Q & A: On a Wide Variety of Topics

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala. And if you are tuning in, it's not the radio,

I guess, but if you're watching and you're wondering, wait, I didn't know there was a live stream today. Neither did

I. I did not know that there was a live stream today. I have a three -day weekend. My wife's not feeling well.

My youngest son isn't feeling well. I've been hanging out with my other kids and everyone's in bed now and I'm like, you know what?

Why not? So I have no idea who's gonna watch this. Although if you do watch it,

I think you will find tonight's live stream useful as I have just returned last weekend from upstate

New York. I was invited to speak at an event where I was able to give four sermons and there was a one hour and 45 minute

Q &A session. That's right, one hour and 45 minutes. So there were a lot of questions that I was able to interact with, mostly from young people, people from, students from high school and college.

And so we were able to get into a whole bunch of things. And so what I have tonight is a bunch of questions that I received that I didn't have an opportunity to go into great depth while I was up in New York.

And so I figured, why not do a live stream where I cover a bunch of those questions? And so these questions are gonna be wide ranging.

Some of them are practical. Others have to do with things pertaining to apologetics.

And so hopefully it will be useful for folks who are listening in tonight. And so, yeah, there you go.

So this is a surprise, surprise live stream. I'm also, I'm super excited. What's today's date? Today is the 13th on January 15th.

I will be, we'll be having our first private Zoom class session for those who signed up for PreceptU, the premium version of the course.

And so I'm looking forward to meeting folks who signed up for that. As I've said in the past, one of the great joys is to be able to actually see people and meet the people who are signed up and follow the ministry from all around the world.

And so I'm super excited about that. So that's January 15th. I'll also be flying up to New York again in February, speaking at a

Christian school and then a church. So if anyone wants to have me out, you can totally do that.

You can go to revealedapologetics .com and you could reach out to me and we can book something. Real quick, nothing is set in stone in terms of the dates and stuff like that, but Apologia Studios invited me back out to Arizona to do a part two of the

Presuppositional Apologetics series that I recorded with them some months back. So I was super excited about that.

I was like, well, I went there once and I had a great time and everything went well and I was wondering if they'd ever want me back.

So they want me back. So I'm super excited to go there whenever we nail down the specific date.

And so when information with respect to that kind of clarifies and we kind of nail some things down,

I'll let folks know what's going on with that. And of course, the series that I've recorded with Apologia, and the upcoming series that I will record with them,

I assume will be available on apologiastudios .com and I think you have to subscribe or something like that to have access to that.

But Apologia is a great ministry to support. So I totally encourage you guys to do that. So, all right, well, let's jump right in.

Got some people watching and let's take a look at some of the questions. Again, these are questions that came to me from high school students and college students and so hopefully this will be useful to you if you are in ministry or you work with young people and these sorts of questions are floating around.

So first question someone asked is, is it okay to be with someone who knows the

Lord and is active in church, but does not make him their number one priority?

Okay, and so I would assume that this is in the context of like a relationship, right?

So is it okay to be with someone who knows the Lord and is active in church, but doesn't make the Lord their number one priority?

So if the person knows the Lord in this hypothetical, right, then

I think he or she should know that the Lord needs to be their number one priority, right? So this is the teaching of scripture.

It made one scripture that kind of popped in my mind is Deuteronomy 6, 5, right? Which gives us the greatest commandment in all of scripture.

It says that you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And of course, when

Jesus is asked about the greatest commandment, he kind of adds this here in Matthew 22, 36, he says, love the

Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. So I wanna, if this is in the context of say, like a relationship,

I want people to keep close attention to the phrase in these passages, the Lord your

God, okay? That's a very important phrase because this is language of covenant, okay? A covenant in scripture refers to a pact or an agreement between two or more parties and it comes with certain obligations and various stipulations.

So within scripture, the covenant between God and Israel, for example, came with both blessings and curses for either keeping or breaking the covenant.

So all this to say, as believers, we need to be reminded that we are in covenant with our

God, right? He is covenantally our God and we are covenantally his people.

And so we're to have as our goal to love God and to keep him front and center in our lives. And so, you know, that's what we should have as our goals as believers, okay?

In reality though, we fail to do that, right? We fail to do this consistently. We often need moments in our lives in which we intentionally have to reorient our priorities.

And so we don't have God as our number one priority. We place ourselves, when we don't have

God as our number one priority, we place ourselves in a position to commit idolatry as we often, you know, place other things on the same level or above God.

This can be done within the context of a relationship or whatever the case may be. So more specifically, to answer the point in question specifically then,

I would caution getting into a relationship with someone who has their priorities mixed up, right?

Now, of course, in some sense, we all suffer from the lack of proper prioritization, right?

So it's gonna depend on the person. It's gonna depend on the situation, right? But such a person, I think, needs to proceed with wisdom, okay?

When thinking about who is a compatible person to be in these sorts of relationship with, right?

As scripture teaches us that we are not to be unequally yoked with unbelievers, as 2

Corinthians 6, verse 14 says. But within the context of this question, I assume this person is a believer. But if you think about it, it is possible to be unequally yoked with another believer, right?

So if the people involved in this scenario genuinely love the Lord and they're seeking to serve Him faithfully and consistently, okay?

Then perhaps the situation warrants a conversation, an agreement, if you will, right? To reorient priorities so that the relationship is one in which honors

God, it seeks to love Him first and foremost. And I genuinely believe that God will bless a relationship in which the people involved love the

Lord more than they love each other, given the fact that in order to love each other, this is important, in the way that God has created us to love one another, that we need to love

God first, okay? So it's very easy to kind of bring other things into focus.

Let me adjust my chair real quick. So my chair sinks in while I'm talking.

And so it looks like I'm really tall at the beginning of a live stream. And then I look like, you know, my face is like, you just see my forehead.

So there you go. I had to adjust my chair there. So a good scripture to keep in mind with respect to proper priorities,

I think is Matthew 6, 33, which says, but seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

The relationships which have God at the center are the best kinds of relationships because they're patterned after God's standards for proper relational priorities, okay?

So that's my advice, okay? So if someone's gonna ask the question, if the person knows the

Lord, okay? This is a believer. So is it okay to be with someone who knows the Lord, is active in church, but it's not making him or her, their number one priority, the

Lord, okay? These are things I think you need to consider, okay? When you say, is it okay? This issue of relationship needs to be looked upon with wisdom, with prayer, because relationships are important.

And so you do not wanna act foolishly by being unequally yoked with the person that you are in relationship with, okay?

Hope that makes sense. That's an important question, especially you're in college or high school, and you're in that stage where the relationships, right?

So I think we need to proceed with wisdom, okay? All right, let's see here.

Next question. Okay, this is a good question. How do

I know God speaks to me? I don't know whether it is God or just the noises in my head, okay?

I'm sure, let me adjust my foggy glasses. So before I went live,

I went for a jog, and so I'm all like nasty and sweaty. Sorry, I think my glasses got fogged up.

Let's see here. There we go, okay?

All right, so how do I know God speaks to me? I don't know whether it is God or just the noises in my head, okay?

That's a super important question. It's a good question, okay? We don't wanna confuse the voice of God with our own conscience, right?

Our own inner thoughts, right? Our own minds are unreliable and often deceive us, right?

Jeremiah 17, nine says that the heart is desperately wicked. Who can know it, right? So this is one of the primary reasons why

I encourage people to be in the scriptures. So when we fill our mind with God's truth, we're in a better position to differentiate between what

God is saying and what we're saying to ourselves. And we're also able to differentiate between God's voice and the many other voices that influence us in general, right?

So our thoughts are always going to be placed within the backdrop of scripture that we have hidden in our hearts, so to speak, or our minds, right?

So let's be more specific with respect to the question. I think it's vital to recognize that we're creating

God's image, as Genesis 1, 26 says, and God is not created in our image.

This is important. There are things we share in common with God, but in very important ways,

God is vastly different from us, okay? So consider the scripture, for example, Isaiah 55, verses eight through nine, which says, for my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the

Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Now, in light of this fact, okay, it should help answer the initial question with respect to differentiating between God's voice and our own thoughts.

So the point is that God does not sound like you or me, okay? This is important.

The voices in your head, your thoughts, sound like the one from which they come. God's voice is, of course, fundamentally different, okay?

And of course, when God is speaking to us, okay, again, the word of God hidden in our heart is going to be the standard by which we judge, you know, what's going on in that situation, right?

So another thing to consider, I think, is whether the voice in your head is in agreement with the Bible. That's the key thing, okay?

When we know God, when we know the scriptures, we learn that God never contradicts himself.

He's a God of truth, okay? And as the saying goes, the hallmark of truth is consistency. God is consistent.

And so if the thoughts in your head are in conflict with what God has already revealed, right, then you can be sure it's not

God speaking to you. So to give an example, I knew a couple who were professed believers.

They were newly married, but shortly after they got married, things got, like, super messy, and the woman in the relationship asserted that she believed, through her prayer and reflection, that it was

God's will for them to get a divorce. And so there was no marital unfaithfulness or anything like that, you know, based upon what

I was told, right? There was definitely no biblical warrant based upon what they told me. There was no biblical warrant for the divorce.

And so it's most definitely the case that God would not have condoned the divorce given the circumstances, right?

So we need to ask ourselves, would God say this or that, okay?

If you know God's word, you'll be in a better position to make a proper, you know, the proper differentiations, right?

So super important. So in the final analysis, I think while I do believe that God can speak to us in any way he pleases, okay?

No one's gonna say, hey, God can't talk this way, or God can't do this, that, or the other thing. The primary way in which he speaks to us is through his word.

And God never speaks in a fashion that contradicts that word. So my advice to the person who asked this specific question is to not be primarily driven by what he or she thinks may or may not be

God in his or her head, but rather be driven by that which we know is God's voice, and that is the

Holy Scriptures, okay? I'm gonna say that again, okay? We need to not be driven by what we think

God might be saying to us, but rather we should be driven by what we know God has said to us, and what we know is what is inscripturated in God's word, okay?

The less you are in God's word, the less discerning you will be to differentiate the voices in your head between your own thoughts and what

God may or may not be speaking to you, okay? This is super, super important because this has great practical import, okay?

A lot of people who emphasize prayer but neglect scripture reading can be very dangerous.

That's why the Christian life has to be one of balance. We not only are praying and seeking God and speaking with God, but we are also filled with God's truth as it sets a standard in our heart to judge truth from falsity, whether it's the thoughts in our head or the thoughts of someone else's head coming out in the form of teaching or anything along those lines.

So super, super duper important. All right. Now, I'm just gonna step aside real quick.

Now, I'm taking questions that were sent to me, but if you have questions in the chat, I will try my best to answer them.

And it is 945, so I don't know how sharp I'll be. So if I don't know the answer to your question, if you have a question,

I will just let you know, hey, that's a great question. I don't know the answer to, so. But I love when people ask me questions that I don't know because it gives me something to study.

It gives me something to research. So if you do have a question, shoot away and shoot away or ask away.

I don't know if I said that right. Just preface your question with the word question so that I could differentiate it from comments.

Okay? All right. But since there are no questions, I'll continue through my list here. And I hope this is helpful.

You can give me a thumbs up or a happy face emoji if what I'm saying is making sense and it's being, it's useful to you, that would be very helpful to me.

So, all right. So here's another question that was sent to me. Several mainstream churches are very welcoming to the gay community.

I see a rainbow flag hanging outside some churches. Is this something that is okay?

Okay. Okay. So several mainstream, okay. So several mainstream churches are very welcoming to the gay community.

I see a rainbow flag hanging outside some churches. Is this something that is okay? So, all right.

So to answer this question straightforwardly, no, it's not okay. All right. On the one hand, we want to be welcoming to those within the

LGBTQ plus community, right? But being welcoming to such people is not equivalent to celebrating, right?

Their lifestyle choices by, you know, placing their representative flag outside of place, outside of the place of worship, okay?

The same goes for like the Satanist, okay? I want to welcome the Satanist, right?

If the person's coming in the church, I'm not going to kick them out because he's a Satanist, right? Such individuals need to be welcomed to a certain extent, but what are they welcome to?

They're welcome to come and hear the gospel. You're going to come into the church, you're going to hear the gospel, and you're going to hear a message of repentance.

You're going to hear the things you should hear, and those aren't being unwelcoming, that's welcoming, and also standing firm on where we need to be.

So just as I will not put a flag out for anyone within the

LGBTQ community, because I'm not celebrating that, I like fashion, I'm not going to put a

Satanic flag out my place of worship just to show my support for, you know, for those people.

That wouldn't make any sense, okay? So the church, biblically speaking, should welcome sinners, right?

For such were some of us, as 1 Corinthians 6, verse 11 says, right? But we will welcome them, and I think as we welcome all people, biblically, we're going to welcome them in a biblically consistent way in which is going to include a biblical presentation of the gospel, a biblical call to repentance, and a turning away from that which is not pleasing to God, right?

Jesus loves sinners, right? Jesus says, I came for the sick, not for the healthy, Mark 2, 17, but I don't think

Jesus would have been waving, you know, the gay flag around to demonstrate his love for sinners, right, and I don't think we should either.

So yeah, I think that's important. All right, let's see here.

All right, here's another question, and then I got a question in the chat, so I see your question, Jen. I will get to that in just a moment.

So next question here. So did God just decide one day to make everything?

Could there have been a creation before us, and will there be another after?

Okay, so did God just create one day? Did God just decide one day to make everything?

Could there have been a creation before us? Okay, so no, God didn't just create, okay?

So that language there smells of arbitrariness, right? So God didn't just create one day to make everything as though his decision to do this was arbitrary and just decided upon on a whim, right?

God never acts in an arbitrary fashion, okay? God is never arbitrary.

If you look at Ephesians 1, verse 11, it says that God works all things after the counsel of his will.

The all things would, by extension, include the creation of everything, and the creation of everything was done after the counsel of his will.

God has a counsel and he has a will, and because all things falls under that umbrella, it stands to reason that creation itself was done for a specific purpose, okay?

So with respect to the second part of the question, could there be a creation before or after if God so desired, right?

He could, right? God can do whatever he pleases. Whether he was pleased or not to create prior to creating us or not, we're not told, right?

And I don't, if people are thinking, the different theories in Genesis, right? I don't see anything textually to suggest that there was some sort of creation prior to God creating the heavens and the earth or prior to all the things scripture says he created.

So I'm not sure if the questioner has in mind like some sort of like gap theory, which in some views constitute a rebellion and a creation after that rebellion with respect to all these sorts of things,

Genesis verses one and two and stuff like that. So with respect to a future creation, the Bible does make reference to a new heaven and a new earth.

Is that referring to a renewal of what was before or is this an entirely new creation personally?

Me personally, I'm not sure, okay? I hope that's helpful, yeah. All right, see, we got a couple of questions here.

And again, I'll try my best to answer them. Jen Nesset, our church is doing one year

Bible challenge and we are going through Genesis 41 at this point. Did people eat meat before Noah left the ark?

Did people eat meat before Noah left the ark?

I would assume so. I mean, yeah, I think they would have.

I mean, again, you have different views as to when people ate meat. Some people think that animal death is the result of the fall.

And then you have people who believe that human death was the only kind of death that resulted from the fall.

So you're gonna have different specific angles that someone might come at that question, okay?

All right, thanks for that question. Emilio Beltran, what is your take when someone says

Jesus died for all and he paid for the sins of all? Are they saying that everyone's sins have been taken away or removed?

If so, how does atonement apply? Yeah, so if someone says Jesus died for all and he paid for the sins of all, we need to make a distinction, right?

We have to ask the question, what does this person mean by all? As it is popularly brought up, all doesn't always mean all in the sense that many people think.

You could have all without exception or you could have all without distinction, okay?

Those are two senses in which one can understand all. So for example, when the Bible says that all Jerusalem went out to the

Jordan, right? To see John the Baptist, that doesn't mean that all of Jerusalem was like literally empty, right?

You could have all without exception, all without distinction. The Bible also makes differentiation between Jew and Gentile.

So it makes this idea of all without distinction. There is no distinction between Jew or Gentile.

It doesn't necessarily refer to all without exception. Now, I do think that it is problematic to suggest that Jesus' death on the cross paid literally for everyone's sin.

That wouldn't make sense to me. I don't think that's biblically consistent. I think the person who says this,

Jesus died for all and he paid for the sins of all, depending when you say, are they saying, well, it depends who's saying this, right?

But if you think that atonement is universal, that Jesus died for the sins of every single person who'd ever live, they would probably say that what is the qualifier for them to enjoy the benefits of the death of Christ is faith, they'd have to place faith in Christ.

And then of course these benefits apply, okay? Now, I do not take the all when I say

Christ died for all, I don't take it necessarily as all without exception. I would make the distinction between all without distinction,

Jew and Gentile. I think God, that the atonement of Christ paid for the sins of God's elect, right?

From both Jew and Gentile. And as the book of Colossians says, he nailed the certificate of debt on the cross canceling out, right?

He canceled out the debt. So, yeah, so again, it's a nuanced question.

It really depends when you say, are they saying, it really depends who's saying, is this person Arminian in their theology? Are they

Calvinistic in their theology? Your theology is going to matter with respect to how you answer that question, okay?

Hope that's helpful, Emilio. Thanks for the question, man. I'm gonna adjust my chair one more time, I'm getting short again.

There we go, now I'm tall again, there we go. All right, good questions. I feel like the

Bible answer man, before he went Orthodox. Okay, answering all these questions.

These are great questions. Let me see, hopefully I can answer them. Let's see here,

Jen again. And many in the Old Testament had multiple wives and slept with their wives.

Slaves, was God displeased with them? Where do we get single now? It's a big question. I haven't, you know what,

Jen? I have an article on the issue of polygamy. Maybe I will put a link to that article, find it and try to put a link in the comments.

You could check that out, okay? It's a question that I'd have to sit down and unpack some things that I don't think

I'm prepared to do off the top of my head right now. So let's see here. Brenda, Brenda, hello,

Brenda. Brenda says, William Lane Craig accepts evolution in some sense. Do you accept or reject evolution? And if you disagree with William Lane Craig, in what way and why?

Yeah, so I do not accept evolution. We'd have to be more specific what we mean by evolution, right?

So you have macroevolution, microevolution, Darwinian evolution, neo -Darwinian evolution, punctuated equilibrium, all these sorts of things.

But with respect to William Lane Craig's view as put forth in his book, as put forth in his book, in the quest of the historical

Adam, I do not affirm Dr. Craig's reading of Genesis, where he speaks of this idea of mytho -history.

I actually had Dr. Jason Lyle come onto the show. I think it's called The Historical Adam. If you look on my page where we talk specifically about Dr.

Craig's position, I do not accept Dr. Craig's reading of Genesis and his analysis of the scientific data and things like that is very important.

The issue of the science with respect to evolution I don't think is as straightforward as many people think because when you're dealing with science and scientific questions, those questions are going to by necessity be paradigmatic, right?

We're dealing with people's paradigms and presuppositions and that impacts the way you interpret the data. So when someone says clearly the science says

A, B, or C, well, no, what we see in science are interpretations based on presuppositions and interpretations of various observations and things like that.

This whole debate over evolution really is a worldview issue. It's not simply a look at the facts issue as I don't think that's ever the case with anything.

You don't just look and see. As we're told, the evidence speaks for itself. I do not believe evidence speaks for itself because evidence doesn't speak.

As Cornelius Mantill, I think rightly said, brute facts, which many people take to be like these self -evident facts, brute facts are mute facts.

Facts don't speak, right? We have presuppositions, we have worldviews, and those impact how we interpret the data of human experience, okay?

So I do not accept Dr. Craig's position. I do not take his reading of Genesis.

All right, thank you for the question, Brenda. I appreciate it. Let's see here.

Emilio says, yes, with respect, every single person that ever lived, including everyone who will never come to faith. Yeah, I don't believe that Christ died for the sins of someone who will never come to faith.

So I'm a Calvinist, right? I'm Reformed in my theology, and I hold to the doctrine of definite atonement.

Christ's death and atonement paid specifically for those that it was intended, people from every tribe, tongue, and nation,

Jew of Jew and Gentile. So yeah, I would challenge the universal atonement position.

And of course, that'll just be the classic debate between like Calvinist Armenians or people who might not identify as Armenians, but hold to a universal perspective with respect to the atonement of Christ.

So yeah, let's see here. Yeah, so the

Rev says, what makes a Reformed Baptist? And kindly explain the catechism in brief.

Love and prayers for you from India. Well, thank you, Rev. I appreciate your question. What makes for a

Reformed Baptist? Well, Reformed Baptist, there's, it depends. I mean, if you're like a 1689

Baptist, the London Baptist Confession, what makes a

Reformed Baptist? The answer to that question will be answered nicely if you read the confession, okay? They're Reformed in their soteriology and there's specific views of covenant.

And again, it's a difficult question because it depends what kind of Reformed Baptist is in question.

I tend to lean towards the Reformed Baptist position and I would hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession.

So if you really want kind of a rundown on what Reformed Baptists believe, I think walking through that confession would be very useful to you.

I can't explain the catechism in brief. Depends what you mean, which catechism do you have in mind?

And if so, catechisms cover a wide range of stuff. So unfortunately, I could answer maybe a more specific question.

That'd be much too broad for me to deal with here. So I do apologize, okay? Thank you for your question.

Jen Nesset attacks again. No, she doesn't attack. It is a good question. She strikes again with another question. What is your view of eschatology?

Yeah, so I am a partial preterist. I take Matthew 24, Luke 21,

Mark 13 to be referring to the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem. I take the early dating, for example, of the book of Revelation.

I think the book of Revelation was written pre AD 70. And I think it is depicting in apocalyptic literary form events that were experienced in the near and soon future of those who originally received the letter.

With respect to my millennial position, I am flexible, but I lean post -millennial, but I am open to be convinced otherwise, right?

And so those are my positions with respect to general. I'm a partial preterist.

I believe the great tribulation, my trib view is that it passed. It was in reference to events back in the day.

And I do believe in the bodily coming of Christ. I do believe in a future resurrection, new heavens, new earth, those sorts of things.

So that would be my, and I'm post -millennial with respect to my millennial position, okay? Although I do have some pretty smart people that are looking, staring me down and saying, you know, you should really consider amillennialism.

So I'm down. It's just, it's been a while since I've covered those specific topics. So, so yeah.

Toshuva says, do you know who Sam Shamoon is? I know Sam. I've spoken with him on the phone a long time ago.

He probably won't remember me. So if I called him now, I think I still have his number. If I call him now, he probably won't remember who

I am, but I do know who Sam is. And I've watched a lot of his, a lot of his content. Yeah.

All right. Well, thank you for those questions. I'm gonna return to my main questions, unless you have more questions and I will flip back and forth between the questions that I was gonna cover and the questions that you may have.

So thank you so much for those questions. I appreciate it. And I hope I answered to your satisfaction somewhat.

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

Okay. Let's see here. So here's my next question that I was asked.

How would you explain to an unbeliever that a just and loving God can send people to hell?

Okay. That's a very popular question. A lot of people ask this question. It's a good question.

First, I would like to point out that we shouldn't be apologetic about this.

I do believe that God is just and he's loving and he sends people to hell. Those aren't logically incompatible, right?

So if we were to provide a simple and straightforward answer to the question, I would say that it's because God is just, he is righteous, he's holy, he's loving and so forth, right?

And that his character demands the punishment of sin. So if God didn't punish sin, he wouldn't be just.

So this question only becomes difficult if we start with an imbalanced view of God, right?

And we typically overemphasize his love in church and preaching and these sorts of things. How can

I say this? So I think this question becomes difficult if we have this kind of imbalance, right?

And I think the problem is we overemphasize God's love in various discussions in Christian discourse or we have an incomplete view or an inaccurate view of the nature of God's love, right?

This is when we run into problems when explaining the fact that God sends people to hell, right? So now it should be noted,

I think, that the issue of hell is an important issue and it is often an issue that has great emotional import, okay?

So we shouldn't deal with this question in a cavalier way. It is a serious topic, right? Even believers have difficulty with this concept, okay?

But we're gonna wanna make a distinction between emotional difficulty versus the logical difficulty, okay?

So for instance, one can struggle emotionally with this idea, but the emotional struggle has no bearing as to whether it's true or not.

I think that's an important distinction to make. So as believers, we're gonna wanna conform our emotions to the truth of God, right?

As revealed in his word. So sometimes those truths aren't comfortable, but the fact, that fact doesn't change anything, right?

If we are uncomfortable about something, that doesn't mean that it isn't true or whatever, okay?

So I would explain this concept by laying out a general, in a general sense, a balanced and biblical picture of the character and the nature of God and the character and nature of man and his sin and how all this relates to God and our standing before him.

And then I would, from within that balanced and biblical conception of God, I'd answer the specific point in question.

So I think what makes it possible for us to answer this question adequately is to have a balanced conception of who

God is, all right? And I think that's so important. And unfortunately, in churches across America, we tend to have an overemphasis on the attribute of God's love to the exclusion or distortion with respect to his attributes of wrath and justice and holiness and things like that, okay?

So I hope that makes sense. And I hope that's useful for anyone who's listening in and was wondering about that question.

All right, so let's see here. Let's see here.

All right, Jimmy. Hi, I assume you probably believe in some form of theistic determinism, okay? But do you believe

God must determine things to achieve maximal value within a world? What do you mean must?

I think that God's determination is rooted in his decree, okay?

I don't think that God could create without a decree because a decree is an extension of what he desires to accomplish.

If he does not have a desire to accomplish something, then creation would be arbitrary, which I don't think is the case.

So I'd be cautious of the language. Did he, must he do this in order to achieve maximal value in the world?

What does that even mean? I don't even know what maximal value means. What kind of value are you talking about? God determines the world that he desires to determine as it relates to specific purposes that he wishes to accomplish, right?

So that's how I would answer that question. I think the question is respectfully, I think it's ill -formed, okay?

All right, thank you for that. What is your position on biblical inerrancy and how do you understand differences, variations between Masoretic texts and the

Septuagint? Thank you. I do believe in biblical inerrancy. My perspective is very much in line with the

Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. I'm not an expert in issues of Masoretic texts and the

Septuagint and all those sorts of things, but I don't think that the doctrine of inerrancy as expressed in the

Chicago Statement is at all jeopardized by the reality of textual variation and things like that.

But again, that's not an area that I am an expert in. So I guess I'd have to have a specific example if someone were to be like, but what about this textual issue here?

I believe that the original autographa, right, are inspired by God. I do believe that mistakes are in the manuscript tradition, but those mistakes are not the sorts of mistakes that make it impossible, pardon, for us to know what was in the original, all right?

All right, thank you for that question. Let's see here, let's see here.

Kim Coom, Kim Coom, I think. Yeah, Yam Coom, I apologize.

Is the covenant of grace conditional or unconditional? If the covenant of grace is conditional, is faith the necessary condition, given it is completely the work of the triune

God and given faith? I don't know if I answer that. I don't know if I understand that question.

Grace is conditional. Is faith a necessary condition? Well, we are saved by faith, okay?

And faith is a gift of God, given it is completely the work of the triune God. Okay, I don't know what being assumed in this question.

I place my faith in Christ because I am effectually enabled to do so by the regenerative work of the

Holy Spirit. So I'm kind of cautious of this, given it is completely the work of the triune God and given faith.

I don't understand the question. Yeah, sorry. Yeah, maybe you could rephrase the question and I'll try to deal with it here, okay?

All right, let's see here. Mason, been reading

Calvin, refuting the scholastics like Peter Lombard and the Institutes. What do you think about Lombard and the scholastics and what is still good in them for us as Protestants?

I am not familiar with Peter Lombard's work. I'm familiar with Peter Lombard. I have not read his work, nor have

I read Calvin's work refuting him specifically. So I do apologize. I am unable to answer that question.

What is this, stump Eli day? That was a good question. Hey, listen, there are a lot of things in church history that I think are vitally important for us to know, but I tend to study the things that are immediately relevant to where God has placed me in.

So I'm not an expert in church history. I understand the value of church history. I know it enough that someone can't pull the wool over my eyes, right?

But it's not an area that I've spent as much time as I would like. As a matter of fact,

I've recently opened up my file on the church fathers and I'm gonna start reading some more fathers and broader church history, especially during the time of the

Reformation and things like that. But I tend to study the things that are more relevant to immediate needs in my life, in my ministry, and the sort of job that I do.

So I do apologize if you ask a great historical question like that and I'm unable to answer that question.

So yeah, so there you go. Thank you for the question. Let's see here, apologetic day.

Jeremiah, how's it going? Do I have any merch yet? I think there's merch. If you go on my website, there's a merch thing, but no one's ever ordered it before.

I don't know what, no one has ever ordered. So like if someone were to order something, I don't know what happens.

It's like, wait, do we get like a notification and we have to, this never happened before.

Although if we did have merch, if you look at some of the things on the website, they look pretty cool. So I don't even have my own merch, but I want to,

I want to get my own merch because the Revealed Apologetics logo looks awesome on a black hoodie.

If you go on my website and you go on the merch section, there's pictures of what merch would look like and it actually looks pretty dope.

So, so there you go. Let's see here. Yeah, someone should test that out. So Revealed Apologetics coffee mug.

Yeah, that, that would be awesome. Yeah, definitely could use, use the support. Let me get the website here.

That's funny. And that's the first time someone has ever asked that. Let's see here. Yep, there's a merch dropdown window.

I click on it. What happens? Let's see what happens. Apparel.

Okay. All right, this looks, it looks pretty dope. Let me put the link in there. Put the link there.

I have no idea what happens. If you order something, let's see. Do I get a notification?

Do I have to call somebody? Here you go. There's the link. Okay. There's a

Revealed Apologetics merch. If someone, if someone gets merch and they order it, you got to send me a picture.

And then that, cause let me tell you, the logo looks pretty awesome. You know what? I have to get myself a hoodie, a

Revealed Apologetics hoodie, just to kind of represent while I'm doing live. Look what I'm wearing now. This is not, this is not, it's

Levi's, right? This is not a, this is not Revealed Apologetics. So, so yeah, let me know. Let me know what happens.

Okay. All right. Let's see here. Thank you so much for the $4 .99 super chat.

I feel like I haven't had a super chat in a while. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Thank you. So Manson Hollowell, okay.

What would you say to an atheist who says they don't need to account for the preconditions of intelligibility?

Yeah, yeah, simple. I don't need to account for why I think God exists. There you go.

If you don't need to account for the very foundation of the arguments that you're making, then again, that's going to destroy communication, right?

Well, if we all thought like that and we don't have to give a justification for our position, okay, then I don't have to give a justification for my belief in God and the

Bible. And every time you ask me for a justification, where's your evidence, dude? And I'll be like, I don't have to give you evidence.

I just know God exists. That's it, right? You see, so that knife cuts both ways. When someone says

I don't need to account for the preconditions of intelligibility, what they're doing by extension is affirming that it is completely fine to be arbitrary, okay?

And if we're going to be arbitrary, then this particular atheist is no longer in the arguing game.

He's not giving arguments. He's not engaged in the debate. He has nothing to give in terms of interaction, okay?

So yeah, someone says, well, I don't have to give an account. Okay, yeah, then neither do

I, right? Kind of reminds me of what Jesus said, right? When Jesus says to the religious leaders, tell us, are you the

Messiah? He says, I'll answer your question if you answer my question. John the Baptist, is he from God or from men?

And so the religious leaders, they reason amongst themselves and they say, well, if we say he's from men, the people support

John the Baptist, so they don't want to look bad in front of the crowd, but if they say he's from God, then he's going to say, why did we resist him?

So there's a trap question. They respond to Jesus and say, well, we don't know. And so Jesus says, neither will

I answer your question, right, and he walks away. So someone doesn't want to give an account for their position, be like, okay, then I don't need to give an account for mine, bye.

Thank you, nice talking to you, right? Okay, so again, that's not really a good show on the part of the atheist if he wants to just be arbitrary, okay?

Matthew Banks, have you ever heard the hologram theory? And if so, what are your thoughts? I could explain better if needed.

Yes, please explain. I have never heard of the hologram theory, but if you give me a summary of the hologram theory,

I may be able to apply some presuppositional principles to draw out from the explanation and perhaps provide an answer, okay?

There you go, okay. Juan Lopez, Protestantism is a joke. Okay, all right, well, thank you,

Juan. Thank you for that great insight. I really appreciate it. Very interesting drive -by comments.

It would be nice if you left a link explaining why you think Protestantism is a joke.

Maybe if you're not a Protestant and you care about Protestants to, maybe,

I don't know if this person's a Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox, if you care about Protestants and you care about them coming to the truth,

I would think that maybe someone might want to, gee, I don't know, give us some information that maybe we can look up and have a meaningful reflection upon whether our position as Protestants are true.

I mean, this drive -by, Protestants is a joke, that's like me coming on a Catholic channel and saying, Catholics are dumb.

It's like, well, that doesn't really get us anywhere. So, yeah, anyway, let's see here.

Let's see, CBest, what's an example of using presuppositional argument against Islam? Yeah, so Islam, interestingly enough, claims to be a continuation of God's revelation, right?

That Muhammad is giving us kind of the, he's called the seal of the prophets, right? He's giving us the final revelation.

And what is taught in Islam is that we, as Christians and Jews, are able to test whether Muhammad is a true prophet by going into the prior revelation that God has given us, right?

And of course, Muslims will look at Christians as the people of the book. And so they believe that we have, to some extent, a revelation from Allah that we can use and validate and test the genuine prophethood of Muhammad.

The problem is that when we do these things and we actually look in what comes before, what will we be told by the

Muslim? Ah, well, your scriptures are corrupted. Well, wait a minute, let's suppose our scriptures are corrupted.

So then how am I, as a Christian or a Jew, how am I to listen to what

Muslims are saying that we should go back and test based upon what came before?

Well, we're unable to do that. If you think our books have been corrupted, that we can't find truth in it anymore.

And if we can find truth, how do we distinguish, right? What is the epistemic principle to differentiate what has been corrupted and what has not?

Well, of course, the Muslim is gonna suggest implicitly that the things that aren't corrupted are the things, ironically, that he thinks agrees with the

Quran or the teaching of Muhammad or whatever. So a presuppositional application is going to be that we, you know, the internal critique, we're gonna hypothetically grant the truth of the

Muslim's position, okay? And then we're going to test it for consistency, right? Well, if Islam's true,

Islam tells us that we should test Muhammad by what came before. And what you'll find is that while we're told to do this, we're actually unable to do it because of what they believe happened to our scriptures with respect to corruption and things like that.

So there are different ways you could apply that. And you could also do an internal critique with respect to Muslim theology and the conception of Allah, whether it's consistent along the lines of epistemology.

For example, if Allah is the foundation for knowledge, how does that square with the idea that in Islam, God is able to lie?

He is the greatest schemers and greatest deceiver of deceivers. So that has implication with respect to someone's epistemology.

So there are different ways that you can come at it. It just depends on the nature of the person you're speaking with.

So yeah, great question. Let's see here. Let's see.

I wouldn't say I know a whole lot about it, the hologram theory. Something that I came across one day, it's basically the idea of a holographic universe.

It was endorsed by a pastor named Chuck Missler. Okay, well, I don't know. I would need enough information on it.

So unfortunately I wouldn't be able to answer that question. So I apologize. Let's see here.

Jimmy, would you consider any attempt to show that two or more of a person's beliefs when held in conjunction with one another lead to a contradiction?

Is a presuppositional critique is a presuppositional critique of a worldview? Yeah, I mean, it could.

So like if you say, if someone holds to a belief, we have a worldview, right?

So within our worldview, we're gonna have multiple beliefs, right? I would argue that a presupposition is a, or a worldview rather is a network of presuppositions in terms of which all realities interpreted.

And so if it's a network, a worldview is a network of presuppositions, then you're gonna have those presuppositions and beliefs that we have, these pre -beliefs are gonna be connected to the other beliefs that we have.

And when we're talking about issues of fundamental nature with respect to that worldview, if there are contradictions within those, there's tensions and contradictions within those presuppositions, and yes,

I would say that that is an adequate presuppositional critique to show that the assumptions of the competing worldview is in conflict with itself.

And so that would be, in some cases, would be a perfect context to demonstrate a reductio ad absurdum with respect to their view.

But again, it's all gonna depend on the specific thing that you're talking about, okay? All right, let me keep asking the questions.

This is great, good questions. Okay, I'm gonna go return back to my mainstream questions and then I'm gonna return back to the comments, okay?

So let's see here. How do we know that certain biblical events didn't happen solely to fulfill a prophecy?

A certain action was done for the sake of fulfilling what was written? That's an interesting question. Well, not all events recorded in the

Bible are the result of some previous prophetic utterance or prediction, right? So with respect to specific prophecies,

I believe we know that an event occurred in order to fulfill prophecy because the Bible indicates that, right?

So for instance, if something's predicted or prophesied in the Bible, I think the divine intention is to eventually fulfill that which was prophesied.

Now, I don't think that a biblical event happens solely for the purpose of being fulfilled, but there may be specific purposes for which an event in the

Bible occurs. For example, the birth of the Messiah is prophesied and the fulfillment of that prophecy does not occur simply for the purpose of saying, oh, look, it was fulfilled, right?

God had a specific purpose in bringing the Messiah into the world. So yeah, so I'm not sure if I understood that question, right, but I hope that helps, okay?

Let's see here. All right, okay.

Well, let's see, how much time have we been going here? I hope people are finding this useful. I mean, give me a thumbs up or something, man.

I hope this is useful for folks. I have no idea how people are finding this and I'm trying my best here, so hopefully it's useful for people who are listening.

The Bible says, whosoever believes shall not perish, but the road still seems narrow. If belief is the requirement, is belief different than what we perceive?

That sounds like a high school student asked that question. Let's see here. So first, okay, so whosoever believes shall not perish.

So the reference John 3, 16, right, should actually be translated everyone who believes.

I don't think the whosoever is necessarily in the text there but the road is narrow, as Jesus said in Matthew 7, 13 through 14, but I don't think it is literally referring to the idea that there are only a few persons who are saved, right?

Because in John, the apostle John in Revelation sees a vision of heaven in which he describes a multitude which no man can number, people from every tribe, tongue, and nation.

So I think this language is trying to convey the difficulty of following the right path, okay? It's difficult and cannot be done without the grace of God for it is

God who works in you both to will and to do for his good pleasure, Philippians 2, 12. So with respect to the second portion of that question, if belief is the requirement, is belief different from what we perceive?

Well, first, I'm not sure how this person is perceiving belief, right? I would wanna say to specify that it's more appropriate to talk about faith or trust being required and that itself is a gift of God as Ephesians 2, five through I think eight says and Philippians 1, 29 says that it's granted to us to believe.

So if God grants faith, then such a person will walk that narrow road that Jesus mentions.

If God does not grant faith, then such a person on his own will take the wide and easy path, okay?

All right, let's return back to some of the comments and some more questions. Great, this is good, good, good, good, good.

Let's see here. Again, let's see.

Yim Kum asks, what are the impacts of feminism in the church today?

Well, yeah, like movements like feminism, especially that sort of feminism that is, you know, giving genuine feminism a bad name, right?

It's kind of this negative feminism we see in society has swallowed up the inkling of virtue that originally feminism was trying to promote.

Yeah, these sorts of philosophies in as much as the church is being, is allowing itself to be changed by culture is going to be detrimental, right?

We need to be, as the people of God, firm on the foundation of God's word, not allowing the culture to change us, but being the sort of people of God in which we are changing culture.

So you can remove feminism and put some other movement in there that's detrimental to, you know, what we believe as Christians.

Anytime we allow culture to be the thing that is dictating the direction the church is going, then this is going to impact the church, right?

And this is why we need to be brought back to a commitment to the Bible and consistently apply the teaching of scripture regardless of what the world thinks.

I think a lot of churches care too much about how they're being perceived that they actually sacrifice genuine teaching of scripture to accommodate various narratives and movements that are happening in our culture today.

So, yeah, I hope that's helpful there. Let's see here. Some stuff about divine simplicity.

That's a big deal these days. Yeah, compatibilism is, yeah, compatibilism is, it is a complex issue.

Let's see here. Reductio Dave, that's a fun name. When someone tells you the Bible is just one more holy book, what's your go -to response?

Well, again, I would say, and, okay, now this is important, and, okay, which implies that there needs to be more to that assertion because look what happens here.

Now, when you're in dialogue and debate, the burden of proof is on the person who makes the assertion, isn't that right?

Okay, so when someone says the Bible is just one more holy book, I'm like, well, can

I have an argument, please? Right, I'd like an argument for that. And of course, when they give the argument, then you are free to poke holes in those arguments.

That depends on what they say. They say, well, it's just one more holy book.

Okay, that doesn't mean it's false. Yeah, the Bible's a holy book. It's a bunch of books.

Does that mean it's false? What follows from this? When someone says the Bible's just one more holy book, what follows from that?

Okay, it's a holy book. Yeah, I agree, it's a holy book. Right, I believe it's the word of God. Oh, oh, so you're implying that it's not true.

Ah, okay, so that's different, right? So these assertions, again, when someone makes the assertion, they have the burden of proof.

And sometimes the assertion is meant to imply something that doesn't necessarily logically follow from what they're trying to get at, okay?

So that's some of the things I would bring out, all right? All right, let's see here.

Let's see here. What's your favorite

Old Testament passage to demonstrate the foundations of precept? My favorite is Psalm 10.

Mine is in Psalm as well. Let me see here. I'm gonna get the reference here. It's really short.

Yeah, so my favorite precept verse is Psalm 36, nine. I usually use, when someone says, can you explain to me presuppositional apologetics, right, and Christian worldview, and all these sorts of things in a super simple way that a child could understand?

This is the kind of questions I get, right? And it's a fair question, because when we're talking to an atheist and we're talking about metaphysics and epistemology and all that jazz, it can become very complicated.

But a simple way, I think what summarizes is Psalm 36, nine. Psalm 36, nine says that in his light, we see light, okay?

It is only in the light of God that we see things truly, right, and that's basically what the Christian is saying, right?

Now there's more to it, of course, right? I think that presuppositional apologetics is essentially an attempt to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, even the thoughts of the unbeliever.

So as a Christian, I'm bringing every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. That has entailments with respect to how

I do apologetics, okay? And as I'm seeking to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, I try in my apologetic encounter to show the foolishness of what happens when the unbeliever does not submit his thoughts to Christ, right?

His views are reduced to absurdity. Of course, that's the argument. You're gonna have to hash that out in more detail, but there you go.

That's how, those are some of the scriptures that I would refer to. Yeah, good, good, good.

Let's see here. Jimmy asks, how should you structure an introductory apologetics presentation for lay audience before getting into the arguments?

What should be discussed and explained prior to that? Okay, this is an excellent question, all right?

I believe that apologetics flows out of the soil of our theology, which again, rooted in scripture, right?

Okay, so scripture is the soil out of which our apologetics grows.

If we think apologetics is like a flower or something, right? It needs to flow from a particular soil and that soil needs to be the scripture, biblically based theology and so forth, okay?

And so when I teach apologetics, I never teach it without placing the discussion within the context of being biblically consistent, okay?

So I will talk about the importance of knowing the scripture. I will give a biblical basis for doing apologetics.

I will give examples from the Bible of apologetics being done in the way that I intend to then lay out the rest of the method, okay?

And so basically we wanna teach people how to defend the faith like Jesus did, like the apostles did.

Now they didn't walk around saying transcendental analysis and all that kind of stuff, of course not, right?

But the principles are there, all right? I do not believe that the Bible necessarily explicitly lays out, this is what presuppositional apologetics is.

The principles out of which presuppositional apologetics is comprised of are biblically based.

God is the ultimate authority, okay? We do not argue to him, we argue from him because we are fully committed to him.

There's nothing above him. We do not put a standard above him, right? Not even logic is above God, right?

Logic is ministerial, it is not magisterial, right? This is super important. So I would talk about the importance of scripture, biblical theology, the nature and role of authority and how that impacts the way we reason and argue with people.

And so I would ground my presentation in scripture first, before you then proceed to utilize practical examples and hypothetical situations in which you can then apply these biblically based principles to those situations.

And of course, for example, Proverbs 26, answer not the fool according to his folly, lest you be a fool like unto him.

Answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes, okay? That's a biblical presuppositional principle and you could apply that to a certain situation, okay?

You do not want to answer the fool according to his own presuppositions because then you're gonna be in the same boat as he. But you know what, hypothetically, let's hypothetically grant the fool the fool's position and then show if what the fool says is true, look what absurdities result, okay?

So that's one of the ways that I would do it to allay audience, right? Keep them in the scripture because a lot of people are not going to be engaged in deep philosophical discussion.

But if that's the audience that you're dealing with and maybe perhaps they're more philosophically and theologically sophisticated and nuanced, then you could adjust your presentation to be more along those lines, okay?

Here's the thing as a teacher, you want to always contextualize the information, okay?

For example, in the course that I teach on presuppositional apologetics, which is available on the website, I go over the biblical basis for apologetics in general and then the biblical basis for presuppositional apologetics more specifically.

And then I go into the mechanics of it all. And now someone might be listening to the lecture or following me through my notes and my

PowerPoint slides and stuff, they'll be like, yeah, but what does this look like in like conversation? And this is where I encourage people to take what you're learning and learn how to contextualize it.

How do I take those principles and apply it to my neighbor or whatever?

But it's my intention and my goal to have someone understand the mechanics of how the apologetic works so that then they can apply that to whichever situation they're placed in, okay?

All right, so very good. That's a great question and an important question, especially with respect to teaching apologetics, okay?

All right, let's see here. Let's see here, okay.

Let's see regarding the answer. Okay, I'm gonna return briefly to my original questions and then

I'll jump right into the comments because there are a lot of questions, more questions than I expected, but that's a good thing, right?

That's a really good thing. I'm glad people are, it's 1033 and people are still watching. That's good.

So let's see here. And Amber, Amber, thank you so much.

So nice. Amber, thank you so much for your $20 super chat. That is greatly appreciated. I am greatly, greatly, greatly, greatly, greatly, greatly appreciative of that.

Thank you so much. Really, really appreciate it. All right, let's jump into some more of these questions that were sent me.

Let's see here. Where did we leave off? Are there any good arguments against Darwinian evolution?

Yeah, so evolution is kind of the standard, you know, back in the day. I don't know if it's still a big deal now.

When I talk to unbelievers, evolution doesn't come up as much as it used to.

I don't know why. I guess that's, maybe that's not your experience, but yeah, I think there are good arguments against Darwinian evolution.

First, we're gonna wanna recognize the issue of evidence, as I said earlier in the stream, and the interpretation of evidence in the field of science.

And so we need to get this through our minds that science is by no means a neutral discipline where we simply are dealing with bare facts and we're just going to the data, right?

So when people suggest, for example, that Darwinian evolution is simply the case or the facts speak for themselves, we're gonna wanna point out that the facts don't speak for themselves given that facts exist and are interpreted within a paradigm, okay?

So that's so important. I know people get annoyed like, oh, pre -suppers are always talking about world views and stuff.

Well, that's because world views are ridiculously important, right? They are the things through which we interpret everything else.

And so, yeah, they're going to be important. Now, when you're dealing with the issue of evolution, you also are going to want to deal with definitions as well.

So we need to ask the question, well, when someone brings up the issue of evolution, what do you mean by evolution, right?

Because evolution is an umbrella term, okay?

It is an umbrella term, an umbrella term. I think I said that right. And it could have different understandings, okay?

So is the flavor of evolutionary theory being suggested understood within the broader worldview of say metaphysical naturalism in terms of which reality is nothing more than matter in motion, okay?

If that's the case, then that's gonna impact the sort of arguments you might bring up against that position, okay?

Arguments against Darwinian evolution also can be philosophical in nature, or they could be more scientific in nature, right?

So we can apply philosophical arguments and they could involve issues more specified regarding the proper improper understanding of the evidentiary details with respect to interpretation and these sorts of things.

And those are going to impact how you answer, okay? So is the particular flavor of evolution being understood here within a theistic paradigm or even a

Christian theistic paradigm, right? We need to remember that logically and philosophically Darwinian evolution does not equal necessarily atheism, okay?

So if we're talking about a form of evolution that is also trying to affirm Christian theism in terms of which the

Christian God is the one who initiates the processes necessary for the evolutionary process to unfold, then that's gonna impact the angle that one's gonna come at the question, right?

I'm thinking, you know, someone like along the lines of like a Howard Van Til's fully gifted creationism, right?

It's a form of theistic evolution or something along those lines that are in, I think of the four views on creation and evolution.

So you do have Christians who, you know, come at the issue along those lines. But let's assume that the particular flavor of evolutionary theory is coming from also an atheistic naturalistic perspective, okay?

But it's gonna depend and you have to cater your answer accordingly, but just for argument's sake. So we're gonna have to make a choice whether we want to come at the issue scientifically or philosophically.

And since I consider myself more of a philosopher theologian sort of person, and I'm not an expert by any means in like the biological life sciences and things like that,

I'm gonna wanna take the route of offering maybe a philosophical analysis of the evolutionary perspective and the evolutionary worldview and how, you know, the data is interpreted and stuff like that.

And I would take that angle to try and demonstrate its inadequacies and insufficiencies as a theory and so forth.

Now, more specifically, you're gonna wanna differentiate between the micro and macro aspects of evolution, okay?

So for example, you know, with respect to really the point of contention is gonna be the issue of macro evolutionary theory, okay?

Not with, and not what, you know, what we talk about change within species, okay?

That's the micro evolutionary perspective. No one's gonna be arguing that, right? So that's to say that we will, when you're talking about evolution, you're more specifically dealing with the macro evolutionary perspective, you're dealing with the issue of species transformation, okay, the notion that species becoming other species through naturalistic processes of natural selection and genetic mutation and so forth.

So these distinctions are super important, okay? Now, first, I'm gonna wanna note that the question regarding biological diversity, okay, and how such diversity came about, you know, the diversity that we see in the world today, it's a super important question.

Evolutionary theory seeks to give an account for that diversity through appeals to naturalistic processes within the context that I've suggested, right?

We're assuming that the person in question here is dealing with an atheist who also holds to evolutionary theory and so forth.

This is not, you know, how I would address a theistic evolutionist is gonna be different, right?

Okay, but there is, of course, other factors that play into these issues that you wanna, you know, bring out with the atheist who might be holding this position.

So Greg Bonson humorously summarized the issue of interest with respect to the context of this specific question.

He says that the point is the diversity of life forms all came in a naturalistic process from a common blob or came supernaturally from a common

God, okay? That's what he said. Kind of, that's what we're asking here. So if we're taking evolutionary theory as it comes packaged within the context of naturalistic atheism, then

I think his statement summarizes well, really the two competing views with respect to accounting for biological diversity we see today, okay?

So notice that we're dealing with worldview issues. And so I'm gonna always bring it back to worldviews to paradigms, okay?

So you wanna notice how I set up the issue as a worldview encounter. And this is important because the nature of this dispute is a worldview issue, okay?

And so you're gonna wanna begin with an internal critique of the evolutionary perspective by coming at it from a particular perspective.

You know, let's take, for example, mathematics, okay? Mathematics and probability theory. That's one way you might come at it, okay?

There are other ways, right? If you examine evolution from within its own paradigm, you know, these are interesting things to bring up, okay?

So for example, if you take a look at the mathematical problems with evolution, okay? Evolutionary theory is typically put forth as true.

It's genuine science in terms of which biodiversity is accounted for by purely random naturalistic processes, right?

A critique that can be offered and has been offered doesn't necessarily require the

Christian to use the Bible and engage in an external, what we'd call an external critique of the evolutionary worldview.

Rather, I think we could hypothetically, if we wanted to do like an internal critique, we could hypothetically grant the macro evolutionary postulate, right?

And consider what others within a non -Christian perspective have said about it, right?

That's a kind of form of an internal critique. Now, for instance, if we consider mathematical probability of random mutations produced with a vast array of biological diversity we see in the world, you'll find that the probability of this process happening randomly is astronomically small, even when you consider that billions of years are required for the process to unfold, right?

So this is, I think, super important, okay? Especially when you consider that mutations, right?

We talk about natural selection and genetic mutation. Mutations tend to be harmful to the organism in question, right?

So let's take, for example, back in the 60s, okay? There were a series of academic papers published by two editors,

I think Moorhead and Kaplan, which was entitled Mathematical Challenges to the

Neo -Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution. And in that work, there was an article written by someone by the name of Eden Murray, entitled

Inadequacies of Neo -Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory. And in this article, Murray concludes with the following, and this is important here, okay?

Because they're coming at it from a mathematical probabilistic perspective. And Eden Murray says, quote, "'It is our contention that if random, "'if the word random is given a serious "'and crucial interpretation "'from a probabilistic point of view, "'the randomness postulate is highly implausible, "'and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution "'must await the discovery and elucidation "'of new natural laws.'"

That's incredible, right? If we're gonna take this process as random, and we take seriously the notion of randomness, billions of years is still not enough time.

So apparently any scientific theory of evolution would rely on discovering new natural laws to explain it.

Now, of course, if you deny a creator, if you deny an intelligence behind the origin of life and development of life, right?

Then evolution, as has been said, is the only game in town. So no matter how improbable it is, that's the only choice you've got, okay?

The problem is that's not the only choice you've got, okay? I think Christian theism explains the data fine.

Now you might say, well, why don't most scientists affirm it? Well, the reasons why people affirm or deny things are not simply by looking at the evidence and drawing these conclusions in a neutral way, okay?

Everyone has worldview biases and that impacts how they interpret the data, okay?

So again, so there are different ways you can come at the question of evolution. It is obviously a nuanced discussion to have lots of different things that need to be brought into the discussion, but those are some of the things you might wanna throw in there as kind of a point of discussion with a friend that you might be discussing this with.

So yeah, so there you go. Let's see here. If we are called to love our neighbor and love

Christ, the love like Christ does, why does David often preach hatred and destruction upon his enemies?

This is another question that I got. So, okay, so I would imagine this person's making reference to what we would call the imprecatory

Psalms, okay? Imprecatory Psalms contained within like the book of Psalms, for example, are those that imprecate, okay?

Imprecate, I think I'm saying that right, okay? Which means to invoke judgment, calamity, or curses upon one's enemies or those perceived as the enemies of God, right?

Now I want you to keep in mind something important, okay? Keeping logical distinctions in mind. There's nothing inconsistent with desiring

God to execute justice upon the wicked, okay? And also loving your neighbor and loving your enemy.

Logically, there's no inconsistency between this. And the biblical conception of love, I think has this nuanced understanding as well.

When we love our neighbor, loving our neighbor is not incompatible with desiring that justice be delivered when our neighbors engage in great evil, okay?

Jesus himself is loving, right? We know that Jesus is loving, while at the same time declares the curse of God upon people that he was interacting with, right?

He once called the religious leaders the sons of the devil in John 8, 44, right? But God loved those persons that,

I think there's no doubt that God loved those persons that should, if they were to come to faith and repentance, they would be forgiven, okay?

And of course, if they come to faith and repentance at a gift of God, I know how this whole stuff works, but we make a differentiation between God's love and God's hatred.

Yes, God loves and he hates. Psalm 5 says, you hate the worker of iniquity. Yet the

Bible says God is love. That's not a contradiction. We just need to understand those categories in a more nuanced way.

That might go against what we have been popularly taught in churches today. So there you go.

So on the one hand, the Bible says that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us,

Romans 5, 8. Yet on the other hand, it says that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, Hebrews 10, 31, right?

See, so there's this balanced picture in scripture, right? God is love, but he's not only love. He's righteous, he's holy, and his perfect love requires him to some degree to hate evil, okay?

So it is good to hate evil, I would say, all right? I think there's, again, there's this balance with respect to how we should understand both the love of God and the hatred of God, okay?

And we're to love others, but there's nothing wrong with desiring to see justice poured out on the wicked. Indeed, we look forward to a time when ultimately justice is served, right?

At the final judgment where God makes all wrongs right. So that's definitely an interesting and important part of the

Christian position, all right? All right, another question was asked me, do you think the

Garden of Eden was a myth? I've heard people say it was more figurative and not literal. So just to answer the question directly, no,

I don't think the Garden of Eden was a myth. I believe the story is literally true. However, this is important, however, right?

Qualification. The inclusion of non -literal elements and the fact that it's giving us a record of what actually happened are not mutually exclusive to one another.

So if someone were to ask me, do I believe the story to be literal or figurative? I point out that such a question presents us with a false dichotomy, okay?

There can be poetic, metaphoric elements within the telling of a story that's meant to be conveyed as being historical.

It just so happens that what many people think is metaphorical and symbolic, I take to be referring to what the straightforward reading seems to imply, okay?

Now again, these are internal debates within Christianity as to how to interpret Genesis, and there is nuance there.

There is strong indication of historical narrative, but also an inclusion of other literary elements that can make it challenging to interpret.

But all in all, I do think it's pretty straightforward, okay? And I don't have a problem with that. I know some people do,

I don't, okay? All right, let's see here.

Shouldn't the church be ornate in order to replicate the practices of worshiping

God in the tabernacle and the temple? That's an interesting question. Yeah, so no,

I don't think there's anywhere in scripture that I'm aware of that demands that New Testament believers have ornate places of worship, okay?

If we think in terms of typological categories, the tabernacle and the temple pointed forward to something that would be fulfilled in Christ, right?

In light of the work of Christ, we are the temple. We are the tabernacle of God, the dwelling place of God, as 1

Corinthians 3, 16 through 17 says. Now, Jesus himself de -emphasized the significance of worshiping, even especially at the temple or in any other specific place, okay?

When speaking, for example, to the Samaritan woman in the Gospel of John 4, verse 23, he says, but the hour is coming and is now here when the true worshipers will worship the

Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. The true church, in essence, is not brick and mortar, right?

The true church are the people of God, and we're at church when the people of God gather, okay?

So the concern is not the way the buildings look. The early Christians often gathered in people's houses, okay?

So interestingly enough, this is interesting when you study kind of the history of the Reformation and the moving away of the ornate cathedrals that you often see in Roman Catholic churches.

It is the simplicity of the architecture present in many Protestant churches that is in stark contrast to the ornate cathedrals of Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, right?

I think the simple architecture historically was in symbolic form a return to the simplicity of the

Gospel in some cases, because I think architecture in churches, there was a philosophy behind why simple churches look simple and ornate churches look ornate.

Now, is it a sin to have ornate churches? No. Is it a sin to have non -ornate churches? No, okay?

I don't think the Bible is concerned with what the church looks like as a building, because I don't think the church is reduced to a building necessarily, all right?

All right, let's see here. Let's see here.

Okay, so we're gonna continue on with some more questions, but if you're enjoying this live stream, please do me a solid and like the video and share it and do all that jazz.

As they say, the YouTubers say, click the notification bell for future updates and all that kind of stuff.

Believe it or not, all that stuff actually is super helpful. So if you haven't done that, greatly appreciate it. Also, if you are a new listener and you haven't subscribed, please subscribe.

I would really appreciate it. We're moving along. In terms of subscribers, how much do we have now?

Let's see. I'm gonna go over to YouTube and check that out. Let's see.

We are at now 8 ,300 and something subscribers.

I'm not sure of the whole name unless I go to YouTube studio. Actually, let's go there. Let's go to the studio. Let's see.

I have right now 8 ,311 subscribers.

That's super awesome and exciting. And so if you haven't subscribed, please subscribe.

We would greatly appreciate it. All right, so let's take a look. Another question that I was asked.

Say that a child of God is being led by false prophets and people who are using ministry for their own personal gain.

Why does God allow this? Yeah, that's a hard one because we do know that people are placed in certain contexts in which they're unfortunately sitting under false teachers and things like this.

This was evident in the New Testament church as well. But I think to ask why does

God allow such and such, there can be a variety of answers. God can allow something as a result of judgment.

God can allow specifically a child of God to go through a time of discipline as a result of his fatherly displeasure towards that child of God.

God could allow a child of God to undergo testing. Being placed within the context of a false prophet may require said child of God to put into practice the discipline of testing what's being taught against the word of God.

So ultimately God allows evils like this to occur for his glory and our good as the saying goes. And if we could answer the question, and if we could answer that in the broadest sense, it ultimately abounds to the glory of God.

But in a more specified sense, there are any number of specific reasons and purposes that God is accomplishing through allowing a child of God to be placed in that particular context.

I think the key point is to emphasize the fact that the person asking the question is asking the question of quote unquote, the child of God, that's very relevant.

If the person in question is in fact the child of God, then succumbing to the sort of false teaching that is damning will not occur.

As I think that God in his grace will preserve those who are his since Christ, I believe, cannot lose any that the father has given him.

So yes, it is not, on one level, it's not a good thing to be sitting under a false teacher, but if someone is a truly a child of God, I think

God will even preserve that person within that context, okay? All right, next question.

This is my last question, not of the night. I will try to go through the comments, but this is the last question that I'll be going through for my main list.

Just bear with me. I feel a sneeze coming on. All right, there was no, it was a false alarm.

It was a false alarm, no sneeze. All right, so the last one is, okay, so what are your thoughts on the controversy about God being a she or having no gender?

Okay, so that's a gender question with respect to God. Yeah, so I don't think this is, this should be a controversy at all.

God is not a man, okay? Numbers 2319, God in his essence is a spirit,

John 424. God is omnipresent, Psalm 139, seven through 12, right?

Think about this, being omnipresent and spiritual or non -corporeal, God does not have male or female biological features, okay?

There you go, in his essence. Now it's true that Jesus Christ, the God -man, is, with respect to his human nature, a biological male.

So I think even now Jesus has a physical glorified body. The Bible says there is one mediator between God and man, the man

Christ Jesus. I think that Jesus is right now in a physical glorified body, and in that sense he has male characteristics, right?

So Jesus has a physical glorified body as our high priest, but I wouldn't say that his divine nature has biological gender -specific attributes.

So in the person of Christ, we have really the paradoxical union between the infinite, right, his divine nature, and finite, his human nature, right?

And we need to distinguish between the non -gendered nature of God in his triune essence, and the gendered features of the human

Christ, right, his human nature, okay? So we wanna make that distinction. It's also important to see that within the traditional conception of the person of Christ, the human and divine natures within the one person don't mix or mingle, okay?

Rather they are, and I don't have a problem using this word, they are mysteriously, they mysteriously remain distinct, okay?

And hence we affirm that even in the incarnation, okay, God in his essence remains unchanged or immutable.

And that's to say that when the second person of the Trinity takes on human flesh, he does so with no change to his essence and nature with respect to the nature of God.

So when we say that the Son takes on human flesh, we're not saying that the divine nature mixes with the human nature and becomes something different.

I believe that the immutability of God is held in place, okay, so yeah,

I would make those distinctions. All right, let's get to some of the comments, questions here, let's see here.

Matthew Banks, do you uphold to a literary six day creation and if scripture clearly teaches one? Yes, I hold to a literal six day creation.

I believe the straightforward reading of Genesis is accurate, I don't have a problem with that biblically, I don't have a problem with that scientifically for the reasons

I've suggested before, that biblically it seems to be, that's what the text is saying, okay, at least my understanding, and scientifically data is interpreted in light of paradigms.

So I'm going to interpret the data in light of my paradigms just as those who do not agree with me are going to interpret the data in light of their paradigms, right?

And so within the paradigm of six day creation, I don't think there's any problem with God creating things the way it seems the text says he did.

So I don't find an issue there, all right? Okay, Yim Kung says, and true freedom coexists with a deterministic worldview, how does compatibilism address concerns about genuine human autonomy?

Okay, so there are a bunch of things in this question, can true freedom, what do you mean by true freedom?

What is typically snuck into statements like this, and I'm not saying Yim is doing this,

I'm saying in debates on these issues, true freedom is equated with libertarian freedom, and that is begging the question, right?

The question in the debate is, what is the nature of man's freedom? Okay, you can't say, well, libertarian freedom is the real freedom, and any other kind of freedom is not real freedom.

Real freedom is the freedom that we actually have, and that can be either libertarian if libertarian freedom is true, or it can be the sort of freedom that is compatible with God determining everything that comes to pass, okay?

And that's where the debate is, that's where a lot of people are discussing these issues. So when we say that compatibilism is true,

I think that determinism is compatible with human responsibility, okay?

And praiseworthiness and blameworthiness, okay? And libertarian freedom would often be connected to the idea that in order to be genuinely free, you have to have the ability to choose other than what you do in fact choose, right?

You have to have these genuine, they're called genuine options, right? Or the PAP, in some cases, P -A -P, the principle of alternative possibilities.

Now, I don't think this is necessarily the case. I think, for example, if you take, for example, God, when we take, for example, the idea of compatibilism, and we say that determinism is compatible with moral praiseworthy and blameworthiness, okay?

God can only do that which is good, yet he is praiseworthy. Think about that.

God can only do that which is good, and he's praiseworthy. Now, I do believe the

Bible teaches the doctrine of original sin. I know that there are people who reject that doctrine. I believe it's a biblical teaching, the doctrine of original sin.

Okay, and I'm not gonna defend it here right now in this moment, but I do hold to the doctrine of original sin, and the interesting thing is that God requires man to live a sinless life, yet given the doctrine of original sin, we are unable to live a sinless life, yet we are blameworthy.

So God is unable to do anything other than good, and he's praiseworthy, and man is unable to live a sinless life, yet he's blameworthy, which goes to show that it does not require the ability to do other in order to be praiseworthy or blameworthy, okay?

So I think, again, that's an important distinction to be made. A lot of times, people will sneak in their definition of what they constitute as freedom, and that needs to be hashed out in more detail, okay?

Now, this is a very nuanced debate, and it can get very difficult, right?

But with respect to genuine human autonomy, I don't believe that men are autonomous, okay?

We are not autonomous. Autonomy literally means to be a law unto oneself. No one is fully and completely independent of God, okay?

I think that God decrees whatsoever comes to pass, and he's able to do so because he's God in a way that preserves the sufficient freedom that makes us praiseworthy or blameworthy for our actions, okay?

How does that all work out? Again, it's a deeper discussion, but there are various books that you can look into.

I would highly recommend the content put out by the philosopher Guillaume Bignon, who is also a friend of mine and has been on the show multiple times.

If you look up Guillaume, G -U -I -L -L -A -U -M,

Bignon, okay, B -I -G -N -O -N, you search Guillaume Bignon and Revealed Apologetics, and there are,

I think he's on my show two or three times, and they're like two hours each packed with information dealing with this and various scriptures that are relevant to this debate.

So you could totally check those things out. I guarantee that you will find them helpful, even if at the end of the day you disagree, okay?

All right, let's see here. Thank you for that. Hmm, let's see here.

Kyoto, repost because skipped, okay. What are your thoughts on the doctrine of God controversy that many popular

Vantillians find themselves under fire for like divine simplicity? Well, I mean, it depends what you mean by divine simplicity.

I'm not aware specifically of the controversy that's happening in various Reformed Baptist circles. I know that Dr.

James White is involved in a lot of those interactions. I just have been out of the loop, not because I don't think it's important, it's just I haven't, it has not crossed my radar specifically, and I have not had time to explore that while at the same time exploring the other topics that I'm engaged in studying, plus family, plus full -time job, plus all that other jazz.

So I'm not really sure. Now, I do find it interesting that there are, there is a growing interest in Thomas Aquinas and Thomism and his specific understanding of divine simplicity in terms of which the understanding of divine simplicity is that God is equal to his attributes or something along those lines.

I would agree with Dr. White when he says that we need to understand divine simplicity with respect to what the scriptures teach.

Now, we want to affirm what the scriptures teach and not impose Thomistic categories as an equal authority as scripture, okay?

Because I do understand that there are people who hold to a specific view of divine simplicity as it relates to also Trinitarian theology, and they've been considered

Orthodox, but then along comes this growing interest in Thomistic categories, and then, of course, those who are considered

Orthodox are now being declared heretics, right? I think that we need to engage in that debate in a more nuanced and understanding and patient way, okay?

But it is an important issue, definitely something I want to dig deeper into, but unfortunately, for our purposes here,

I have not really dealt with that issue in any depth, so I can't really say more to that.

Do apologize. Thanks for the question. Yeah, Jimmy says,

I think an evolutionary perspective can be a good segue into discussions about the emergence of consciousness and value. Absolutely.

How did the world lead to, how did the world lead to us if it was through purely physical processes?

Yeah, I think that's a helpful way to go about it, yeah. Speaking about determinism, you have a material determinism, which, again,

I think undermines rationality and things like that, so there are different angles you can come at it from, you know?

Let's see here. Are you comfortable with that?

Jimmy says, are you comfortable with participation language theology? I tend to think we can participate in the divine nature via Christ's incarnation, but this is not a popular view amongst

Calvinists. Now, are you talking about, see, you gotta clarify, right?

So are you talking about, let me get that passage up here in scripture. What is that?

That is 1 Peter 1 .4. Let me get, there we go, 1

Peter 1 .4, okay, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire.

Is that what you're referring to? Are you making the distinction between like the concept in Eastern Orthodoxy of deification and those sorts of things, theosis and stuff?

I'm not sure what you're referring to there. I do think there's a sense in which we participate, but what you mean by that's all gonna depend on the angle, right?

Okay, all right. Well, that's the last question I see here. And we've been going for an hour and 36 minutes.

And if I wanna preserve my voice, I think I should end here. So, hey guys, man, this was super fun.

I hope that my answers were useful. I apologize if I skipped your question or if an answer that I provided is inadequate to your liking, of course.

I don't know everything. There's a lot of things. What I really do appreciate about a lot of these questions is, especially the ones that I haven't answered in any in -depth way, is that it brings my attention to important discussions that are happening.

So I do appreciate that, okay? If you guys like these streams where I just go through a bunch of questions, please let me know, because I don't mind doing more of these, okay?

Oh, we got one more question here. Do you think that unbelievers know that the

Bible is special revelation from God from merely hearing it and seeing it? If so, expound.

Do I think that unbelievers know that the Bible is special revelation? That's a good question.

I'd have to think about that. I do know that the Bible says they have a sufficient knowledge of God that makes them culpable, but does that mean that the unbeliever, when they hear the

Bible, oh, they really, they know it's true. I'm not sure that's what we would say, but I'd have to think about that before I give an adequate answer.

Yeah, thank you for that. That's a good question. Give me something to look into. All right, well, this concludes this live stream.

Those who've signed up for the class, I'll see you guys Monday night. Looking forward to that. Watch the lecture, lecture one, and come with all of your questions or observations or insights.

Maybe something is triggered in your own mind that you wanna share. I'm totally looking forward to that, and it's gonna be a lot of fun.

So there you go. And I will let folks know, I'm thinking of having, I have to schedule

Jeffrey Johnson, Jeffrey Johnson, and let me see the book.

I'll let you guys know right now. Hold up, let me see here. Jeffrey Johnson.

Yes, so Jeffrey Johnson, Jeffrey D.

Johnson has a book out, a recent book. I don't know the name of it right now.

It's a new book that he has. And Jeffrey Johnson is the author of Saving Natural Theology from Thomas Aquinas.

So he's involved in the discussions with respect to divine simplicity and natural theology and all that kind of stuff that a lot of you people are asking about.

I'm gonna have him on. I've been corresponding with him, and so we just gotta nail a date in. I also have a friend of mine that I'll be inviting on.

We'll be talking about the presuppositional apologetic methodology of John Frame and how John Frame differs from, say, someone like Greg Bonson or Van Til or something like that.

So a lot of presupp stuff coming up. I hope that's helpful for people. But again, I wanna intersperse presupp stuff with kind of these

Q &As and things like this. So I hope it was helpful. And until next time, guys, thank you so much for listening and thank you for your questions.