The Transcendental Argument Revisited


In this episode, Eli revisits the transcendental argument for the existence of God and breaks down each of its parts to highlight some useful insights provided by the argument. Furthermore, he discusses the importance of defining key terms for the purpose of clarification and precision as well as focuses on the importance of worldview analysis and critique. 
 Please consider signing up for the PresupU (Premium Course). It is a 5 week course which goes into the details of the presup method and argumentation complete with slides, outlines, and 5 private zoom sessions with Eli to go deeper.


Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today we are going to be back in the presuppositional apologetics transcendental argument sort of topic.
And so there have been a lot of things that I've wanted to cover but I figured because I've been so busy,
I figured just kind of staying in the realm of topics that are my wheelhouse.
And there's just so much to say on them and there are often so many questions relating to issues relating to presuppositional methodology, transcendental arguments and things like that.
That I put together some slides and I want to go through some things here and hopefully it will be helpful to those who will be listening in.
So just to give kind of a rundown on what has been going on, okay,
I just returned I think two weeks ago from Kansas.
I was invited to speak out in Kansas to a – it was a church but it was part of a campus ministry and so they're associated with a university down there or over there.
And I gave three talks, one talk on apologetics in general so I was able to lay out the presuppositional approach, its biblical foundations and things like that.
And then the second talk I gave on atheism, what atheism is, how does one apply a presuppositional approach to atheism.
And so we talked about the various aspects of atheism, the different forms of atheism.
I'm not sure if folks are aware of this but not all atheists are the same, right? You have different forms of atheism.
You have hard atheism, you have soft atheism, hard agnosticism, soft agnosticism. We won't go through what those mean but there's some variations there.
And so we just talked about how to apply a presuppositional approach to the various flavors of unbelief.
And then the third session I spoke on Roman Catholicism. And so afterwards we had a really great time with Q &A and I think the recordings will be available hopefully soon and I'll share snippets of those talks in the future.
So yeah, that's what I've been up to. Things have been going really well. And so if anyone is interested in having me come to their church or their event, that's totally a thing.
I don't just do YouTube. For those who have followed the channel for quite some time, you guys know that I am a full -time teacher.
But when I'm not teaching, I'm actually a traveling speaker and so I speak for conferences.
I've spoken at Texas A &M International University some years ago. I've traveled to various parts of the country to give talks on apologetics and sermons and theology and things like that.
So if you want me to come out to your church or your event or you want to set something up, that can be done if you go to revealedapologetics .com.
Right there on the homepage, there is a section where you can fill out just very simply kind of a little text box there and it goes straight to my email and we can set something up.
So yeah, just throwing that out there. Now, I am kind of blabbing here at the beginning before I jump in because this is a live stream.
So I'm kind of waiting for folks to kind of trickle in. So I'll take the opportunity to also talk a little bit about my course.
Now, I do have a course that I offer on my website. If you go to my website, there is a link in the description of this video and I also put a link to the page in the comments.
If you're looking to support Revealed Apologetics, one of the best ways that you can do that is of course like and share as all the
YouTubers like to say. But you can also sign up for a five -week course that I recorded some years ago and it's still available on the website.
And there are two versions of the course. One version of the course is a – we call it a basic package and when people sign up for that and people can still sign up for the basic package anytime, we will send you the five recorded lectures.
It comes with all of the PowerPoint slides, all of the outlines, and once you go through the course, you can work on it at your own pace.
And you can use the material in your own churches or whichever context that you would find it useful.
But I haven't actually given the premium package in quite some time. And so the only difference between the premium and the basic package is that if you sign up for the premium package, there is a schedule.
The courses will start in January 15th. And throughout the five weeks,
I hold a private Zoom session about an hour long, sometimes we go over, where I will be there and we will go deeper into the content of the videos.
And so in the past when I offered this, it was awesome. We've had people from all over the world meeting there on the
Zoom and I got to meet a bunch of people who follow the channel and have benefited from the content.
As a matter of fact, if you guys have seen a past video, if you saw me drinking from a mug with a picture of Greg Bonson on one side and turn it around, it says, the impossibility of the contrary.
That mug was actually given to me by one of the people who signed up for the course. And that was kind of a gift they gave me and I really appreciated that.
So yeah, if you want to hang with me for five weeks, one Zoom session a week starting
January 15th, sign up for the premium version of my course. And that's also a super helpful way to support the channel.
Hey, it might be a good Christmas present too. If you know someone who wants to kind of dive deep into apologetics and presuppositionalism, you might want to check that out.
All right. Well, all of the commercials aside, we're going to jump right in.
And this is a live stream, so if you have any questions, I will try my best to get to some of them.
I just recovered recently from losing my voice. So you might if you notice, my voice has that kind of deep radio voice.
That's because as a teacher, I'm always talking. So my voice is really deep.
So so, yeah, if you have any questions throughout the course of what I will be presenting here, please feel free to preface your question with question so it doesn't get mixed in with the comments.
OK, so we have a question already. There we go. All right. So here's a question.
What do you teach? Yeah. So I teach at a Christian private school. It is a Christian private school set in what's called the classical tradition.
So it is a classical Christian private school that places a great emphasis on worldviews and the interconnectedness between the different disciplines like math, history, literature.
They teach Latin to language. All these sorts of things are done within the context of a consistent
Christian worldview. And so what you're going to be taught in one class will also be supported in the other classes that try to include biblical integration and everything that we do.
So it's pretty awesome. It's basically kind of like a presuppositional school, if you think if you think about it.
So pretty cool. But I teach seventh and eighth grade. I teach seventh grade
Old Testament biblical history and I teach eighth grade logic, which it's basically an apologetics course with an emphasis on logical argumentation.
So we talk about logical structure, deductive, inductive arguments, adductive, abductive arguments, logical fallacies, and then we prepare them to debate at the end of the year.
So that's that's what we do. It's pretty awesome. All of the dignity and the stature that I bring to my speaking engagements are all out the window when you're trying to teach this stuff to seventh graders and eighth graders.
It can be challenging, but I've got great students. And so I'm really appreciative of my students and the school that I work at.
It's a pretty awesome, awesome place. So so there you go. So that's that's what I teach. So I hope that was helpful here.
The name of the school is Cary Christian Cary Christian School. We call it CCS. So if you're looking to enroll, if you are in the
Cary area, North Carolina or anywhere near that area, you should totally check it out.
OK, so there you go. All right. Well, with all of that aside,
I'm going to put my slides up. We're using slides today, folks. So hopefully the visuals will will prove helpful.
I do apologize. It says transcendent. I'll argument that's just a formatting issue. It's supposed to be transcendental argument.
So just in case you didn't notice. And I want to talk about the transcendental argument and I want to talk about it in the form that I like to to put it in.
And it's basically I put the transcendental argument in a deductive and deductive form. OK, now, for those who don't know much about logic,
I want to kind of make this as easy and understandable as possible. A deductive argument typically has a premise, a premise or a step in a step that has a conclusion that logically follows from the previous steps.
So a typical deductive argument that, you know, first year logic students will hear is something along the lines of soccer.
All men are mortal. All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
OK, all men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is is mortal. So if the premise premise one is true, premise two is true, then the conclusion follows logically and necessarily.
So so I like to put the transcendental argument in a deductive form and then defend the premise.
That is really the key point in the presuppositional argument. I'd like I defend that transcendental.
And we'll talk about what all that means in just a bit. OK, so let's take a look here. Let's define terms.
This is so important, especially when I'm teaching, but also when you're learning these things as you're listening to me.
Right. It's so important to recognize the the importance of defining your terms.
And so when we talk about transcendental argument, I almost never use that language when
I am actually using the argument in discussions. Matter of fact, even though we are going to talk about a logical syllogism and talk about preconditions of intelligible experience and these sorts of things.
I want to encourage people who are listening as we walk through the argument. I want you to try and contextualize what you're hearing.
That is to say that what you're hearing in this video and in this presentation is not going to be appropriate in every context in which you are speaking with an unbeliever.
OK, and so you want to take what I'm saying and learn to contextualize what
I'm saying. OK, so. So just want you to keep that in mind.
All right. So there's a question here. So let me jump in here. So good. Thanks for the questions here. I hope you guys don't mind.
I usually wait till the end, but I'm like, you know what, let's just grab some questions. I'll try my best to answer. So. All right.
Question. Just because Christianity provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, why does that make it the only true worldview?
OK, well, that's a great question, Talita Hupal. I hope I pronounced that correctly.
You're just going to have to wait, Talita. That's actually part of my presentation. So we'll talk about that.
OK. All right. Thank you so much for that question. I hope you can kind of just put a put a pin in that and we'll try to address it as part of my slides.
We'll talk about why there must be one, only one necessary precondition for intelligibility and and why it's
Christianity. OK. All right. Thank you so much for that. But feel free. You guys have questions you could ask as I'm teaching and I will stop and try my best to address your questions.
OK. This became an issue for me. Usually I wait till the end.
And then I thought to myself, you know, it kind of stinks if I were a person watching a video and I had a question like, darn,
I have to wait all the way to the end of this long video to get my question answered. So I'll try my best to answer questions as they come in.
And as I'm able, if you ask me a question, stump the apologist. Right. I don't know everything. So I will try my best to answer if I can.
All right. So let's take a look here. Let's let's jump right into our slides here. OK, so transcendental argument first, before we talk about the transcendental argument, because the presuppositional apologetic method has as its centerpiece of the transcendental argument.
And we need to make a distinction between the transcendental argument and transcendental arguments in general.
OK, I'm going to say that again. That's a key distinction here. OK. We want to make a distinction between the transcendental argument.
OK. And transcendental arguments in general. OK. So there are transcendental arguments in general.
and then there are specific transcendental arguments. You can kind of, they are presented differently sometimes.
You know, for example, Greg Bonson, to my knowledge, who is one of the prize students of Cornelius Van Til and the popularizer of presuppositional methodology.
I don't believe that he had ever presented the transcendental argument in deductive form.
That doesn't mean that anything I'm doing is special. It just helps me lay out the argument in a way that I have found is helpful for people to see the line of reasoning involved in the argument.
So, but it's not typically presented in a deductive form, at least in Van Til and Bonson. Maybe Frame has an argument along those lines in a deductive form that I don't remember.
But nevertheless, okay, we make a distinction between transcendental arguments and then the transcendental arguments.
Let's talk about transcendental arguments in general, okay? So in logic, you can have various forms of argumentation.
There are deductive arguments, as I mentioned before, where you have a premise, a premise, and a conclusion that follows logically and necessarily.
You could have an inductive argument. It's based off the kind of inductive reasoning where the conclusion gives you kind of a high probability or a high likelihood of a specific conclusion.
So for example, if there are ducks in my pond every summer,
I cannot reason thusly that therefore there must be ducks in my pond next summer.
But based on the patterns of my experience, I can infer that very likely ducks will be in my pond, okay?
So inductive arguments kind of, you know, trade on that idea of kind of like based upon our experience, we can generalize and kind of project into the future what might be the case given the circumstances, okay?
Then you have abductive arguments, which are inferences to the best, I hope
I'm remembering. Oh, my goodness. Recently, I've been feeling mentally mushed, okay?
So I apologize. I cannot guarantee the orthodoxy or the accuracy of anything that's coming out of my mouth.
I'm just kidding. So you have abductive arguments, inference to the best conclusion. You have deductive arguments, abductive arguments.
You have transcendental arguments, okay? And transcendental arguments are really,
I think, a unique way of arguing as it's trying to demonstrate something that deductive arguments generally and inductive arguments aren't, okay?
It's asking, transcendental arguments are asking more paradigmatic sort of questions, like what must be true?
What are the preconditions in order for something else to be possible, okay? So let's take a look at the structure of a transcendental argument.
So if look there on the top, for any X to be possible, now, when we speak of X, okay, those who aren't familiar with logic, okay,
X can be any proposition that I want to make it, okay?
So an X can be, you know, I don't know, for any knowledge, for any knowledge to be possible, right,
X can be filled with any propositional content I would like in as much as it's part of the argument I'm trying to make, okay?
And the same thing for Y. So for any X to be possible, Y must be the case because Y is the necessary precondition for the possibility of X.
X is possible, therefore Y must be the case, okay? For any
X to be possible, Y must be the case because Y is the necessary precondition for the possibility of X. X is possible, therefore
Y must be the case, okay? And so basically, for any X to be possible, you're arguing that Y is the necessary precondition for whatever
X is, okay? Y must be true in order for X to even be possible, okay?
And that's simply to say that Y is the necessary precondition I have there on the slide there.
Necessary precondition refers to what must be the case in order for something else to be the case, okay?
For example, logic is a necessary precondition for the existence of meaningful statements, okay? If logic wasn't a thing, okay, we wouldn't make sense, okay?
So logic is a necessary precondition of intelligible or meaningful experience, okay? So that is a transcendental argument generally speaking, all right?
And so as I said before, there's a distinction between transcendental arguments in general and the transcendental argument more specifically when arguing along presuppositional lines for the existence of God, the truth of the
Christian world, those sorts of things, okay? All right, let's move on to the next here, okay? And by the way, in the comments, if you just give like a thumbs up or something, if you are following and it's being explained in a way that is easy for you to follow, that's helpful for me.
When I'm teaching in a classroom, I'll often ask my students before I move to the next slide, does that make sense? Does that make sense?
And of course, if they're not sleeping, they'll be like, yeah, that makes sense, right? So if you could let me know in the comments, that'd be super helpful.
So let's move on here, okay? Let's see here. So now let's take a look at the transcendental argument as I like to present it, okay?
And so again, it is not typically put in this particular form, but I like to put it in this particular form.
So I'm kind of thinking, I'm looking at the comments here. Let me see here. Okay, so Talitha, here we go.
Let's see here. We got a question here, Talitha. What if someone says to you, my God is exactly the same as the
Christian God, except that he doesn't think homosexuality is wrong. I know this because he personally revealed himself to me.
Yeah, so if it's exactly the same, exactly the same, then it would not be only that homosexuality isn't wrong.
Okay. It would also include personal revelation that is not publicly able to be tested.
Okay. So then you have a problem there. Okay. Because you're making a claim, the God of the
Bible, is he saying the same as the Christian God revealed something to me personally that is contrary to what he's commanded in scripture.
And how do we test this? Is it just based on your personal revelation that you're claiming?
Because according to the scriptures, God doesn't simply give personal revelation that is unable to be tested. As a matter of fact, one of the things that God commands us to do is to test all things.
So if this God is the same God of the Bible, of Christian theism, then we should be able to test the validity of your claim.
And if it is simply a personal revelation, then I'm unable to test the validity of your claim.
But I am able to test it in the sense that God has not revealed that he said one thing in his word, but he's saying something different to you.
So now we have to deal with that. So the God of the Bible does not give personal revelation such that it is impossible to test.
And that's why we're called to test all things, right? Even in the book of Deuteronomy, we're told the test to verify whether a prophet is a true prophet.
There are ways to test and validate someone's teaching. So again, that would not be a good counterpoint to what the transcendental argument is trying to show in that the
Christian God is the only true God or Christian worldview. Okay.
Hope that makes sense, Talita. Thank you so much for that. That's a really creative and good question there. I love questions like that.
Sometimes you got to think about them, right? Kind of like, okay, that's actually, I don't have to think about that one. But yeah, that's my answer for that.
So I hope that makes sense. All right, let's get back to our slides here. So the transcendental argument is the way
I present it. And so this is a deductive argument with what I call a transcendental premise.
A deductive argument with a transcendental premise. So premise one, if knowledge is possible, by the way, notice the structure here, right?
For any X to be possible, Y must be the case. And so look at the argument here. If knowledge is possible.
So the X in this case is knowledge. I happen to choose knowledge. Okay. You can put something else there if you want, but this is the way
I'm presenting it. So if knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true. Premise two, knowledge is possible.
Conclusion, therefore the Christian worldview is true. Okay. Now we want to make an important distinction between validity of an argument and the soundness of an argument.
Validity of an argument and the soundness of an argument. All right. Now, when we speak of the validity of an argument, we are speaking as to the structure of the argument.
And so this argument that I've just given, if knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true. Knowledge is possible, therefore the
Christian worldview is true. That is logically valid. Okay. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the conclusion or whatever.
If premise one is true and if premise two is true, then the conclusion does in fact follow.
Okay. All right. Now, when we speak of whether the premises are true, then we're dealing with the soundness is the argument sound.
Okay. So this is a valid argument, the soundness of which will depend upon our ability to defend the premises.
Okay. So I want you to keep that in mind. Now, one of the first criticisms that we get here. So I've heard often when
I present the argument in this form, if knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true. Knowledge is possible, therefore the
Christian worldview is true. Someone will say, well, wait a minute, Eli. What happens if someone plugs in a different worldview?
Okay. I hear this often. Couldn't the Muslim make the same argument? Couldn't the
Mormon make the same argument? Couldn't the atheist make the same argument? And the answer is, yes, yes, they can make the same argument.
Okay. That's not a deficiency in the argument. Okay. Because there is a distinction between plugging in a worldview in the premise and actually defending the premise.
Okay. If I could point something out is that when the Christian worldview says when the presuppositional says that the
Christian worldview is a necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge or logic or intelligible experience, this is not contrary to popular opinion.
This is not a bare authority claim. We are not simply making an authority claim.
This is what God says, and that's it. Let me see here.
Oh, okay. All right. Talita says, I'm lying. It's not really a question.
I just wanted to say thank you for answering my question. Okay. Well, you're welcome. You're welcome.
All right. So when we say that the Christian world is the necessary precondition for the possibility of knowledge or logic or science or whatever, it is not simply a bare authority claim.
I want to kind of share a quote from a book. It's going to be a quote here.
Let me take this out of the way here. So this is you put this up here. So this is the book, The Impossibility of the
Contrary. Without God, you can't prove anything by Greg Bonson. Okay. Now, this is not a book that Bonson himself wrote with that title.
This was put together by American Vision, and it is a transcript of sorts, edited, of course, to fit kind of a book format of a series of lectures that Greg Bonson gave on the concept of the impossibility of the contrary.
And there's a section here that I want to read very briefly that will help understand what
I mean when we say the Christian presuppositional argumentation is not making a bare authority claim.
So here's what Bonson says on. Let's see if you could see that there on page 152.
Okay. He says here, and I quote, When we do worldview apologetics.
Right. And that's what presuppositional apologetics is. It's a worldview apologetic because we're defending the Christian worldview. Right. When it when we do worldview apologetics, we do not simply look at bare or formal authority claims.
Okay. This should already cast aside the often repeated accusation.
Well, if you think Christianity is true, saying so doesn't make it so that doesn't phase the presuppositional list, because that's not what the presuppositional list is saying.
Okay. Perhaps some presuppositional lists, some unnamed random presuppositional list online somewhere or like on discord or clubhouse might have made those assertions.
Right. Well, we want to make a distinction between presuppositional ism and the transcendental argument.
Right. And particular so -called presuppositional is who may or may not have a grasp on the nature of the presuppositional claim.
Is that fair? I think that's fair. Right. So it's not simply, you know, a bare authority claim.
So we have Bonson himself saying, hey, when we do worldview apologetics, we do not simply look at bare or formal authority claims.
Ready. Check this out. We compare the actual content of our worldview with the actual content of the worldview presented by and in the context here, our
Muslim friends. Okay. So if it's a Muslim that's saying, you know, I don't know,
Islam is not the necessary. You compare the content of the worldview. So it is not simply an authority claim.
It is an authority claim to be sure. We're asserting it on God's authority, but it's not a bare or mere authority claim.
Okay. That's so important. Even if you disagree with presuppositional argumentation and the transcendental argument, I think it's important to recognize that.
Okay. So when we say, for example, Eli, is it not the case? Is it not the case that you can plug any worldview in that syllogism?
Yes, you can. And it would be valid. And can I give an example here on the bottom? It says here, if knowledge is possible, the
Islamic worldview is true. Knowledge is possible. Therefore, the Islamic worldview is true.
That is a valid argument. The challenge at this point will be whether it is sound.
In other words, as Professor James Anderson of Reform Theological Seminary once said, when talking about transcendental arguments,
I think it was when he was on my show some years back, he says, can the worldview pay the bills on the claim?
Okay. So you can insert any worldview you'd like, but can the worldview pay the bills? The Christian will say, if knowledge is possible, the
Christian worldview is true. The Christian will argue, not merely assert, that the Christian worldview can in fact pay the bills on that claim.
Okay. And then of course, we're going to have to go into the details of what that looks like. Okay. So the argument here in this deductive form, okay, yes, it can be valid and you could plug in any worldview you'd like.
But the question is, can the worldview pay the bills? Okay. So that's a very important point to remember.
All right. So let's continue on here. So now this is super important. Actually, let me go back here.
This is super important. Okay. Let's see here. Let me see. Comment here.
Okay. So remember
I said at the beginning, it is very important to define our terms. Okay. So important. Okay.
So now there are some ambiguities in this argument as it stands, and I think it's important for folks who are going to use argument, argumentation along these lines.
Okay. If knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true. Well, anyone who is familiar with analytic philosophy and the great emphasis that they put upon the precision of definitions, you will learn very quickly.
Okay. That the word knowledge is highly debated.
Okay. What do we mean by knowledge? Okay. For example, are we talking about the tripartite definition, a justified true belief, or are we talking about the discussions on warranted belief, like what constitutes knowledge?
And so you're going to have to precisely define what you mean by knowledge.
All right. And then, of course, you get into the issue of what constitutes the
Christian worldview. Isn't that right? What flavor of Christianity are you talking?
So you look at the next slide here. The Christian worldview, many have used it in various ways.
For example, the Roman Catholic will tell you that he or she has a
Christian worldview. The Eastern Orthodox, that's what it stands there. If you can't see the EO, Eastern Orthodox will say, yes, the
Eastern Orthodox have a Christian worldview. Generally speaking, Protestants will say, we have a
Christian worldview. You kind of get narrowed down people within the reform tradition. Yes, we have a
Christian worldview. And of course, you know, you have the people who are reformed and identify as, you know,
Calvinistic and whatever whatever is entailed by that. OK, now, what's important here, when we think in terms of the context of the presuppositional apologetical tradition and the utilization of transcendental reasoning in Vantill, it is very clear that for Vantill, the
Christian worldview was equivalent to the reformed faith, as he saw it within the
Calvinistic lines and more specifically within the Presbyterian stream of reformed thought.
And so when you're using the transcendental argument in this particular form and you're arguing generally speaking on the
Christian worldview, you're going to have to specify, right, because the different flavors of what goes by the name of Christianity are not all created equal.
There are similarities. And I would argue that there are some within the reform camp that can, even though they differ, can consistently utilize a presuppositional approach and transcendental argumentation and things like that.
But Greg Bonson pointed out something very interesting I thought was was funny. Someone asked him a question about Baptists and Presbyterians, and he says that, you know, there are five dollar churches and there are a hundred dollar churches.
OK, both of the churches are dollars. OK, but some churches are more dollars than others.
So you have higher value, higher value churches. And he would argue that the higher value ones are the ones that are more in line with, you know, biblical truth.
Right. And so, of course, he saw his own position as as a Presbyterian and the distinctives that he held to be closer to the truth.
But when we speak of the Christian worldview and we're using this argument, you need to express what you mean by that.
OK, now there is a broader discussion as to whether someone that is not from a reformed tradition,
Calvinistic, has a particular view of the doctrine of God and revelation and things like that, whether or not a non -reformed
Calvinistic sort of person could consistently use a presuppositional approach.
That is a question Van Til definitely thought that it was not possible to do so consistently.
You do have people who will use a presuppositional approach, transcendental argumentation, who are clearly not within that tradition.
Someone who comes to mind, Jay Dyer, Jay Dyer, who's an Eastern Orthodox person on YouTube, and he often argues transcendentally and things like that.
And it gets really when when you get into the ins and the outs of whether one is using the method consistently, you get very deep into issues of the doctrine of God and whether the tradition is holding to a consistent, coherent doctrine of God that is grounded in revelation.
It gets very technical, so I'm not going to unpack that now. But I think it is an important question to think about when you are kind of exploring issues of consistency with respect to the theology you hold and the apologetic methodology that you'll, as you know, and I'm sure folks who follow
Dr. James White and are familiar with Alpha and Omega and of course Greg Bonson and Van Til, you will hear over and over again, okay, that our apologetic flows from our theology.
So our apologetic must be consistent with our theology, all right?
As the saying goes, theology matters, okay? So when we talk about Christian worldview, when we talk about terms like knowledge, a precising definition will be required.
A precising definition is a definition that helps clarify an ambiguous term or phrase, okay?
And so when someone says, hey, when you use that phrase, Christian world, what do you mean by that?
We need to offer a precising definition. When you say, hey, you're talking about knowledge, what do you mean by that?
You offer a precising definition, okay? And so it's very important to narrow down the terminology, and I think that's important in terms of communication and to sharpen various aspects of your argumentation, okay?
All right. Let's see. Let me see the comments here. There are no new comments.
I mean, no new questions. Okay, well, let's continue on, okay? So the transcendental premise, okay?
When we speak of the transcendental premise, we are speaking of the premise that carries the weight of the argument, okay?
And that, of course, is going to be premise one, okay? If knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true. Premise one is the transcendental premise because the premise asserts that something is the necessary precondition for the possibility of something else, okay?
Where we had the, you know, for x to be the case, y must be the case from the thing we did at the beginning. So premise one is going to carry the weight of the argumentation, all right?
Now, of course, if someone is going to challenge definitions that are present in another premise, then, of course, you're going to have to narrow that down and discuss that.
But for the most part, the premise one is going to be where all of the action is, okay?
So that's what we mean by transcendental premise, okay? Hope that makes sense.
All right, so defending the transcendental premise, all right? This is important, okay?
So here's our premise. If knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true. Knowledge is possible, therefore, the
Christian worldview is true. Now, someone might ask, well, what argument is there for premise one, okay?
Now, you want to be careful here, okay? In order to defend premise one, you don't necessarily need to construct another deductive argument, okay?
And someone's like, well, what's your argument for that? And then you go kind of an infinite regress of trying to provide justification for premise one, okay?
Now, you have to understand something, that premise one is a premise, but it actually is a presupposition of the
Christian worldview. And when I say Christian worldview, I would agree with Van Till, okay, that given the reformed understanding of God and epistemological considerations and the nature of man and all sorts of things,
I would argue that according to the reformed tradition, this is a presupposition of the
Christian worldview, that if knowledge is possible, yes, God is in fact the foundation for knowledge.
God is a God of truth. God as the original creates everything and imbues everything with the meaning and definitions that they have, right?
A cow, for example, is a cow, and a cow is what God wanted a cow to be.
So the definition of a cow is going to be correct in as much as it agrees with God's definition as the creator and definer of the cow.
Does that make sense? Okay, I don't know why I used the example of cow, but hopefully that makes sense, okay? So premise one, okay, does not require an infinite construction of other deductive arguments and things like that.
We're presuppositionalists, okay? And so it is a premise, but it's also a presupposition.
I presuppose this as it is a feature of the Christian worldview from the flavor of the
Christian worldview that I'm coming from, from a reformed tradition, Calvinistic, that is a whole bunch of things implied in that.
And of course, you'll have to unpack that if the discussion goes in that direction when you're presenting the argument, okay?
Now, an argument for premise one is only needed if someone thinks that it's not a feature of the
Christian worldview. Isn't that right? If you don't think knowledge being possible requires the truth, the metaphysical foundations of the
Christian worldview, then yeah, then we'll have to give an argument. But even an unbeliever can agree that given the
Christian worldview, yes, God would have to be, the God of Christianity would have to exist and reveal himself in the way that the
God of Christianity says he reveals himself in his word in order for knowledge to be possible, okay? So an argument is only needed if someone thinks that it is not a feature of the
Christian worldview. If they think it's not a feature of the Christian worldview, then the argument for premise one is going to be a theology lesson in which we walk through the theological and biblical teaching concerning the nature of God, the nature of man, the nature of revelation, the metaphysical necessity and context of God as giving coherence to all of reality, these sorts of things.
And so we would defend premise one by going through the basics of the doctrine of God and the doctrine of the knowledge of God and these sorts of things.
But if someone says, hey, I don't believe in Christianity, but yeah, if Christianity is true, yes,
I agree. That would be a presupposition of the Christian worldview. And so you don't need an argument unless someone thinks it's not a feature of the
Christian worldview presupposition. Now, there is an important question here though, okay? We need to ask the question, okay?
Okay, we have here, the unbeliever could ask for an argument for premise one, okay? We could respond, it's a presupposition of the
Christian worldview. And then, of course, he can assert, I have no reason to accept premise one, okay?
So yeah, so if Christianity is true, I can see how that would work for you, dude, but I don't accept premise one, okay?
Now, this is important, and I've labeled it there as important. What counts or doesn't count as a good reason for accepting premise one is actually going to be worldview dependent, isn't that right?
When you say, well, I don't have a reason to accept premise one because, and then the thing that follows the because is going to be a reflection of the unbeliever's non -Christian worldview, okay?
Now, for the believer, why do we believe premise one?
Well, as presuppositionalists, we presuppose the truth of premise one because we're Christians, right?
So what's important to keep in mind here is that we need to make a distinction between the premise of an argument and the presupposition of an argument, okay?
In this case, the first premise is a premise and it is a presupposition, okay?
And that's not problematic at all. You take a look at logic, for example. I could have the validity of logic being a premise, and also it is a presupposition, without which the argument that I lay out wouldn't even make sense, right?
Because logic is a necessary precondition. So as presuppositionalists, we presuppose the truth of premise one that, if knowledge is possible, the
Christian worldview is true. Now, the question is, how do we justify that presupposition, okay?
So if the unbeliever asks for an argument, an argument's only required if he thinks it's not part of the
Christian worldview, and if that's what he thinks, then we can give arguments by laying out the details of the
Christian worldview to show that it is, in fact, a feature of the Christian worldview. If he thinks that is something, the unbeliever thinks that it is something that the
Christian worldview entails, if it were true, then we don't need an argument, but the unbeliever is not obligated to accept it.
And so he's going to reject the first premise. He's going to say, I have no reason to accept premise one, and then we're going to acknowledge that his rejection is going to be worldview dependent.
So this highlights the importance of worldview interaction in the discussion. This is what the argument seeks to do.
It seeks to draw out worldview antithesis. There's this stark opposition, these entire systems of thought that are at odds with each other, okay?
So now, as presuppositionalists, we presuppose the truth of premise one. Now, the question is, how do we justify its truth?
Well, how do you justify a presupposition answered by the impossibility of the contrary?
Basically, we justify a presupposition transcendentally, okay?
Now, notice when I say we justify the presupposition transcendentally, what we are not saying is that we just assert it as a presupposition.
No. Remember that the transcendental argument is an argument.
It is not a mere assertion, as I read from Dr. Bonson just a moment ago, okay?
So how are presuppositions justified? If presuppositions are elementary starting points in our reasoning, how do we justify such things, okay?
When someone says, well, you can't justify a presupposition, that's not true. You can justify a presupposition transcendental.
That's literally what a transcendental argument does, okay? Because we're dealing with paradigmatic issues, issues of ultimate foundations, okay?
So how are presuppositions justified? Given the foundational nature of presuppositions, starting assumptions, pre -beliefs, they are not justified by appealing to something more fundamental.
I'm going to repeat that again. It's very important, okay? Given the foundational nature of presuppositions, starting assumptions, pre -beliefs, they are not justified by appealing to something more fundamental.
Rather, they are justified by appealing to their transcendental necessity.
And what does that look like? Reject the presupposition and see what happens, okay?
So if you say, I have no reason to accept that if knowledge is possible, the Christian world views true. I have no reason to accept that that being true, okay?
So then reject that presupposition and let's see where your worldview leads, okay?
This is an indirect way of proving a presupposition, okay?
I'm not giving a direct argument to demonstrate this. I'm giving an indirect argument, and that is the nature of a transcendental argument.
Now, of course, I've laid out the transcendental argument in deductive form, and when following deductive arguments, that is a direct form of argumentation.
However, the first premise, I would argue, is defended indirectly. So the argument is presented directly, but then the first premise, being a transcendental premise, is defended indirectly, okay?
And so reject the presupposition and see what happens, okay? And right here, in the rejection of the presupposition, anything the unbeliever is going to assert, he is going to assert them from a non -Christian presuppositional starting point, as everyone has presuppositional starting points, right?
So he's going to assert his disagreement with the Christian presupposition from the foundation of his non -Christian presupposition.
So here you see, coming at heads, the worldview collision, as Dr.
Bonson called it, okay? All right. So there are two sides of defending the transcendental premise, okay?
Now, the second part, okay, of the two sides, right, is what we want to invite the unbeliever to do, and then the first part is going to require us to lay out a case for the transcendental premise.
So the two sides of defending the transcendental premise, it comes in, one, a positive defense, okay?
So we want to positively defend, as a feature of the Christian worldview, that God and his revelation are necessary preconditions for the possibility of knowledge.
What this looks like is laying out the Christian worldview, our metaphysical position, our epistemological position, our ethical position, on how these coherently relate to each other, and how, given the nature of the triune
God and the nature of his revelation, we can have things like knowledge, logic, science, all of these things fit comfortably within a
Christian conception of reality or the Christian worldview, okay? And so we lay out the
Christian position, showing that, given Christian truth, as we lay it out, things like knowledge are possible, and then we illustrate the point that we made previously by permitting the unbeliever to provide a basis for knowledge independent of the
Christian worldview, for he has already asserted that he has no reason to accept the first premise, okay?
So you have no reason to accept the first premise, that if knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true, okay?
So you must think that the Christian worldview is not a necessary precondition for knowledge, right?
So that would be his position. So name that tune, right? Give us a non -Christian foundation for knowledge, for logic.
And you're going to have to, at that point, hear the unbeliever's position, okay?
Because we want to hear him lay out his worldview. And while we're hearing him lay out the worldview, we are being very self -conscious of the fact that we are not going to let him or her borrow from features of our worldview while trying to construct his own contrary non -Christian worldview as a foundation for knowledge.
And so when we see the unbeliever laying out his case, which you want to be mindful of, our inconsistency.
Well, what's helpful here is in Jason Lyle's book, The Ultimate Proof for Creation, he gives a really great, simple way of identifying faulty features in the worldview of the unbeliever as he presents it to provide a counterclaim to what the
Christian is arguing. And so I think it's AIP, A -I -P, right?
When an unbeliever lays out his position to try to show a foundation for knowledge or whatever thing we're arguing about, right?
You want to look for AIP. You want to look for arbitrariness. Is the assertion of the unbeliever arbitrary or does it fit within his system and he has a justification for it?
A -I -P, I, inconsistency. As the unbeliever lays out his system, is he being consistent?
And then of course P, A -I -P, does his worldview and his explanation provide adequate preconditions for intelligible experience?
Because if he doesn't, then of course there's going to be a gaping hole and point of view to point to, okay?
All right, so you have the two -sided defense, positive defense. We give forth the positive case for why the
Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions, the transcendental necessary preconditions.
And then to illustrate the point that the unbeliever can't is we permit the unbeliever to try and we offer a critique.
We could even speak of hypotheticals. Well, what about the Muslim over here or the Mormon over here? And we can engage in laying out those worldviews or if you're speaking with a
Mormon or a Muslim, we're allowing them to lay out their worldview and the method's the same.
You're going to be doing worldview critique. Now it is important because there's another side to this, okay?
Just as we are critiquing, just as we are critiquing the unbeliever's worldview, we're doing the internal critique.
An internal critique, for those who don't know, is when you hypothetically grant the truth of your opponent's position and critique it on its own basis.
What you need to be prepared for as the Christian, you need to be prepared for the attempted internal critique of the
Christian worldview, okay? And so you're going to have to answer questions. You're going to have to give an answer as the
Bible tells us, right? Always be ready to give an answer. And the key to surviving an internal critique of the
Christian worldview is to know the Christian worldview. You're going to need to know your theology.
You're going to need to know your system of thought. And that's something we can get better at, right?
You might fail the internal critique in not disproving Christianity by any means, but your inability or your lack of knowledge of your own
Christian convictions, you might learn the first time around, wait a minute, I need to know more about my own faith and what the
Bible teaches about these topics. And so you want to make sure that you know your own system.
So to survive the internal critique, you want to be very, very knowledgeable in your own position, okay?
And as Christians, we should be, all right? All right. So now there can only be one necessary transcendental.
So we said that the Christian worldview is a necessary precondition for the very possibility of knowledge. And so we were asked at the beginning, well, how do we know it's the
Christian one? Okay. Well, when we're speaking of transcendental necessary preconditions, okay?
You need to understand the nature of transcendentals, okay?
The reason for this, namely that there can be only one necessary transcendental and not multiple, okay?
The reason for this is that transcendentals are necessary preconditions.
If there are two necessary preconditions, Christianity and Islam, for example, if there are two necessary preconditions that contradict one another, then they are not necessary, are they?
There would have to be some preconditions back of both to explain their relationship. If there are two necessary preconditions that are one and the same, then it's just the same thing with linguistic variation.
As Shakespeare said, a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. If they're the same, what if there's other religions exactly the same as Christianity?
Well, that'd be Christianity, right? So you could only have one necessary transcendental precondition.
And here's the kicker. If Christianity or the Christian worldview, as we argue for, okay, if it is a necessary—I'm sorry, if it does in fact provide the transcendental necessary preconditions for knowledge and intelligible experience, if it sufficiently does that, as we lay out our case and we demonstrate, look, this is the worldview and this is how it connects and creates the possibility for knowledge and logic, intelligible experience, if it is able to provide the necessary preconditions, then it would follow that it is the only worldview that can do it.
I'm going to say that again. If Christianity is a worldview that can provide the necessary preconditions, the transcendental necessary preconditions, then it follows that it must be the only worldview that can do it, since you could only have one necessary transcendental, given the nature of transcendental.
And this is important, because if Christianity does provide the transcendental necessary preconditions, that means you do not have to refute the infinite other possibilities, because if it is one, it must be the only one, given the nature of transcendentals.
So even if I don't go through Islam, Mormonism, or some religion that doesn't exist yet and might exist in the future, it doesn't matter if Christianity does provide the transcendental necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.
Then given the nature of transcendentals, it could only be one, like the Highlander. There can be only one, right?
So there you go. And that's why we would argue that only the Christian worldview provides those. Now, someone says, oh, wait a minute,
I disagree. My worldview over here. Yes. And that's where the Christian will say, yes, okay, bring on the worldviews.
And of course, the Christian will want to engage, right? We want to engage, because apologetics, we're giving a defense of the faith, and of course, we're presenting the gospel there.
We want to interact with the opposition, because the opposition is made in the image of God.
When I mean opposition, I mean people who hold to a different worldview, okay? It is incumbent upon the
Christian, whether he's arguing along these philosophical lines, or maybe he's doing a biblical apologetic, a presuppositional apologetic in a less formal fashion.
We want to engage people because we want people to submit to the
Lord Jesus Christ and to believe the gospel and repent, right? We want that to happen.
Okay, this is very important. We can step away from kind of like syllogisms and transcendental necessary preconditions and remember that people are not robots.
We are to value the people that we are speaking with. We are to value the people we are arguing with.
And so, as I've said in the past multiple times, that a biblical apologetic is not simply one that argues transcendentally as God is the ultimate foundation and we're not succumbing to neutrality and assumptions of autonomy and things like this.
A biblical apologetic is also one that is presented with gentleness and respect.
If you are not giving an answer to those who ask you for the reason for the hope that's in you without gentleness and respect and you are being argumentative in the bad way,
I know that there's always someone out there watching that, well, Jesus flipped the tables over, right?
We talk about the righteous anger. Yes, that's right. So all apologists out there, every time you get angry and you're demeaning your opponent, it's always the righteous anger, right?
No, it's not. You need to check yourself before you wreck yourself, as the saying goes, okay?
We need to be respectful. We need to be gentle. Gentle does not mean soft and, you know, allowing the other person to walk.
There is a time and a place to be firm, but just because you're firm doesn't mean you have to be a jerk, okay?
Now, everyone can be guilty of this, but unfortunately, presuppositionalists specifically online have been accused of this kind of behavior, and even in some cases using profanity, you know, foul language when addressing unbelievers.
Now, I don't know, there are people who have different views on whether it's appropriate to speak that way. Listen, any way you speak that will drag the name of Christ through the mud, you shouldn't then speak that way.
Whether you think it's a sin or it's not a sin to speak, if you are speaking in a certain way that drags the name of Christ and hurts your witness to that person, you shouldn't say it.
You should speak to the issues. Maintain your composure. Walk in humility, but humility is not in contradiction to firmness and confidence.
You can walk in a humble confidence, right? So, sorry for getting a little preachy there, you know,
I might even be accused of, you know, well, he's just trying to be pious now, right? I don't care.
Yeah, I want to be pious. I want to encourage people that when you're using a biblical apologetic, we should interact with people the way the
Bible tells us to, okay? And the Bible allows for a wide range of behavior, okay? We're not always like, oh, listen, listen, you need to repent.
No, we can be firm. Be firm, right? Be straightforward. Sometimes even be cutting, right?
But do not violate the standards that Scripture has set for us in the manner in which we are to approach people, right?
Not everything we say is clear and understandable. I hear people use these sorts of arguments, transcendental arguments, preconditions of intelligibility, all these sorts of things, and we automatically accuse the unbeliever of sidestepping what we're saying without actually thinking whether they understand what we're saying.
Maybe when an unbeliever says, I don't even know what you're talking about, man, maybe that's not necessarily a sidestep. Maybe you haven't been clear.
And so patiently, right? Hey, what have I said that doesn't make sense? Maybe I can say it a different way.
Instead of automatically going into this crazy offensive mode and defensive mode, when you speak the truth like a jerk, the truth is going to be rejected.
The Bible doesn't call us to be jerks. It calls us to love our neighbor, to love our enemies, and to speak crafty, right, as a serpent, right?
But speak and be teachable yourself and be patient with those who are interacting with you, okay?
And if you're in a platform where atheists and people who are disingenuous, there are people out there who are disingenuous, they just want to rattle your chain and get into the discussion, don't put yourself in that position then.
You're not obligated to throw yourself into a group of people who really are not interested in what you have to say.
Their sole goal is to trip you up and to make you look stupid. Then don't put yourself in that position.
You're not obligated to place yourself in that context. Notice the Bible says that to always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks you, right?
Anyone who asks you. That doesn't mean you always have to initiate and put yourself in a position where you have an example of kind of throwing pearl, the pearls before the swine, right?
Be wise. Know when it is appropriate to engage, how to engage these sorts of things, all right?
Well, now let me get off my soapbox, all right? Well, we are here at the top of the hour, okay?
I hope what I've presented makes sense. If you have any questions, please feel free to put them in the comments.
I'll give a, maybe if there are no questions in two minutes, okay? I'll give you a countdown, right?
Then I will wrap things up. So I hope this is helpful. And as a teacher,
I try my best to be as clear as I can. I probably fail at it more than I'd like, but anyway,
I hope it's been helpful and it's been clear. So there you go. All right. So let's hear, but by the way,
Acererak, Acererak, I hope I pronounced that. I love your picture there, Skeletor.
I was a huge He -Man fan back in the day. When I was a little kid, I was a scrawny little twig and I had a
He -Man sword and I would stand in my front yard. I have the power. I used to love that.
It's a great cartoon. It did not age well though. Now I've seen reruns of He -Man and man, it's, it's not, doesn't, doesn't look as good as it used to be.
Nevertheless, let's take a look. If I'm able to answer your question, I apologize if I can't, let's see what's going on here. So question from Acererak.
I've tried reading through Van Til's writings, but I get stumped when he uses unfamiliar words. Welcome to the party.
What did he mean when he used words like continuity and discontinuity, rationality and irrationality?
Okay. So I'm not sure about the continuity and discontinuity that's going to depend on the particular context of what he says.
And you're right. Van Til used unfamiliar words. He speaks from the context of a continental philosophical perspective.
He's interacting with philosophical views that are not, you know, people today, the average person aren't, they're not privy to those sorts of discussions and the terminology that's typically used in discussions with the idealistic school of philosophy and things like that.
So it can, he can be very difficult. That coupled with the fact that English was not his first language.
And so he is a very, very, very, very difficult person to read. However, if you're patient and you plow through, okay, you plow through, through his work, there are little nuggets of gold.
So I would encourage you if you're reading Van Til and you're like, man, he's a little bit really difficult. Keep reading. Okay. I would encourage you.
Now, now rationality and irrationality is, is often what Van Til used in reference to what the unbeliever is forced to do.
That on the one hand, his worldview is irrational. Okay. We live in a world of pure chance yet he can't help, but swaying from the irrational assumption of a pure chance world to then now appealing to rationality when he's making his arguments and defending his position.
So he's kind of tossed to and fro between the irrationality of his worldview and the necessity of being rational when discussing and arguing and providing justification.
So that's, that's how I see when he uses that kind of rationality, irrationality, dialectic.
Okay. The continuity and discontinuity part. I'm not sure. I'm not sure what he what you're referring to there.
Let me see here. All right.
Give me a second here. Okay. Let me see. Sorry. I had to adjust something on the screen there.
So, okay. All right. So we have some more questions. Let's see here. I have a question.
A priori verse apostoriori. I think I pronounced that right. Okay. So a priori deals with like an assumption, right?
So when we assume something, a priori,
I said that correctly. Okay. We are well, let's break the, let's break it down here.
So, so a priori is it's a Latin term. Okay. And you see this even when
I teach because, because in the school that I teach, they teach Latin. So when I'm going through the, the fallacies and things like that, you know, like the, the post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy, and there are a lot of Latin phraseology.
So a priori is a Latin term that translates to from the earlier or before the fact.
Okay. So in philosophy and epistemology, it's used to describe a type of knowledge or justification that's independent of empirical evidence and is based on, on reasoning, intuition, or deduction.
So something that is a priori is something we assume beforehand. Okay. Whereas apostoriori, if I pronounced that correct.
Okay. That means from the latter or after the fact. Okay. So when we, same context.
So in philosophy and epistemology, it's used to describe a type of knowledge or justification that's derived from or based on empirical evidence, experience, and things like that.
So apostoriori, if I said that right, knowledge is acquired through observation, experimentation, or sensory experience or things like that.
So the difference a priori deals with kind of like our assumptions or presuppositions, apostoriori are the types of knowledge that we get from observation, experience, experimentation, those sorts of things.
All right. I hope that makes sense. All right. Let's see here. All right.
Do you accept divine simplicity? Yes. It depends what you mean.
So when we speak of divine simplicity, very interestingly, the theology behind divine simplicity is not at all simple.
Okay. If you've ever, for example, have read the work of James Dolezal, he's got a book called
God Without Parts, God Without Parts. And he jumps into the doctrine of divine simplicity from a particular perspective there.
And so divine simplicity, there's some different branches of views within that concept. But if you mean by divine simplicity do
I believe that God is not composed of parts, then yes. Yes, I would believe that.
Absolutely. All right. Quinn Soleil. Quinn Soleil?
I hope I said that right. Thank you for this great digestible presentation. You're welcome. Question. Do you think
Brant Bosterman's view on the necessity of the Trinity is the most biblical compared to other preceptors, Anderson, Frame, and Clark?
Well, let's get this here so people know what you're talking about.
I have it here somewhere. There we go.
All right. So if folks are wondering, what is this guy talking about? He's referring to Brant Bosterman.
The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox, an Interpretation and Refinement of the
Theological Apologetic of Cornelius Van Til. Okay. Not an easy read.
But if you are well -versed in presuppositional thought and transcendental argumentation, and you're interested in the
Trinity, you must read this. Okay. He goes into why
God must be three and not four or not two. Right. He talks about binitities instead of the
Trinity or quadrinity. Why must God be three? Super, super helpful. Okay.
So do I think it's more biblical? Yes, I do think.
I mean, I don't remember reading. I mean, it's not like it's a book that focuses on exegesis or anything like that.
I think a lot of what Bosterman writes, Van Til and Anderson and Frame and Clark would probably agree in a lot of what he's saying.
Okay. But whether it's more biblical, I mean, I think it is.
I mean, when I read it, Boston, I'm like, yeah, that makes sense. And I could see where he's getting it from what I think is a biblical conception of God is triune and things like that and how it relates to argument and knowledge and predication.
So. So, yeah, I think that this I think that he his position that I'm definitely confident that he could defend his points biblically.
But I don't think and I can't speak for Brent Bosterman. I don't think he would limit himself to simply biblical exegesis in support of his particular view of the
Trinity being necessary. I think there is room for philosophical argumentation.
And I don't think philosophical argumentation and philosophical categories is necessarily opposed to biblical categories.
I think the Bible gives us a foundation to engage in philosophical speculation with borders.
I say that again. I think even the Bible gives us a permission, so to speak, to engage in philosophical speculation with borders.
That is to say that our philosophical speculation is going to be bordered by the explicit and implicit teaching of scripture so that our philosophical speculation doesn't go beyond.
Right. So. So, yeah. So I think that he coupled with philosophical considerations and biblical considerations and theological considerations.
Yes, I highly recommend Bosterman's book. And I I do agree with his views that are expressed there.
OK. All right. Speaking of frame. Actually, if you look in the back of the book, a frame actually writes a little snippet here.
Here's what John Frame says. John Frame, if you don't know who John Frame is, he's a professor. Well, he was a professor of systematic theology and philosophy at Reform Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida.
He says here, and I quote, this is John Frame. I'm delighted that Brant Bosterman has continued the discussion over Cornelius Fantil and his view of theological paradox.
Bosterman's analysis of these issues is well worthy of publication, and many readers will find it helpful as Bosterman clearly indicates these issues are closely related to the
Bible's teaching about God's Trinitarian existence. And his proposal about that will contribute significantly to the ongoing discussion.
So those that that's John Frame's thoughts or some little snippet here by.
Oh, here's a snippet here by James Anderson. So you asked Dr. Anderson here. I'll read that here, too. So here's what
James Anderson says. And again, he's an associate professor of theology and philosophy again at Reform Theological Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina, actually had the pleasure of visiting the campus there and hanging out with him for a little bit and super nice guy.
But here's what he says. He says, quote, The Trinity and the vindication of Christian paradox is ambitious in its scope.
It is in its depth and creativity. It is the first book -length exposition of Fantil's apologetic to give a leading role to his understanding of theological paradox rather than treating it as many other
Vantillians have done, as merely a supporting actor or a dispensable extra. In addition,
Bosterman's development of Fantil's claim that the ontological Trinity uniquely solves the ancient problem of the one of the many moves the discussion forward in significant respect.
So so someone like James Anderson, someone like John Frame have seen this work as moving the ball in in a further direction than it was previously, because Fantil did not expound on this issue of paradox and the
Trinity and the one of the many in great detail. He addressed it, but not in great detail. Bonson, being an analytic philosopher with focus on epistemology, touches on it, but doesn't go as deep as many would like.
And of course, he died at a fairly young age. And so perhaps it would have been something that he would have expounded upon.
But yes, Bosterman's work here is kind of moving the ball forward in a way that many who have preceded him have not done so.
Okay. Hope that helps. Let's see here. Okay.
If I take time, you got to bear with me as I have to see the questions. The question. Let's see here.
Tonight, Matt and Anthony said they want to have another roundtable discussion. Sky apologetics.
Hey, Sky, how's it going? Tonight, Matt and Anthony said they want to have another roundtable discussion on some theological topic.
Are you for hosting? Yeah, I'd be, I would love to host that. Yeah, maybe I'll connect with them, see if they want to do something again. Yeah, that last one was great.
If you guys haven't checked out my last video, we did an epic apologetics roundtable.
It was myself, Saiten, Bruton, Kate, Matt Slick, and Anthony Rogers. I thought it went very well and folks will find that useful.
So yeah. All right. Talita. How do you presuppositionally refute solipsism?
Yeah. Well, solipsism is, I think solipsism is the result of autonomy.
So when someone rejects reliance upon the triune God and rejects the necessity of revelation, right?
If you don't start with God, then by extension, you start with yourself. And if you start with yourself, there's no way to transcend yourself or get outside yourself.
And hence you'll be stuck with solipsism. Okay. Now, solipsism. Okay. Let's get a proper definition here.
I don't want to misrepresent. So let's say, uh, let's see here. Okay. Okay.
So solipsism is a philosophical standpoint or viewpoint that asserts that only one thing, uh, only thing one can be certain of is the existence of one's own mind or consciousness.
In other words, a solipsist holds that the external world and the existence of other minds are uncertain or even impossible to verify.
From this perspective, everything outside of one's mind is considered to be potentially illusory or a creation of the mind itself.
Okay. And it's an extreme form of skepticism. Yeah, there you go. So a solid, so what I would argue is that a solipsist position, look at the argument we use.
So if, if knowledge is possible, the Christian world is true. Knowledge is possible. Therefore, the Christian world is true on solipsism.
Knowledge would be impossible. I mean, everything is a product of your mind. You couldn't know that it's merely a product of your mind, nor could you know if it wasn't either, or you're stuck in yourself.
Now there are deeper questions that can be asked of a solipsist, but a solipsist cannot provide a solipsistic world.
You cannot provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge, cannot provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.
So any argument that a solipsist use, you can just appeal to their solipsism as not being able to justify what they're arguing.
And of course they might even say, well, yeah, that's right. I can't, I can't justify it. And there you go. That's the worldview.
Greg Monson said that when someone says something along those lines, you give them the microphone and you say, this is what is required.
Let everyone know that in order to, in order to reject Christianity, you have to be a solipsist or whatever, you know, for the solipsist.
And it's not the same for everyone, but if that's the position someone wants to take, now we can't know anything outside ourselves.
That's it. You know, it's just, it could be an illusion. All right. Speak up, which, which position is more rational, a solipsistic philosophical outlook or what the
Christian worldview offers. And the unbelieving solipsist will never accept the Christian worldview except by the grace of God, right?
It is the blindness of the natural man that will lead the natural man to prefer being stuck in his mind, being his own standard as to bowing the knee to the
Lord Jesus. All right. Sky, Paula, have you seen Matt Dillahunty's newest debate?
If so, any thoughts? Is that the one where he walked out? Yeah. I didn't see the whole debate. I just saw the part where he walked out.
So I don't really follow Matt Dillahunty too much. I've kind of, you've seen one of his debates.
You've seen kind of all of them, I think. Um, so yeah, unfortunately
I have not been following, well, unfortunate, unfortunate. Sorry. I have not been following Matt Dillahunty, so I have to apologize, but I have seen that clip where he walked out.
So, um, all right. So as a rack question, what is the best study
Bible and commentary? That's a good question. My favorite study
Bible is the ESV study Bible. It's got so much information. It does great with like colored maps and diagrams.
And I think it's got, I think it has a very well -balanced commentary on each of the passages.
So for example, if you get like the MacArthur study Bible, um, the difference between say like a
John MacArthur study Bible and an ESV study Bible is the ESV study Bible is put together by a committee of people.
So you're getting kind of a very well -balanced perspective and it even shares different perspectives on some theological issues within the text.
Whereas say something like a study Bible like John MacArthur, you're getting John MacArthur's view, right? So you get the limit of just one person's perspective versus getting a well -balanced series of notes and charts and things like that.
So the ESV study Bible is my favorite study Bible commentary. I don't know, but I can tell you my favorite systematic theology if that, if that'll help.
Okay. So for simplicity, I love Wayne Grudem. I don't agree everything with Wayne Grudem, but for simplicity writes such in a clear way,
I can give like a random lay person who wants to know theology and give them that book. But I really like this one. One second.
All right. So this one here, sorry, I think I took, I took the flap, the cover off.
It's called a new systematic theology of the Christian faith by Dr. Robert Raymond. Okay.
And I actually heard Dr. James White on a dividing line once recommend this one. And it is really, really good.
The author comes from a presuppositional perspective. There's even a whole section here on presuppositionalism, but it is an excellent, excellent resource that I highly recommend.
So Ronald Robert Raymond, a new systematic theology of the Christian faith.
All right. So totally should get, I think it's available on Kindle too. If you're one of those digital people,
I'm more of a digital guy. So these, these books are there for decoration. I usually use a, I can,
I have a Kindle scribe. I love the thing. Take my entire library with me and you could write in it.
So it's, it's pretty beast, but yes, definitely a good systematic theology. I highly recommend it.
All right. Let's see here. Did it, did it, did it, did it? Yeah. You should have the other Paul on again.
Yeah. I want to get the other Paul on. He's really good. I love his stuff. Yeah. If you don't know who the other Paul is, you should type other
Paul YouTube, subscribe to his channel. It's really good. Yeah.
Yeah. Christian monarchist. Matt will just say, I'm not convinced that every, at every argument. Yep. Yep. That's pretty much my experience in listening to his debates over the years.
I'm not convinced. Not my favorite response to that was by Michael Jones, inspiring philosophy. They did a debate a while back and Matt Delonte said,
I'm not convinced. And Michael Jones said, I don't care. I don't care if you're not convinced.
Just respond to the argument. So yeah. Yes. That's, that's what he typically says in my experience. Let's see here.
What's your top three, what's your top three to five favorite list of apologists.
Hmm. So easily, easily
Greg Bonson. Okay. James White.
He's not a philosopher. Dr. Bonson was, but James White has debated so much.
And so widely that when I want to, um, when
I want to hear what a Christian could say with respect to like this view over here, this review here, he's, he's done so many debates that yeah.
Like, Hey, I found some DVR helpful. And so I find myself watching a lot of his debates to kind of brush up on some topics and things like that.
So Greg Bonson, James White, of course, Cornelius Vantill, Matt slick.
I, when I first got into apologetics, like in high school, I remember listening to his podcast and reading his articles.
So, um, whatever you think of Matt slick, he actually played a very big role in when
I got started in apologetics. So I've, um, very much appreciated, um, his stuff, even in points where I disagreed, uh, with him,
I've always found them to be helpful. So, um, let's see here. Greg Bonson, James White, Matt's like Vantill of course.
Um, I love Gordon Clark. That might be weird for PR. I'm a Vantill guy, but I love
Gordon Clark. Um, Anthony Rogers. I love Anthony Rogers. And, uh,
I'd have to think, I'd have to think there's, there's a lot of good apologists out there. Yeah. Yeah.
Um, what was my experience with Tom jump? Um, yeah, I thought it, I thought it went well. Um, I debated
Tom jump a while back when he was debating everybody. And, uh,
I think Doug from pine Creek suggested me to him. And so we, we got a discussion going and I got some really positive feedback from that discussion.
I didn't find him to be, uh, you know, obnoxious or mean, or we actually had a really good discussion.
Now I did find him to be evasive at some points because I remember watching a video where he expressed his view on something.
And then I said, well, this is your view. And then he's like, well, no, that's not my view. And I was like, well, wait a second. I actually heard you say that this was your view, but it seems like you're now taking a different position so as to not be critiqued.
So that, that was the impression I had, but I have no ill will towards him. I mean, he was very respectful to me.
We had a good discussion and, um, yeah, that was long time ago. That was like one of the first, first, second or third debates
I ever did. Yeah. Uh, Brenda, do you have an argument for your first premise? Well, Brenda, you came late, so you got to watch the rest of the video.
So I don't want to rehash everything, but, uh, I'm glad you're in the comments there,
Brenda. Okay. Let's see here. Thank you for answering my question. I also wanted to ask you if you ever had a debate, if you ever had to debate any former pre -suppers who may have deconstructed, if so, what are their common arguments and how would you counter them?
All right. So the answer to that question, I have never had to debate a former pre -supper. However, when
I listened to former pre -suppers, okay, what you will necessarily recognize is a detachment from obviously
God and revelation, and they will shift into assumptions of autonomy and neutrality with respect to demonstrating and proving various things.
So when you remove yourself from God as your foundation, what you do then is you are stuck, right?
When I said before, you don't start with God, you have to start with yourself. And so I will see elements of epistemologically starting with oneself.
And then they're right in that conundrum that everyone is. When you start with yourself, you have the egocentric predicament.
There is no way to transcend yourself. There are other various philosophies and epistemologies that they might adopt.
Um, but what I see there is that, that cutting the line, so to speak, from that ultimate foundation, which then they begin to speak and, and require the
Christian to provide independent, right? Non -circular argumentation, right?
The way they would use the words, they're assuming neutral categories because as we know, since we all have presuppositions and ultimate starting points, there's going to be circularity at the base of our worldview.
Uh, but when people who move away from a presuppositional perspective, they'll start now talking in ways that will give evidence of neutral and autonomous categories.
Okay. So that's, uh, I, I would point those out and exploit those in discussion if I were in such a situation.
Okay. Uh, I love Matt. Yeah, I love Matt too. He's a, he's a friend.
Uh, Matt, Matt is a fool. Well, regardless. So if you think Matt is a fool, that's fine. Everyone's free, uh, to, to hold their view.
But, but the question was for me, for me personally, for me personally, like my experience with Matt, um, him being a friend of mine, um,
I learned a lot from him. So I, I, that's not to say that I agree with everything he says or how he does things or whatever.
Um, so there you go. Okay. All right. Let's see here. I like Tom jump.
He's always, well, I don't know if he's always nice. He was nice to me. I don't know if he's always nice.
I've seen some pretty, uh, I've seen some interesting interactions. Okay. Uh, thoughts on, on Pine Creek.
Yeah. Doug's a nice guy. I mean, I, I like Doug. I was on his show a while back.
Um, long time ago. I think he's a nice guy. I think his questions, this is my opinion.
Okay. And if this is not really what he tries to do, then fine. But I think his questions are just meant to trip people up and not always meant to thoughtfully interact with the person's position.
That is not to say that he always does that. I just get that impression. Okay. And if I'm wrong, my bed, that's the impression
I get. I think he will ask questions in such a way to trip people up. He does a lot of psychologizing, right?
Uh, the person that's interacting with him. Um, I don't know if that's just the way he talks, but that's the impression
I get. So I apologize. You know, if Doug ever watched this and he's like, that's not why I do it or why I asked this or I apologize.
That's the impression I, I typically get. So just giving you my honest, uh, opinion here.
Uh, let's see here. Let's see here. Thoughts on Parker Seneca.
I actually wanted to get Parker on. I was on. So, so back in the day when my channel was, um, speaking of my channel,
I want to thank everybody. I, we finally, let's see, we finally reached 8 ,000 subscribers.
I'm super excited for that. And I so grateful for people, whether you agree with me or disagree with me, just watching and subscribing and supporting.
I really do appreciate that. So, but yeah, before I was at 8 ,000, I was much smaller, but kind of quote unquote up and coming and the channel was growing and I was invited on Parker and Joel's podcast.
And so I was interviewed by both of them a while ago on presuppositional apologetics. Now, since then, Parker has been doing some excellent, excellent work with interviews, very philosophical, very sharp guy.
I'd love to have him on and tackle the topic with him. So thank you for mentioning his podcast. I definitely not, it makes me think
I want, I might want to reach out and see I've never had him on my show, although I've had Joel on before. Um, so yeah.
So thank you for that. Yeah. Okay. Uh, yeah, that's right. Sky obviously revealed apologetics and whenever one, well,
I hope that's true. That's awesome. If people like this channel, like this, you got to share the stuff, right?
Those positive reviews. Those are all super helpful. So, um, so just, just saying sky, I don't know if you've done that already, but whatever, whatever, let's see here.
Um, to do. All right. Well, I think that is it.
Well, thank you so much guys for listening in. Right. And I hope what
I said was clear and helpful and useful and beneficial to you. So, um, it is a pleasure for me to do this and I love to teach.
And so, um, and I'm learning as well. There are a lot of things, even about presuppositional apologetics that I'm learning and unpacking and trying to formulate in my mind different ways to, um, express it and things like that.
Um, and I'm hoping that it is beneficial to people. Now I've said this at the beginning and I'll say it again as I am on my, thank you sky, by the way.
Thank you for those kind words. Genuinely my favorite podcast. Love your stuff, Eli. I love you too, brother. I love you too, man. Appreciate you.
And, um, I really appreciate everybody who, who, who listens in. Um, so thank you for that.
But if you are looking to support revealed apologetics, um, it would be very, very helpful.
Um, just the basic stuff. I mean, like, and subscribe, like everyone always says, but, um,
I offer a presuppositional apologetics course, a five week course. Um, and you can sign up for it on the website and that is a super helpful way to support the channel.
Um, I am offering my premium version of my course where I meet, um, once a week for five weeks with the people who sign up to go deeper into the content of the recorded videos and outlines and PowerPoints and things like that.
So if you're interested in that, you can sign up for that right now. And it is one of the ways that you can support revealed apologetics financially if you're able to, if not reviews, thumbs, prayers, all of those things would be greatly appreciated.
So just wanted to throw that out there. Um, there are people who have taken the course. Here we go. All right.
His course is excellent. Thank you so much. I do appreciate that, uh, Christian. Um, so yeah, it's, it's,
I recorded it some years ago and it's been, it's on sale in my, on, on my, um, website, but not just that, if you don't want to pay for a five week course, although I hope you do cause it's helpful and I think you would find it helpful.
I also have, um, let me see if I can screen share this real quick. Let me see.
Let's do this real quick before we sign off. Boom.
Okay. There we go. So what you're able to do here.
So on the top there, there's the course. So introduction to biblical apologetics. Um, and when you click the
RSVP, there is the basic package, which just gives you the recorded lectures, the PowerPoints and the outlines. And the premium package, um, is a little bit more, but when you, um, uh, when you sign up for that, the premium course, then you will get some information that will let you know, when we start, you'll be watching the videos and then we'll be meeting once a week and we'll go deeper.
And that'll be an opportunity to, we'll be in a private zoom with all the students have signed up and you could ask me anything you want. We could unpack the content of the videos, or we can discuss questions that, that arise after you watch the content.
Hey, I was wondering about this. And in the past, these discussions have been really, really good and beneficial for those who have listened.
And for myself as well, as I get to see people, the supporters get to see a face to face, which is pretty, um, pretty cool.
So you can sign up for that on revealed apologetics .com. Click on the precept you and then RSVP premium course introduction to biblical apologetics, or you can purchase the
Epic online Calvinism conference. Uh, those videos are not available anywhere else, only for those who signed up for the conference when it happened live.
And those are recordings are available. And we had myself, I gave a presentation on Calvinism versus Molinism.
Dr. James White gave a lecture, uh, Dr. G um, Guillaume been young, gave a lecture.
Um, and so, um, the Epic online Calvinism conference is available there as well.
And then of course the first conference that I ever put on here on this channel is the Epic online precept, um, conference.
And so we have some good speakers there. Jason Lyle is on there as well. So, um, yeah. So if you want to support the channel in some way, um, sign up for any of those.
And, um, if not, you know, prayers are appreciated and just your viewership.
I appreciate you guys, um, coming on and listening to what I got to say. So with that said, that's it for tonight, guys.
I'm going to rest my voice. I hope you guys have a good night. It's 10 36 PM where I am right now. So until next time, guys, take care and God bless.