Now again, that doesn't mean that I'm going to quote these passages to the unbeliever

But it most definitely will be playing in the background what the Bible says about the unbeliever

Okay, and that's very important. Let her be but the unbeliever

Exchanges the truth for a lie, that's biblical. He is a fool. That's biblical whether you know and people say well

I wouldn't call him a fool. I understand I'm not I don't when I don't when I talk to him I was like you fool, but it's in the background of my mind that what no matter how highfalutin how

Intellectually astute the unbeliever is the Bible tells me that any position that is not grounded in the truth of Christ is foolishness

And so I mean that respectfully. I don't mean that in a pejorative sense like oh, you know The unbeliever is an idiot or he's you know, he's stupid.

He's just so foolish That's not what the Bible means and that's not what I that's not what I mean when I say Hey, this is what the

Bible says. The Bible says the fool says in his heart. There is no God There's a context for understanding that but the

Bible must inform how I view the nature of the situation between the believer and unbeliever

Okay, so but the unbeliever exchanges the truth for a lie He is a fool who refuses to begin his thinking with reverence for the

Lord He will not build upon Christ's self -evidencing words and suppresses the unavoidable revelation of God in nature

Okay again, that's biblical. I don't know why one presuppositional is engaged with classical apologists

There's like a dispute here. No, the Bible teaches that there is a knowledge of God that men have and suppress

Okay, and that should inform the way we engage them Let us see because he delights not in understanding the unbeliever

But chooses to serve the creature rather than the Creator the unbeliever is

Self -confidently committed to his own ways of thought being convinced that he could not be fundamentally wrong

He flaunts perverse thinking and challenges the self -attesting Word of God. That is the nature of the situation

Okay, and again, we too are committed To our own ways of thinking but our own ways of thinking let me qualify.

We're not committed to our own ways of thinking We're committed to the ways of thinking expressed expressed in Scripture the difference is the ways of thinking expressed in Scripture is grounded upon the very wisdom and revelation of God and the

Own ways of thought that is being described of the unbeliever is grounded not on the firm rock of God's revelation

But on the shifting sands of human autonomy Okay letter D Consequently the unbelievers thinking

Results in ignorance and and in his darkened and futile mind Let me see if I could actually

Huh? Okay, so there's this weird thing on my screen that I cannot turn the page

Let me see unless I do a whole thing. Okay, I'm gonna stop there. So so basically Dr.

Bonson is highlighting the fact that the Bible speaks of the mind of the unbeliever as darkened and futile

His mind is dark and futile as dead as trespasses and sin the noetic effects of sin the sin upon the mind is something very real and so the nature of the apologetic situation is one of Suppression of the truth.

Okay. Now, here's what? Dr. Bonson is not saying and unfortunately many presuppositional is engage in this sort of thing

Mr. Unbeliever, you know God exists. You're just suppressing God and and you're just a big old liar.

That's not what presuppositional lists are saying Okay Dr. Bonson's entire doctoral dissertation was actually on the apologetic implications of self -deception

There is an element in which self -deception is going on within the mind and heart of the unbeliever

Okay, so there are different ways to kind of approach that it's not as simplistic as saying well You're a liar really know that God exists.

There are a lot of different factors that are kind of playing into the situation Okay, so I'm actually going to I apologize

I'm not going to share my screen anymore because there's kind of a weird thing. I have to do to Turn the page.

So I'm gonna actually go Into the physical book and just kind of read through the other points here.

Let me see here Did it dude? All right.

How about I use the table of contents that'll actually be better There we go.

So arguments so the defense summary Let's see here a page 55 bear with me guys are so patient.

Thank you so much No, okay,

I Don't know what the physical pages is embarrassing my bed. Hold on.

Let me see here tools of apologetics Hmm.

Sorry. Well Let me see Okay, if I put this up on the screen the summary of chapters 13 through 17, so should be

Let's see here. Ah Ah, okay.

I found it. I bet Okay. All right. So let me remove this from the screen.

We ended on letter D The unbelievers way of thinking.

Okay, good. Got it. So let me get rid of this Okay, and just please pardon.

I'm gonna be reading from the physical copy here So so letter D fully says consequently the unbelievers thinking results in ignorance in his dark and futile mind.

He actually hates knowledge Because it's grounded in God and can gain only a knowledge

Falsely so -called letter E to the extent that he actually knows anything it is due to his unacknowledged

Dependence upon the suppressed truth about God within him this renders the unbeliever intellectually schizophrenic by his espoused way of thinking he actually opposes himself and shows a need for a radical change of mind which

Relates to the idea of repentance unto a genuine knowledge of the truth now Dr.

Bonson's comments here and Van Til when he argues along those lines are often very much misconstrued and people misunderstand

What's being said here and they conclude that hey Van Til or Bonson taught that the unbeliever doesn't know anything at all

All right, so only within a Christian perspective that you could have genuine knowledge And so therefore unbelievers just don't know diddly -squat.

Well, actually that is a common misconception of presuppositional ism Dr. Bonson would be the first to admit that unbelievers know all sorts of things

Unbelievers are very smart they have in some cases ginormous intellects and have contributed much to the realm of intellectual development technology science medicine

There is no denying the contributions the intellectual contributions to the edifice of knowledge by many unbelievers

That is not what Van Til is saying and that is not what Bonson is saying What Bonson is speaking of with respect to unbelievers opposing themselves is when they?

When we consider what would result if Taken the unbelieving foundations of unregenerate thought

What are the logical implications of that if what the unbeliever says is true about the nature of reality?

How knowledge is gained how we should live our lives those three important worldview elements metaphysics epistemology and ethics if what the unbeliever says is true

Then knowledge would be impossible. But here's the problem Bonson is saying Van Til is saying unbelievers never argue

Consistently with their foundation and this is where Bonson often appeals to and Van Til as well to borrowed capital

The unbeliever borrows concepts and principles from the Christian worldview Even when they're arguing against the

Christian worldview and it's the job of the apologist to gently point that out Well, wait a second. Mr.

Unbeliever When you use that line of reasoning that it actually seems to be inconsistent with your own presuppositions, how do you reconcile?

Um, I'll give a basic a basic thing here I know I know that there are different atheists from they have different perspectives, but let's suppose you were a metaphysical naturalist

You believe matter in motion. And yet you are appealing to the laws of logic that Bonson would say well, wait a minute

How do immaterial conceptual laws fit within a worldview perspective? If this person was a metaphysical naturalist and a physicalist everything is material.

How does that fit within your perspective? okay, if the unbeliever says well it fits into my perspective because the laws of logic are reduced to material connections and and functions of the brain then there's a job there's a giant critique that the

Presuppositionalist could lodge against that position if the materialist says well the laws of logic are these immaterial conceptual laws

Then you have an inconsistency With the notion that all is matter in motion yet You're appealing to these immaterial laws of thought and so you show the conflict there

Suppose you say well, you know, I'm gonna take the nominalist approach now nominalism

Would I don't want to get too highfalutin? Maybe some people may or may not be familiar with nominalism

But for those who are well versed in in philosophical categories Nominalism is a position that denies the existence.

Pardon denies the existence of universals okay, and so universals like Logic is not a universal principle in that abstract way

But rather it's just the name we put on certain categories, right? So If you take nominalism, there's criticism that the presupposition list could lodge

So the whole point is showing not that knowledge is impossible in the sense that the unbeliever knows nothing

Rather the unbeliever knows many things but cannot on his own principle account for the things he claims to know

Okay, and that's why you have folks like site and Brueghan Kate whether you like site and Brueghan Kate Whether you love site and Brueghan Kate whether you hate site and Brueghan Kate whether you can't stand site and Brueghan Kate Whatever the case may be.

I think he is on to the truth of what I'm saying when he asks these sorts of questions

Okay, where do you get truth in a non -christian worldview? When he asked these simple questions

Actually is some in a simple way really applying this principle of how do you get something like truth knowledge logic science from a worldview?

That rejects what we're arguing is the only foundation for those things Okay, and the point is to cause the unbeliever to step back and consider and say well

How do I make sense out of these things? Okay, and hopefully that's an opportunity where you can engage interact and and hopefully transition to Pointing out to the the need of the gospel need of repentance and the renewal not just of your soul and you're standing before God But the renewal of your very of the very mind of the unbeliever himself.

Okay, very important now Let me go through a couple of a couple points here.

I'll skip over a couple I'm gonna skip over to page 79 in always ready and and the category there is entitled the procedure for defending the faith so what is the actual procedure so he sets up the

He sets up the the nature of the apologetic situation the second category

He goes through some of the requirements of the apologist and talks about Trusting in the Word of God the character of the

Christian He considers all those things and then he moves into the area of the actual procedure itself.

And so point one he says Realizing that the unbeliever is holding back the truth and unrighteousness.

He's speaking to the Christian And so that's why he's speaking. So boldly if you're an unbeliever listening to this, well, that's ridiculous.

Well, dr Bonson is talking to believers who presuppose the truth of the Bible and When they read ideas like this that are taught in the

Bible The unbeliever is going to affirm them and as we engage in apologetics We want to do so in a way that is consistent with what the

Bible says. So Just keep that in mind. So point one the procedure for defending the faith Dr.

Bonson says realizing that the unbeliever is holding back the truth in unrighteousness. The apologist should reject the foolish presuppositions

Implicit in critical questions and attempt to educate his opponent. Sorry Actually, give me one second

I might need a cup I didn't get some water one second. All right

Has anyone noticed anything different about me this episode? Anybody notice what do

I usually wear? Right. I'm not wearing my collared shirts People make fun of me sometimes.

Oh, you always wear those collared shirts. I'm going rogue I just wearing a plain old great t -shirt right kind of in a relaxed comfort comfortable mode

All right, so I got my water. Just give me a second here. Thank you so much I'm a teacher.

So I'm like talking all day. And so I'm kind of feeling the In the back of my throat. All right so Okay, so point one realizing that the unbeliever is holding back the truth and unrighteousness the apologist should reject the foolish presuppositions implicit in critical

Questions and attempt to educate his opponent again. This is not from a sarcastic demeaning, you know,

I'm better than you perspective It's rather from the perspective of highlighting the insufficiency of the unbelievers foundation

Okay and in that sense we educate the unbeliever by pointing the unbeliever to their own foundation and showing listen if You want to take a position?

that is independent of the authority of Christ here is what will result and You show what we often say in logic and which has been pointed out by Redefined living.

Thank you. It is it is to point out a Reductio ad absurdum provide an internal critique and show that given the principles of the unbelievers perspective if they were true

You couldn't have the things you want like knowledge science Philosophy mathematics all these sorts of things and that's even true even when the unbeliever says yeah, but I do all those things

Yeah, you do do all those things But you are unable to account for your doing those things given your unbelieving presuppositions now in defense of the unbeliever for a moment

To say to the unbeliever that you cannot account For accounting like Van Til said or you cannot account for science or you cannot account for mathematics

Or you cannot account for logic given your unbelieving worldview perspective The complaint by many unbelievers,

I think is a valid one when they say You cannot simply

Say that my world you cannot account for this that the other thing and think that that proves your point.

Okay as Apologists we need to go beyond making mere assertions.

If you say the unbeliever cannot account for say Absolute ethical norms if we're saying the unbeliever cannot account for universal conceptual immaterial laws if you're saying that the

Unbeliever cannot account for the uniformity of nature within his worldview perspective

You're going to have to unpack that for the person and that's just part of first Peter 315 always being ready

I mean you need if you're a presupposition list you're thinking along these lines You need to be ready to unpack some of those things because it is completely understandable that when many

Presupposition lists use a lot of these popular slogans in you know from these books and stuff

I under completely understand why the unbeliever says what are you talking about? You're crazy, dude You didn't prove it.

You just asserted it and unfortunately, that's what many presupposition lists do they simply assert the truth of their position and they don't actually get into the weeds and explain to The person why what they're saying is the case.

Okay. All right Let's see here. So point two this involves presenting the facts

Okay, and and when when Bonson says educating the unbeliever it includes here

He says it involves presenting the facts within the context of the biblical philosophy of fact so part of the apologetic procedure is not only to point out the insufficiency of the unbelievers worldview

For providing the preconditions for intelligible experience doesn't just include look your worldview doesn't do it

But it also includes the extra added step that here's why the Christian worldview can that part is vitally important because another

Correct criticism that unbelievers pose against presupposition list argumentation

Especially as manifested in kind of the popular arena of the Internet and Facebook interactions and things like that You do not

Demonstrate the truth of your position Merely by pointing out the insufficiency of someone else's view

I'll say that again You do not demonstrate the truth of your position Merely by pointing out the insufficiency of someone else's position

It is not enough to show that the unbeliever cannot account for the things that he thinks he could account for We also need to present the case in which

Christianity does in fact provide for those things remember its worldview system versus worldview system

Christian unbeliever Christian says you can't account for these things in your system and Hopefully hopefully, you know the ideal situation we're able to demonstrate that and the unbeliever says well that doesn't show that your view can can and Of course at that point you need to engage in presenting the facts of the matter within a consistently

Christian worldview perspective and show that given Christian presuppositions We can in fact provide the preconditions for intelligible experience.

So point two under the procedure for defending the faith Dr. Bonson says this involves presenting the facts within the context of the biblical philosophy of fact

And he lists a couple of points here. God is sovereign. He is the sovereign determiner of possibility and impossibility a

Proper reception and understanding of the facts requires submission to the Lordship of Christ Thus the facts will be significant to the unbeliever only if he has a presuppositional change of mind from darkness to light

Which is what we hope for the unbeliever that God grants repentance a second timothy 224 Teaches and God grants belief

Philippians 129 okay, so there is an element of Rational argumentation

But a necessity of the work of the spirit in the heart and mind of the people that were speaking with Okay, and this is really the big difference that Bonson also highlights which he makes a distinction between proof and persuasion

If we successfully lay out this case and we refute the unbelievers foundations

We show that given the truth of his perspective He can't make sense out of anything and then we provide the positive case and we we demonstrate that Christianity provides these preconditions

And we you know give our argument and we've successfully demonstrated if in fact you've done so that doesn't mean the person is going to be persuaded because there's a difference between proving and persuading and the

Persuasion while I want to argue persuasively as best I can I want to be?

Winsome in my approach. I want to show love and respect to the person I want to take the time to hear them out and see where they're coming from and understand

The various things that they're grappling with but at the same time in doing that I acknowledge that ultimately speaking the ultimate persuasion that will result in repentance and And faith in Jesus Christ is going to be the result of the work of the

Holy Spirit. Okay, and our prayer For unbelievers is not simply that oh,

I'm gonna destroy this person in debate or I'm gonna kind of you know Get my point in in this comment thread or whatever

No our prayer should be that God has mercy and grants repentance and removes that heart of stone and gives them a heart of flesh that should be our prayer and the fact that we pray those things

Reflects our genuine love for people who do not know Christ and I must highlight that okay, there is a

Very important role of love in apologetics What is your apologetics about if you are not

Loving the person that you're engaging Okay, we say this in popular parlance, right?

You know when we talk about hell and you know Hellfire and brimstone and judgment and we say well, I'm saying this because I love you

But sometimes we don't demonstrate the love consistently Love is not simply telling people that there is a righteous

God who will bring judgment unless we repent It also includes how we engage the individual Okay, so again, all of these points are kind of connected with the procedure, okay almost finished here

Bonson also says the unbelievers espoused presuppositions the espoused presuppositions should be forcefully

Attacked. Okay, the unbelievers espoused presuppositions presuppositions should be forcefully attacked

Asking whether knowledge is possible given the truth of those presuppositions

Now don't get it twisted to forcefully attack presuppositions is not the same as forcefully attacking the person

Okay, you want to stick with the presuppositions showing respect to the person?

But at the same time showing hey if what you're saying is true in your god -denying position. Here's what happens.

Okay. Here's the results Okay Bonson says in order to show that God has made foolish the wisdom of the world the believer can place himself on the unbelievers position

And answer him according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceits. That is demonstrate the outcome of unbelieving thought with its

Assumptions. Okay. This is part of what Bonson calls the two -step approach to apologetics

And that is based upon the scripture passage in Proverbs 26 Where we do not answer the fool according to his folly lest we be a fool like unto him

But on the other hand we answer the fool according to his folly Lest he be wise in his own conceit assume hypothetically the truth of what the unbeliever saying and show

Given those unbelieving presuppositions. Here's what happens Okay and we invite we invite the unbeliever to assume the

Christian position and show that given the truth of Christian presuppositions Look how we can make sense out of all the things that you value, you know logic science love

Relationships transcendence all these sorts of things and again what you focus on will depend on who you're talking with Right, you know, you might talk about aesthetics and beauty with someone over a cup of coffee

You're not always going to be talking about transcendentals and logical categories and things like that Okay I think that's the beauty of a presuppositional approach is that you can start with the unbeliever literally anywhere take any item of Belief that the unbeliever finds intelligible and we simply ask what worldview provides the necessary preconditions

For that very thing you take for granted. Okay All right Bonson goes on to say and I'll stop here.

This is kind of the last point here There's there's more but I'm gonna stop here and then take some questions Bonson goes on to say that the unbelievers claims should be reduced to impotence and impossibility by an internal critique of a system internal critique is kind of a

Bonsonian buzz buzz word. Okay internal critique of a system that is Demonstrate the ignorance of unbelief by arguing from the impossibility of anything contrary to Christianity And that's just in essence to summarize the transcendental argument

Okay, now whether you agree with it, whether you're down with Bonson's form of argumentation or presuppositional ism

That's what we're trying to do. It's an all -or -nothing approach Without Christianity can't make sense out of anything.

Okay, how do we demonstrate this we show? Given the unbelievers presuppositions He can't make sense out of anything and then we go on to show that given the believers

Presuppositions and outlook we could make sense out of human experience intelligible experience logic science

We have a foundation for all these sorts of things that are super important to to human beings Okay.

So again, so that's kind of a basic outline of Bonson's approach the presuppositional approach as well and Hopefully that that sort of makes sense

I highly encourage people to to pick up this book if they haven't already I mean most people who are studying presuppositional ism have the book but study the outlines.

I think that's very important it allows us to create a context for the apologetic engagement and really kind of Know where to attack our opponent.

I don't mean that in a pejorative sense We're attacking anything that raises itself up against the knowledge of God and showing that it has no foundation

Okay, we do it lovingly we do it respectfully. We do not do it Sarcastically and demeaning we show respect to our opponent

He's made in the image of God. Our prayer is not to destroy the individual. Our prayer is that God mercifully

Redeems this person through the power of the spirit. Okay. All right. Well, that is my breakdown of Bonson and I'm going to take one more sip of water here

Okay, if you're enjoying The content please like the video that that helps and share the videos

You know, if you don't like if you don't like the videos that I put out and you want to critique them Feel free to do that as well.

I'm just happy that people are engaging the content And I appreciate all the support.

So thank you for liking if you haven't liked be sure to like And all of these podcasts, I'm sorry

YouTube episodes are also transferred over to the podcast I'll be updating that as well. So folks who listen to the podcast and iTunes.

All right Okay, so let me go back to the top and let's see here Okay, let's say do to do to do

Let's see. You got a couple of questions. Oh Yeah, thank you.

This is not a question, but Nate reminds us always ready Is actually available in audiobook form on Spotify.

So you want to check that out? Okay, and I think you can go on iTunes as well and Download it there as well.

So you can listen to audiobook version of it That's super helpful to me because I'm an audio learner primarily so that might be useful to folks

All right. So wolves do apologetics my good friend John Dunphy Asks the question does presuppositional apologetics rely on reformed theology if you were watching the earlier part of this video

I did say that yes It does there's actually a video on my channel where I addressed this with dr.

James Anderson and we talked a little bit about the Reformed foundations of the presuppositional methodology.

I also had what's his name? Oh my goodness. His name's escaping me Emilio Ramos, there we go.

Emilio Ramos. I had him on to talk about the connections of reformed theology to Presuppositional apologetics.

Yes, so not everyone agrees with this as I said, there are even some Eastern Orthodox folks Roman Catholic folks

Who try to use presuppositional methodology? I don't think that it's consistent with those approaches for reasons that would probably be too much to go into at this moment

But it is it is wrapped up in a whole host of assumptions that is made by reformed theology

That allows the presuppositional apologetic methodology to take the shape that it does So I would say that it's very much connected with reformed theology.

Okay. Thank you for that question Let's see here. Okay, so he follows up.

Okay good. So why is it inconsistent with Eastern Orthodoxy? Okay well without getting into too much of the weeds because I suppose everything

I say can there can be pushed back given but Presuppositional methodology presupposes a reformed understanding of Divine meticulous sovereignty.

Okay, so the Calvinist a traditional Calvinistic understanding of meticulous

Sovereignty of God and control of God is wrapped up in the idea that he is the definer and sovereign king over Meaningfulness and cogency and intelligibility.

And so this would be connected also With the nature of the will so those within the

Eastern Orthodox tradition tend to promote a libertarian perspective which actually is connected to Presuppositional apologetics

So a denial of libertarian free will is connected to a particular understanding of meticulous sovereignty

Which forms the bedrock of a lot of the forms of argumentation that presuppositional ism uses

That's why Bantill called God the all -conditioner Okay, because God Decrees everything that comes to pass in detail and defines all things.

There is nothing outside the The realm of his sovereignty and we would argue that libertarian categories and things like that Will have negative implications when you're trying to apply this method

Consistently, okay. And again that gets into the whole debates on free will and things like that. I know again

Ask that question to kind of let the cat out of the bag and there's a whole other sorts of debates But yes, there is a connection there.

Um, there is a book. It's not written by a presuppositionalist But it's called and and John you might want to be you might want to pick this up if you don't have it already

There's a book called mapping Apologetics, I think it's called mapping apologetics. I have it in the other room

I won't run and get it but you can look on Amazon there is a section in which the author I think does a beautiful job summarizing the

The presuppositional methodology and there's a whole section in there where he explores the connection between Vantil's reformed theological commitments and his view on how that affects the presuppositional

Methodology he I think while he doesn't hold to a presuppositional methodology the author of that book He sees the necessary connection that Vantil was trying to make with reformed theology and presuppositional methodology.

Okay. All right Let's continue on to do

Okay, a liquid cryo asks the question. What is the best argument for Christian presuppositionalism versus other religions?

Well, here's the beauty of the presuppositional approach When I am arguing against an atheist or an agnostic using a presuppositional approach

I don't somehow change my approach when I'm arguing with a person from or adhere it from another religion

The method is the same Right Answer not the fool answer the fool.

The method is the same world view versus worldview. The method is the same

Your worldview is of insufficient to ground intelligibility. Here's why? Christianity provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.

Here's why okay The only difference is not that I'm giving a different argument. My critiques will emphasize different things

So I may critique the atheists in a with different emphasis than I would critique say the

Muslim or the Buddhist Okay The argument is the same given the presuppositions of Buddhism Intelligibility would be impossible given the presuppositions of Islam Intelligibility would be impossible how you bring out certain illustrations you can go the philosophical route and appeal to the trinity the necessity of the

Trinity and issues of the one in the many or you can go by way of internal critiquing the the

Muslim perspective. So for example, I'm in Islam it is possible for Allah to lie

Okay. Now I'm not going to go into huge details here but if you affirm that your

God who is the foundation of your worldview perspective if you affirm that your God can lie in The way that Islam teaches then that actually throws a monkey wrench into your epistemology your theory of knowledge how we know what we know

Because your foundation actually is able to deceive you Okay, whereas in the

Bible the Word of God says it is impossible for God to lie And so in an epistemological level the argument

How do you know your God's not lying to you doesn't fly with the Christian because it's impossible for God to lie whereas I can turn that around on the

Muslim and actually Create a wedge between what God what

God may be doing He may be deceiving you and what you think, you know, deception is possible there

And so that actually would allow to creep into the door elements of skepticism That will not be sufficient to provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge and things like that So my approach to the

Muslim will be something along those lines my approach to the Mormon Okay, you can go the biblical route both with the

Muslim and the Mormon Okay, they affirm the Bible then take what you both affirm and show that there are inconsistencies with what you affirm in scripture and the specific theological convictions of their particular religious perspective and then you engage in internal critique

Okay And you do this with every perspective now, here's the here's the thing. You don't know every perspective

I don't know the details of every single Hindu and every variation of Hinduism But that's why when you're doing apologetics you are engaging in conversation

Relationship you're asking genuine questions because you want to understand where the person's coming from When you learn what that person's position is for the most part with respect to their foundations

Then you engage in various internal critique which will do the same job as what you would do when you're engaging the atheist

So it's not what is the best argument for Christian presuppositional presuppositional ism versus other religions the arguments the same

It's just a different emphasis depending on who you're speaking with Okay, and in a sense, I think that's what the beauty of the presuppositional method is

All right, a transcendental argument is not just an argument against atheists transcendental argument can be applied to any

Non -christian category of thought that's why van Til said Yeah, there are many worldviews, but ultimately when you really boil down to things to the its foundation

There's only really two worldviews the Christian worldview and the non -christian worldview and every single

Individual Religion or atheistic philosophy or whatever it all is clumped into the non -christian worldview and they all share the same deficiency which is

Autonomy, they're not standing on the shore rock of God's Word and we could give an internal critique demonstrate their insufficiency now again

I'm just saying that in passing that may be difficult to do at times and and require some grappling and Understanding certain things but generally speaking that's how we could approach other religious perspectives.

Okay All right. Let's see here. Let's see.

Do -do -do -do -do Yeah, Aaron says yes

There are so many Christian jerks today. That's that's actually true. I agree and he says it's the gist of my upcoming book

Hey books like this need to be written You know a Christian character as it relates to Christian apologetics

There was a really cool book that I read It was called and folks if you're if you're reformed, you might actually appreciate this book.

It's actually called killing Calvinism killing Calvinism and Basically, it's a book written by a

Calvinist and he kind of just surveys the sorts of things that's hurting the Calvinistic cause and he talks a little bit about caged stagers and narrow -mindedness and things like that and really kind of Helps us appreciate

People who disagree with us while still holding to our reform convictions and and it teaches us how to avoid

Making reform theology look bad as it relates to how we present it Okay, you might think reform theology is bad just because if it's theology with that that's another issue

But killing Calvinism is a pretty good book that that follows that line of thinking.

All right. Okay, let's move along Do -do -do -do -do See. Yeah, so Augur, I do apologize.

I don't know how to say the name but he he or she says it should be noted There's no mention or proof of determinism.

Oh, well again that that's a claim and there are Multiple arguments for determinism and you do not refute the arguments for determinism by simply retorting

Well, you were determined to say that okay that that line of our and I'm not saying this gentleman or I don't know who this

But I'm not saying that that's what they would say, but that is a popular line of reasoning against Calvinistic a form of determinism compatibilism.

It just doesn't it just doesn't pass muster. There are robust Presentations and arguments in favor of determinism both philosophically and biblically if people want to dive into that topic

I had two excellent discussions with a French Calvinist philosopher by the name of Guillaume Bignon and we discussed this directly by responding to Proponents of libertarian free will and he engages in objections and questions that relate to the to the defense of Determinism if you want to listen to a discussion on that topic

That's more clear and not spoken by a person who has a very strong French accent Sorry, you know you want to check out my my discussion with Michael But a

Seattle where we talk about the nature of free will and he unpacks why why we believe determinism is philosophically cogent

And I think he goes into some of the biblical Reasoning behind that as well. Okay, so I would just disagree at this point

Okay, so Nate asked the question. How would you use a presuppositional apologetic? When teaching

Christian doctrine to other believers, let's say the personhood of the spirit for example

Yeah, did not this is a really good question Nate and it's actually wrapped up and related to one of my favorite definitions of Presuppositional apologetics, okay

Scott Oliphant in his book Covenantal apologetics, I think it was covenantal apologetics.

He defined apologetics or the presuppositional apologetics in this way And it's related to your question.

He says that Christian apologetics or presuppositional apologetics is

Christian theology applied to the area of unbelief

Apologetics is Christian theology applied to unbelief So we are applying systematic theological truths to the specific area of the nature of unbelief and how we should engage that and so the way we engage unbelievers is with a strong consideration of The theology theological backdrop of the

Christian worldview Okay So say you're talking about the personhood of the spirit for example Remember Bantill said that we discuss the system and so it's very important to understand the personhood of the spirit within the broader

Context of the triune nature and personality of God. Okay, God being the ultimate

Metaphysical foundation of all things is very important because that means at the very base of reality

What you have is not impersonality, but personality and Rationality, right?

So the spirit functions within the context of the Trinity which provides the personal foundation and relational foundation for Creatures made in his image and so you can come at the personhood of the personhood of the spirit from that perspective

Of course those who deny the personhood of the spirit or perhaps are grappling with that notion You take them to Scripture and of course when you take folks to Scripture within the context of teaching

Christian doctrine When you take them to Scripture that will be wrapped up in the notion of the authority of Scripture Which is very much a big part of presuppositional thought

Everything we do with respect to apologetics with respect to theological reflection Should be grounded in the authority of God's Word and not by human speculation

Okay, we can engage in human speculation with respect to certain theological and apologetical topics

But when it all when we get down to the bottom line It's Scripture that informs what we believe about the personhood of the

Spirit the nature of the Son the nature of the Father the triune God right his his actions and purposes in creation

The work of the three persons of the Trinity as it relates to salvation All of these things are informed by the authority of God So when you're teaching theology

It is always rooted in the authority of Scripture And of course when you're teaching other believers who hopefully affirm the authority of Scripture Then they can engage some of these more specified topics like the person of the

Spirit with the heart of well What does the Word of God say here and how does this make sense to me? And how should this apply to my

Christian experience? okay, so I would use the presuppositional apologetic approach by teaching this personhood of the

Spirit as A single fact within a broader system that's grounded in the authority of God Okay, and of course you can make that application, you know

You pivot from the specifics person of the Spirit to the broader system. Okay, and show how that broader system is

Essential to making sense out of that specific piece of data that you're talking about Maybe the person of the Spirit or some other doctrine, okay

Alright, thank you for that question Do -do -do -do -do

Let's see here Yes, not a question, but a good statement redefine living says all facts are derivational from God That's right

God is the ultimate fact out of which all other facts are derived and that's important and wrapped up in Determinism and God's providence and decrees, but all facts that exist

Are derived from God and are wrapped up in his purposes They gained their meaning from God's intended purposes for creating them

Okay and that's very much wrapped in to intelligibility everything has a Significance and objective meaning because they are derivational of God who creates with a specific purpose.

There is nothing random There is nothing by chance or anything like that. Everything is derived from The creative decrees of God Okay, so all facts have meaning in as much as they fit into the system that is grounded in the revelation of God which is wrapped up in his purposes and And his will okay.

All right. Thank you for that. Let's see here question do -do -do -do -do -do Josiah Stowe asks is revelational epistemology necessary for presuppositional ism.

The quick answer is yes Okay Presuppositional apologetic methodology or presuppositional thinking is at its very essence

Revelational, okay. I would say I am a revelational epistemologist I would say everyone who is a presuppositional is must be a revelational epistemologist because when it comes to the foundations of every worldview metaphysics

Epistemology and ethics when you're dealing with that question. How do we know? Not just God, but how do we know anything that is wrapped up in the context of revelation

Which gives meaning to the specific data points that we know So if I'm to know a data point a piece of information, it's always understood within a revelational context

Okay, so revelational epistemology I would argue is necessary for a presuppositional Methodology.

All right Did it to do? Reb Romans 3 asked the question.

How can you use presupp on discussions with Muslims now? I did answer that question a few questions back.

But here's what I want to share with you. Reb Romans 3 Okay, I have an entire episode that is entitled

Presupp applied to Islam and it's actually an awesome interview that I had with another Christian apologist

Anthony Rogers Who has vast experience in engaging with Muslims and he actually talks about how you use presupp not only to Muslims But also to Jews.

Okay, so that's kind of a common question as well. How do we apply presuppositional ism to Judaism and not just Islam?

So look up that show Anthony Rogers. It's entitled presupp applied to Islam. It was an excellent discussion

It's a long one. But if you you know going for a long walk or a drive, I guarantee you will learn a lot from that Discussion.

It was excellent. All right All right, let's see here Questions question question.

Yeah. Okay good up a post Tenet but us looks right. I think I said it right post tenor brus looks after darkness light

Sorry, that is kind of a very popular Reformed cry right after darkness light.

I love that that phrase there the post tenor brus looks asked Hi, Eli, how do you explain transcendental argument to a layman?

Okay easy Okay There is a scripture that I think captures the essence of a transcendental approach

And I think it's in the book of Psalms where it says in his light we see light

Okay in the light of God we see light. Okay It is only in light of what

God has revealed that we can see and understand anything else Okay, that is a very simplistic way of saying that God is necessary For us to to know to make sense out of Okay, so I would use to a lay person.

I would find certain scripture passages. I would remove all of what this

I'm guilty of this as well because I've learned presuppositionalism through Bonson and Vantil and so I tend to naturally use a lot of these philosophical language, but in essence

Presuppositionalism I would argue is a biblical approach. And so just as Jesus could explain a divine truth to a farmer or a simple person during the first century in like fashion you can take scriptures that Encapsulate presuppositional principles and share that and unpack that with the individual in his light we see light

The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord The Bible doesn't tell us to fear

God like I'm scared There is a reverence that we are to have before God that when we have that reverence and we come to the

Lord humbly Acknowledging the supremacy of his revelation. We are then in a position to see things and understand things as they are

Okay, so I would use certain scriptures Unpack it and make the presuppositional application without using the language of Presuppositional philosophical thought categories.

Okay again I'm guilty of using that a lot Unfortunately, but I'm trying my best to read the scriptures and try to explain the method in biblical categories

And you know I have a different audience than some people might have and so Just quoting scripture might be useful and explaining it to the people they're discussing

I interact with people who tend to be a little more philosophically minded So I use different language, but to answer your question

I would take certain scripture past passages and unpack them for the person. I think that would be very helpful

All right post tenor Bruce looks also goes on to say hi Eli How do you explain trends into the argument to a person who does not have a background of philosophy and theology?

Same thing I give I give you the same answer and and perhaps you can use Unbiblical examples now what

I mean by unbiblical examples I don't mean use examples or illustrations that are against the scriptures, but you can use examples that are not necessarily mentioned in scriptures, but they may be useful to help explain a

Scriptural principle that highlights the presuppositional method. So for example Vantil was very good at this

He was he was able to use like little ditties and little sayings that kind of paint a picture in your mind

So he used the example of pillars Underneath the house. Okay, so You walk into a house and you see the tables you see the chairs and you see, you know

All of the pieces of furniture and he says what must be true in order for these

Items in the house to be standing, you know What must be true in order for us to explain why we're able to stand on the floor here

Well, there are pillars under the house We do not see the pillars, but we know they're there because if they weren't the house would not be standing so he would use little illustrations like that to kind of highlight really what he was saying was providing an

Explanation of like a transcendental argument, right? What must be true in order for something else to be true

Okay, and you can use illustrations like that. By the way, you could actually look this up Vantil quotes or Vantil Analogies or something like that and there you might find some websites that have lists of little analogies that he used to that That he used to explain certain elements of presuppositional methodology, all right

Moving along. Thank you so much for that Okay, see here big

Yehuda says I'm really desperate for non scriptural arguments I've been through them over and over I need evidence.

It's gnawing at me. I need something anything I believe but I'm struggling well again

There's no such thing as non scriptural arguments. What did I say at the beginning if you remember this is very important, okay?

Everyone has their Bible if you're not going to understand the facts

Independent if you're not gonna understand the facts within the context of the Christian worldview Then you are going to replace the

Christian worldview with another worldview There is no such thing as Just the facts.

There's no such thing as just evidence Okay, you need to Understand that evidence is always

Interpreted within a worldview context. There's no such thing as just the facts

Just show me the evidence the evidence speaks for itself no, it doesn't and I think the problem with a lot of people who are struggling with this very question that's being asked is

You are looking for evidence, but you are looking for evidence From a an intellectual posture that makes it impossible for you to actually make intelligible the very idea of evidence

You are thinking in unbelieving categories Okay, what's my argument that?

Christianity provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of knowledge Okay, that means evidence itself the very concept of evidence would be unintelligible unless the

Christian context which gave it meaning or true As you're saying, well, I just need the evidence and by that you're assuming evidence independence of the the the scriptural foundation

Then that doesn't exist That doesn't exist Go to a non -christian Tell them to show me the evidence and come back and see whether that evidence actually can be made made sense of Independent of a

Christian world. We can't be done Can't be done. So I understand that it's gnawing at you and I sympathize with what you're saying

But I want you to understand the power of what I'm saying If a presuppositional understanding is true, what

I've been saying is correct. Okay Listen to me big Yehuda Everything is evidence for God everything

That is more profound than saying show me evidence over here. I'm arguing everything is evidence for God You can't make sense out of anything without the context of God's revelation

Scott Oliphant in a radio interview. He says this he says that presuppositionalist are eminently evidentialist in that we believe literally everything is evidence for God and I truly believe that God has created everything all derivational facts has the meaning and significance that it has

Because it is placed within the purposes and plans of God God has revealed these things to us

We can know them we can make sense out of them Don't look for evidence independence of a context.

It doesn't exist If you're going to reject the scriptural argument then what you're going to do is replace scripture with some other sets of scripture

Maybe that might be a different religious perspective. Maybe that might be some Philosophy that you think is cool and will help you make sense out of these things, but everyone has their ultimate foundations

That's why Jesus says you're either with me or you're against me If you're not going to stand on the firm rock of God's Word, then you're going to stand on some other rock

There's no such thing as investigating these things independent of a context

Okay, so I would encourage you to go back to the drawing board and stop asking not don't

I don't misconstrue me Okay, this is important. All right. I'm not being overly simplistic here.

Don't waste your time Asking for evidence and I'm not against evidence but stop wasting time asking for evidence as Though evidence can be understood apart from a worldview apart from an authority okay, if that's the way you're going if you're searching for a

Neutral data, you're not gonna find it because it doesn't exist Okay. All right.

And so I say that strongly but I do say that in an encouraging fashion I Encourage you to keep seeking searching studying and reading but strongly consider some of the things that I've that I've just mentioned here

Okay. All right Okay. Well, well big you who to continues anything he's looking for anything which cannot be reasonably disputed great

Here's what cannot be reasonably disputed the Christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary

It is the only worldview that provides the necessary precondition and intelligibility for the very concept of evidence itself

You could dispute it not reasonably Because what's gonna happen? What did we explain when we went through the outline in Bonson's book?

We engage in internal critique and we bring down those strongholds. We show that on a

Christian worldview. There's no foundation Okay, so you can dispute the transcendental argument

But you can't do it reasonably in the sense that you are making a valid point and you're providing a sufficient foundation for the intelligibility of human experience right

All right Okay Redefine living us 399 superstar.

Thank you so much for that. I appreciate that. Thank you Let's go moving here Okay, here we go.

So big Yehuda is continuing here Bonson's argument is still circular Well, I already explained why that's not an issue

By the way, everyone's argument at its base will be circular in as much as you have an ultimate foundation At any rate it doesn't matter in the slightest.

We can't know anything without Scripture Doesn't matter precept works on almost no one neither does evidence.

Okay. Hmm precept works on no one That's funny. I've actually had interactions with people in which it did work

But when you say it doesn't work you are already coming from an inappropriate perspective. I'm not

Concerned with what works. I'm not a pragmatist with respect to my apologetics. I want to know what's biblical

Okay, I want to defend the faith faithfully Biblically Acknowledging the work of the

Spirit that being said from a purely intellectual stance I have engaged in common discussion with people not on the internet face -to -face

Use the presuppositional method and have made great segue in in those relationships and things like that so do not impose big

Yehuda your lack of exposure to Instances where presuppositional ism actually makes great headway and though in these sorts of discussions

Don't confuse your lack of experience of that With the notion that it is kind of somewhat essential to the presuppositional method that it just doesn't work on anyone

Okay, and again to say work you're treating apologetics as kind of a pragmatic discipline, which it's not.

Okay. All right Thank you though for sharing that Let's see moving along Skip so here skip a couple

Looking for a question. Here we go Is it okay if I have a

Bonson shrine at my house You know hypothetically speaking Absolutely, not by the way,

I kind of put this on the screen. I know this person's joking But we want to be very careful That we do not set theologians

Philosophers scientists set them up as idols. They are human beings imperfect touched and tainted by sin

And a good apologist a good apologist will not point to themselves, but they will point you to Christ okay, so I know this is a joke, but I I think it's important to note that we need to be cautious of Idolatry even when we are engaging in like these sorts of discussions and studies and things like that.

Okay. All right Let's see here Question oh,

I don't see. Oh, here we go. Let's see Okay, your

Wi -Fi went out. Yes. I think I addressed your question Nate Unless you asked something different and I skipped it

Okay Okay.

Here's a question by Julio Jimenez Is the young earth position in creation necessary to be presuppositional?

I do not think it is necessary. Now. I tend to lean and I kind of expressed this in my previous video

Where I kind of laid out some of my theological beliefs I Said that I tend to lean in a young earth to a young earth perspective

But I'm kind of open but I kind of lean in that direction But I don't think that that particular interpretation is necessary for a presuppositional approach.

I know some people disagree with that but if you are an old earth creationist and you have

You you could disagree with this. Okay, but you feel you have strong biblical support for your position

Which there are old earth creationists who try to use the Bible and don't appeal necessarily to like Big Bang cosmology and dating

They think that hey given the text. Here's what I think it's teaching. Okay now you might agree with it You might not agree with it

But if you believe you have a strong biblical argument that is still consistent with the notion that the Bible is your ultimate authority

Okay, um, it's just that the interpretation of say those key verses in Genesis It's it's not to be taken from a young earth perspective

You could hold to that and still consistently be a presuppositionalist. Okay. Now I know the the accusation

Well, you're you know, you're putting the ideas of man before God Well, that depends. I mean if the person's saying no, no,

I'm not using arguments from science and speculation I think given what the scripture what it says, I think this is what it says now they might be wrong but I don't think it's inconsistent with the

Assumption of the ultimacy of scripture and the fact that scripture and revelation and God provide the context

For the preconditions for intelligible intelligibility. Okay, so I don't think it's essential But you know, it is the case at least in my experience that most presuppositionalist tend to be younger creationist

You have folks like Jason Wow, Greg Bonson was a young earth creationist. I think Van Til was as well. Okay Alright, let's see here

More I'm trying to get them all. So I I feel bad Sometimes I skip some questions or always that one comment when

I when I end the live stream. Hey, you forgot me So, sorry if I miss a question is totally not on purpose

Okay, a big Yehuda says I apologize you don't have to apologize I was just speaking passionately because Well, I was speaking to you

I'm very passionate about this and I mean what I say when I kind of expressed what I said there, but I Understand I understand

You want evidence? Okay, here's here's the thing you need to you need to understand this issue of context

Okay, I know you're not trying to be rude I know you're trying to just ask these important questions and I encourage you to ask these questions and search these things out

But you need to understand the importance of ultimate commitments. Where is your ultimate commitment? How does that ultimate commitment inform?

How evidence the very concept of evidence is understood, right? And hopefully when you're talking about that ultimate foundation that ultimate foundation is rooted in the idea that what

God has said you believe it Trust it. I Believe the

Bible is the Word of God. I believe that when I trust God's Word things fall into place

Okay. Now I know at this point I can get a little preachy and I apologize, but it's it's true trust in the

Lord lean not in your own under on your own understanding, right and Begin to take the time to think about these things from within the context of God's Word Do you trust

God's Word or not? grapple with that question But it is a worthy question to grapple with But what you are asking in your previous statement is impossible.

You are asking for evidence. That is worldview Independent, it's impossible.

You're asking for just the evidence impossible Okay, I choose to understand the evidence within the context of how

God has revealed the nature of reality Why it's not a Christian. I Trust the Lord if you're not a

Christian, I Challenge you make sense out of anything without God Can't be done so God calls us to repentance

God calls us to submission to his Word fall at the feet of Jesus live in the scriptures and Get away from for a moment

I mean if you I don't know big you who to if you are a Christian and you're struggling with these sorts of things get away for a moment from the apologetics and confront

Jesus in the scriptures and And Enrich your devotional life seek the

Lord with all your heart and Then when you are not as if you're not in the position of losing your mind Revisit those important questions and engage them.

But my answer is going to be the same to your questions Evidence can only be made sense of within the context of God's revelation

And that is the most powerful evidence that you could ever have because it entails that everything is evidence for God Okay, all right and no worries big you who died

I didn't take you as being rude or anything like that All right Okay, so Massen Hollowell asks, can you briefly explain a

Christian metaphysic? What is a Christian metaphysic? All right, that's it That's a good question. All right, when we speak of a worldview, which is that this is a word that is thrown around by Apologists and philosophers and things like that, but a worldview is typically made up of three foundations.

Okay, you have metaphysics Epistemology and ethics and there are other categories, but these are foundational.

Okay when we deal with metaphysics We are dealing with the question of reality

So if I were to say what question what worldview question is metaphysics ask Typically it asks the question.

What is real? Okay, now I'm not gonna go through the other foundations, but let's take that how how are we informed by a

Christian metaphysic? so when we ask the question, what is real or what is the nature of reality a

Christian metaphysic will answer that question while being informed by what the Bible has to say about the nature of reality

I'll get I'll give you an example the Bible speaks of The material world that which is seen and it speaks of the invisible world the world that is not seen it speaks of human beings and physical creation it also speaks of spiritual beings so that the nature of reality a

Christian metaphysic includes a perspective on reality that includes both the material universe and a spiritual reality a

Christian metaphysic with respect to specific Facts for example, what our question what is a human being that is a metaphysical question

So what is a Christian metaphysic? It's it's in essence answering the question. What is the nature of man?

And so when I answer that question that question will be informed by what the Bible says man is made in the image of God There is a physical element to him.

God breathed into him the breath of life and he became a living soul There's an immaterial element to him So a Christian metaphysic is a theory or view of reality that is grounded and rooted in In God's Revelation, so it's what

God says about reality that informs what I say about reality if that makes sense Okay, that's a good question

Thank you for that. Okay Here Okay Well, that was the last question

I would like to thank everyone who joined me on this live stream and Whether you are a believer or not

I appreciate and I've said this in the past. I appreciate the fact that You know unbelievers and believers they're interacting respectfully in the comments and things like that and I think

I'm if you're if you're seeking after truth It's that kind of mentality that will cater to good conversations and things like that.

So thank you so much I really do appreciate it. If you are really enjoying and being blessed by my content

I would really appreciate any support that you can give whether it's Contributing to the

Venmo that can be you can contribute financially through the Revealed Apologetics website Whether it's through super chats or whether it's just writing a good review on iTunes that really does help

Liking the video sharing the videos. I really love what I do I think it's an honor to be able to do this on this platform and I think it's

We cover important topics, especially when we get to some of those important Interviews and discussions on specific topics.

So please share this stuff and support if you can I greatly appreciate it now before I leave

There is one more question and I'm gonna make sure I don't skip it. Okay. Now, this is the last question

I'm going to take and if another question pops in the chat, I'm not going to answer it because then

I'll be here forever So here's a question by Julio Jimenez or Jimenez if you want to say it in English What is your answer when it is said that to presuppose

God is no different than to presuppose any other? Transcendental invention ie

Flying spaghetti monster. Okay. Okay now your question

The question here it really commits a category error or at least when people suggest for example the flying spaghetti monster

Do you said presuppose any? Transcendental invention. Okay, a flying spaghetti monster is not

Transcendental in nature as a matter of fact a flying spaghetti monster must be composed of the physical material that comprises

Spaghetti or pasta and so being a physical entity the entity Automatically is limited in scope a flying spaghetti monster being physical must have a shape and form if this spaghetti monster has a shape and form it must also have a size and location and if the spaghetti monster has

Location then the spaghetti monster lacks the attribute of omniscience And so therefore the spaghetti monster cannot be universe a universal mind

Which we would argue God is and therefore cannot ground universal conceptual laws of thought

So the flying spaghetti monster is an insufficient transcendental foundation for universal laws of logic the flying spaghetti monster cannot be

God because God as an absolute all conditioning all -powerful being a Flying spaghetti monster is limited by being stuck in time and space because being a physical entity

He would or she would or it would be subject to You know the limitations of being a physical entity.

So a spaghetti monster just doesn't cut it now suppose the person says yeah yeah, yeah, but my spaghetti monster is omnipresent and my spaghetti monster is omniscient and my spaghetti monster is

You know all these things and what you'll see is the qualifiers that will be added to the spaghetti monster will just be the traditional

Attributes of God and so a rose by any no other any other name is still a rose Basically, what you're saying is the flying spaghetti monster is

God and as much as you add all of these qualifiers, okay So if he's not physical then is he really spaghetti?

Okay, the concept of flying spaghetti monster is already an incoherent concept

Okay, just like an invisible pink unicorn and visible pink unicorn is an incoherent concept because if it's invisible, how can it be pink?

Okay, sometimes internally critiquing some of these characters can go a long way in showing that the nature of the

Presuppositional claim is not merely to make the assertion that the Christian God provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility logic knowledge science and all these other things but that the

Christian worldview can actually this key can actually Pay the bills on that claim if you want to rely, you know, of course, this is kind of a caricature

I don't I don't know if there are people who exist to actually take this seriously But let's suppose there are if you're going to rely on the spaghetti monster as being that transcendental foundation

You need to ask the question Can the spaghetti monster pay the bills on the claim to being the transcendental necessity, okay, and upon internally critiquing the concept you will find that it doesn't work and that is just to show that the

Presuppositional argument is not a mere assertion that can be replaced with any old assertion

We assert that God is the necessary precondition, but we're doing more than merely asserting

We are claiming and hopefully we can successfully do so when we're interacting with the person We are claiming that we could actually demonstrate that.

Okay. All right. Thank you so much guys. I appreciate the questions So much until next time.

I'll keep you up folks updated on the The interview with dr. Matthew Barrett On solo script tour,

I'll keep you guys updated on that. That's all for today's episode and take care. God bless