Apologetic Implications of Self-Deception (Explained)

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and today we're going to be talking about the topic of Dr.

Greg Bonson's doctoral dissertation, which covered the topic of self -deception.

Now if you go on Amazon right now, you can type in Greg Bonson, self -deception, and a book will pop up entitled

The Apologetic Implications of Self -Deception. To my knowledge, I think that is a watered -down version of his doctoral dissertation, whose title is much more doctoral dissertation -ish.

His dissertation is actually called A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self -Deception.

That sounds more doctoral dissertation -ish than The Apologetic Implications of Self -Deception.

So that's what we're going to be talking about today, and it is a complicated topic, and so my hope here is to kind of explore what

Dr. Bonson is getting at when he speaks of, especially in the context of presuppositional apologetics, when he speaks of this issue of the unbeliever being self -deceived.

That on the one hand, the unbeliever does not know God, yet on the other hand, there is a sense in which the unbeliever does know

God, and he is without excuse. So is this a contradiction? What's going on here? What do we mean when us presuppositionalists say that you are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness?

What does that mean? So we'll unpack that here in this livestream today, or tonight, or whatever time it is right now.

So I'm super excited. This is a topic that I wish there was some breakdown on.

When I was studying this issue, it was really complicated. I was listening to a bunch of lectures by Dr.

Bonson, and I kind of still, you kind of understand what he's saying, but it can kind of be a little complicated also, and so my goal here is to, while on the one hand you have

Cornelius Mantill, who's really hard to understand, and you have Dr. Bonson, who's much better and more clear in understanding, and then

I'm trying to take what Dr. Bonson put out, and then kind of making it even more simpler, if that makes sense.

So that's my goal for tonight's livestream. Now I did a livestream,

I think, last night, and so we're doing a back -to -back livestream. Last night I did the 50 pre -sup questions.

I hope that was enjoyable for folks, and today we're doing this topic. I don't know when my next livestream is going to be, because I'm going back to the dentist.

So I'm getting some work done, and hopefully it's just a quick, doesn't really hurt, and I can kind of just keep chugging more videos out, because I've got a lot of things on the docket, which

I think folks will find extremely helpful. So that's kind of the plan. Now before we get started, though,

I did make this announcement prior to getting into my 50 questions, my 50 pre -sup questions last night, is that my new course on presuppositional apologetics is available.

So on the website there is a link to the description of this video if you're interested in supporting Revealed Apologetics.

One of the big ways you can do that is by signing up for one of my courses. So I have one course that has been available for quite some time, and it's also available for purchase now, and then

I have a new course that just dropped, and it is available on my website, revealedapologetics .com.

You go on the menu bar, and you click Presupp U, and you can enroll in that course.

It is five lectures. I cover, so the course is called Presupp Applied.

The first lecture is entitled Navigating Apologetic Conversations. The second lecture is

Presuppositional Apologetics Applied to Atheism. The next one is Presupp Applied to Roman Catholicism.

The fourth one, Presupp Applied to Presuppositional Eastern Orthodoxy. That's an interesting one.

It's the first time I ever taught that particular content there. And then the last one is How to Apply Presuppositional Apologetics to the

Cults. So that's the content of my new course, and so if that's something that is interesting to you, please sign up.

Great way to support what I'm doing. And there you go. So the link is in the description of this video, and so that should be easy to find.

Also, if you have any questions that you want answered, apologetics questions, theological questions, feel free to email me at revealedapologetics at gmail .com.

I will try my best. I know some people have emailed me. I would recommend that if you have a question you'd like me to address through email, keep the question short and succinct, okay?

Sometimes people will write like a whole essay, you know, or like four or five paragraphs. That's a lot.

I love reading the questions, and I wish I had the time to kind of thoughtfully respond to each point, but it does take a lot of time, depending on the question, for me to write something out and to give a well -thought -out answer.

And so please try to keep your questions kind of brief, but maybe capture the essence of what you want me to try and answer, okay?

All right. Well, without further ado, let's kind of jump in to the issue of the apologetic implications of self -deception.

So kind of give some context here. Greg Bonson, who is obviously a presuppositional apologist, he was a

Christian philosopher. If you're interested, he's more specifically within the analytic tradition.

He was an analytic philosopher, and he was a pastor and theologian. He wrote his doctoral dissertation, okay, on this idea of self -deception.

As I mentioned before, the title of his dissertation, if you're interested in looking it up, I think it's available online somewhere.

You could access it. It's called A Conditional Resolution of the Apparent Paradox of Self -Deception.

And basically he dives into this super complex issue of self -deception, where basically individuals hold contradictory beliefs simultaneously, okay?

And so Bonson kind of explores how people can genuinely believe one thing while subconsciously suppressing or denying another conflicting belief, if that makes sense, okay?

And so he explains that this process involves things like motivated rationalizations, where individuals reinterpret evidence and construct false beliefs to maintain kind of a comfortable self -conception.

And so this self -deception is not, for Bonson, is not merely something that is passive, but he argues that it is an active effort to hide uncomfortable truths from oneself, and again leading to kind of self -deception.

So Bonson basically will take this idea and apply his philosophical analysis to this idea and bring a theological context to bear on this, particularly examining this concept within the context of Romans 1, okay?

So according to Paul, for example, all people inherently know God due to his clear revelation in nature, okay?

We'll read through that passage in Romans 1, but we're told that they suppress the truth and unrighteousness.

And so Bonson argues that this suppression is a form of self -deception, okay?

It's driven by a desire to avoid moral accountability to God. And so by understanding the mechanisms of self -deception,

Bonson pretty much believes that Christians can better address the intellectual and moral facets of unbelief, okay, exposing the contradictions in non -Christian worldviews and hopefully guiding individuals toward the truth of the gospel.

So there's a lot packed into these concepts, and we'll kind of address it from different angles, okay?

But the scriptural context for this is Romans 1, verses 18 -21, 18 -23,

I suppose, you can keep reading there, and it's still relevant. So let's kind of take a look—oops, okay, no audio, let's see here, make sure

I'm plugged in. You know, I flail my arms too, so sometimes I disconnect the audio, so thank you, appreciate that.

All right, well, let's jump right into Romans. If you have your Bible or you have an app or something that you have access to,

Romans chapter 1, verse 18 and on, okay? This is a key scripture in this concept of self -deception and the knowledge of God, the knowledge of God that all men have.

And so the scriptures read, "...for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth."

That's a key point in this passage, for you must have the truth, in some sense, to suppress it, right?

And Paul goes on to say, "...for what can be known about God is plain to them," check this out, "...because

God has shown it to them." It's God who has shown it to them, okay? "...for

His invisible attributes, namely His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived ever since the creation of the world in the things that have been made.

So they are without excuse." And he goes on to say, "...for although they knew

God," non testam theion, in the Greek there, knowing the God, okay, adds specificity to the

God they know, "...they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened."

Okay? So that's a key passage with respect to the biblical teaching, with respect to man's knowledge of God.

And so this passage from Romans, I think highlights several key points that I think Dr. Bonson uses to explain this concept of self -deception.

So basically you have within this passage the concept of the inherent knowledge of God. Okay? So the passage asserts that what can be known about God is plain to all people because God has made it evident through His creation.

And so His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature are clearly perceived in the world around us.

Notice that this passage emphasizes the clarity of the revelation. And this is key because when we hear often in apologetic context, especially in the literature, within the context of, oh my goodness, what's the discipline called?

Not natural theology. The philosophy of religion. Holy cow. I had like a blanked out there for a second.

Within the context of the philosophy of religion and arguments against theism, one of the arguments that comes to mind that's pretty popular is the argument from divine hiddenness.

Okay? Now, but I pointed out in the past, in past videos, that the argument from divine hiddenness, this idea that if God exists, why don't we see more evidence of Him?

Again, this is, this whole argument is predicated upon a rejection of the teaching of Scripture from the start.

For within the Christian context, within the biblical teaching, God is not hidden. For what can be known about God is made known.

And so there is a certain level of truth that even the unbeliever has, but is suppressing. And so despite the clear revelation that God has provided, people suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

Okay? Now, if you're an unbeliever listening to this, yes, of course, I understand you're gonna be like, well, this is ridiculous. Yeah. But if the

Christian worldview is true and the Scripture is what it claims to be, a divine revelation from God, then it makes sense for the

Christian to be able to say within his worldview, that we have a divine commentary on the state of the unbeliever's knowledge.

All right? God has told us, He's given us a peek into the heart of man. And He tells us that, and God is in a position to tell us this, that all men have a knowledge of Him, but is suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.

And this suppression, Dr. Monson points out, is an active and willful denial of the evident truth about the

God that they know. Okay? It's not merely ignorance, but it is a deliberate rejection of what is known.

Okay? And of course, the text goes on to tell us, although they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks to Him.

Okay? And this lack of honor and gratitude reflects a deep -seated rebellion and ingratitude, right?

Instead of acknowledging God's sovereignty and His goodness, people turn away from Him. And so what happens as a result of this?

What happens as a result of this suppression? As a result of this suppression and as a result of this lack of gratitude, what does the text tell us?

The text tells us that their thinking becomes futile and their hearts are darkened. Okay?

And this futility in thinking signifies that their reasoning and their understanding is corrupt.

Their darkened hearts indicate a spiritual blindness and a moral corruption.

Okay? And so in Romans 1, verse 18 and on, we get a good glimpse into the fact that all men have a knowledge of God, and there is a suppression of this truth, and there is something that results, a negative result from that suppression.

And of course, there is a sense in which you must have the truth in order to suppress the truth. I think another important scripture on this point is

Genesis 1, verse 26, and this idea that we're made in the image of God. So Genesis 1, 26 tells us, then

God said, let us make man in our image after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth, so on and so forth.

Okay? But right there at the beginning, let us make man in our image. Okay? So this passage,

I think, is critical and it's foundational for understanding the unique status of human beings. Okay?

We are different than everything else in creation. Okay? Being made in the imago Dei, the image of God, this has profound implications for understanding of what it means to be human, for understanding of consciousness, our relationship with God.

Okay? It's important to understand that humans are uniquely created in the image of God and likeness of God, setting us apart from the rest of creation.

And so this endows humans with, basically this idea of the image of God endows humans with qualities that reflect

God's very nature. Example, rationality, moral capacity, creativity, relationality.

Okay? We reflect the very attributes of God in light of the fact that we are image bearers of God.

Okay? And as image bearers, right, human beings reflect certain attributes. This includes the ability to reason, make moral judgments, appreciate beauty, kind of issues of aesthetics, right?

And engage in relationships. And these characteristics, these attributes enable humans to have dominion over creation as the passage speaks about.

Okay? But particularly relevant to the topic at hand is this idea that all men have a knowledge of God.

And I think the knowledge of God that all men have is also wrapped up in the fact that we are made in God's image.

Okay? Because human beings are made in God's image, okay, we have an intrinsic awareness of God.

And this knowledge is not something learned solely through, you know, external revelation like looking at the trees outside or whatever, but rather it is embedded in the very nature of being human.

Okay? And so our ability to think, reason, and reflect, I think, is part of this inherent awareness of God.

Okay? And so Romans chapter 1, Genesis, the concept of the Imago Dei, I think are all relevant to this specific topic.

Okay? Now, when we talk about self -deception in the context of apologetics, particularly from Dr. Bonson's perspective here,

I think we're dealing with a very complex issue. Dr. Bonson, obviously drawing from Bantill and of course scripture itself, is basically going to contend that self -deception is a fundamental aspect of the unbeliever's condition.

Okay? And so the core idea here is that every person, pretty much deep down, and Bonson would often say in their heart of hearts, right, has an inherent knowledge of God due to being made in His image and living in His world.

Okay? But of course due to the fall and the sinful nature of humanity, there is a willful suppression of this truth.

Now what's key here is that man's knowledge of God is a reality in light of the fact that not only the heavens declare the glory of God, but that all things in creation are evidence of the

God that we have knowledge of. And that includes, that includes the person, the human being themselves.

Okay? That the fact that I am conscious and aware is itself understood within the context of God's revelation.

My own self -consciousness is revelatory of God, and everything around me is revelatory of God.

Okay? And so the knowledge of God that we have is not merely mediated through the created order external to ourselves, but the knowledge of God that all men have is immediate.

It's immediately known in light of the fact that we are conscious, aware, and image -bearers of God.

Okay? But, because of the sinfulness of man, we suppress the truth. And so Bonson focuses on the fact that this suppression isn't merely a passive ignoring of truth, right?

But it is an active self -deception. So the unbeliever knows the truth of God's existence and his moral demands, yet they choose to deceive themselves in order to live in a way that is contrary to this truth, this fact.

And so this self -deception is a defense mechanism against the conviction that God comes, that comes from God and his revelation, both in nature and in Scripture.

Now why is this important to apologetics? Well, the implications of this is huge, right? Firstly, it means that every apologetic encounter is not just an intellectual debate, right, between the believer and the unbeliever, rather it is a moral and spiritual confrontation.

And so the unbelievers' arguments against God are not just rational objections, but they're also attempts to maintain their self -deception.

And so this understanding, I think, shapes how we approach apologetics, right? Instead of merely addressing intellectual objections, we also need to be aware of the underlying spiritual rebellion.

And so apologetics is not merely intellectual, it is spiritual, all right?

Now in saying all of this, I want to highlight something I think is super important, okay?

I want to highlight this. It's super important. Let me fix this here, all right?

And I want you to hear what I'm not saying. Here is what I'm not saying. When we say that all men have a knowledge of God, okay, and that the unbeliever is suppressing the knowledge of God, what we're not saying, and this was not what

Van Til was saying, and this is not what Dr. Bronson was saying, we're not saying that when the unbeliever says he does not know

God, that he is simply lying, right? We're not going to tell the unbeliever, well, man, you're lying, bro.

We know that you know God because God has told us that you have a knowledge. It's true that God has told us that they have a knowledge of God.

But I don't think that this, their denial of God basically boils down to this idea, well, they're just lying about it, okay?

We need to define our terms. You want to make a distinction between kind of outright lying and the idea of self -deception, okay?

Lying, okay, when we're talking about outright lying, this involves a person knowingly stating falsehoods, and so the liar is aware of the truth but is basically intentionally communicating something contrary to that truth.

And so outright lying is a conscious act, right? The act of lying is a conscious decision to deceive other people, and so the liar is aware of the discrepancy between their statement and the truth, okay?

And there is a lying primarily focuses on deceiving others rather than oneself, right?

When you're dealing with the lying to oneself, self -deception, it's different than what is happening when someone is engaging kind of an outright lying to other people, okay?

Now self -deception, as Dr. Bonson highlights, involves a person convincing themselves of a falsehood.

It's a process where an individual suppresses or distorts the truth within their own mind, and this process is more of a subconscious process.

Self -deception, right, operates at a subconscious level, and so the self -deceived person might not even fully be aware of the truth that they are suppressing, but they are suppressing the truth, okay?

And so self -deception involves an internal conflict where a person holds conflicting beliefs or attitudes, and they suppress or rationalize the truth to maintain a comfortable but false belief, right?

You know, kind of, we are soothed in the sense of knowing or believing that there is no

God, okay? In other words, to believe that there is no God is a comfort for whatever reasons, okay?

And that's just one of the ways we rationalize the non -existence of God, okay, is going to be what we would argue is a form of self -deception, okay?

All right, let's see here. All right, so there are some key points then to understand what

Dr. Bonson is getting at, okay? Every person, he would argue, and I think this is true biblically, every person has an inherent

God -given knowledge of his existence and his attributes, okay? Unbelievers actively suppress this truth and unrighteousness, and this suppression is not merely a denial but an internal distortion to avoid the implications of God's existence, and this suppression creates an internal conflict where an unbeliever might hold beliefs and live in ways that contradict their professed worldview, okay?

And this self -deception is a subconscious process, the self -deception meaning the unbeliever might not be fully aware of what they're doing at the moment, but they are constructing rationalizations and adopting beliefs that allow them to live comfortably in the denial of God's reality, okay?

And so those are some key points to keep in mind. And so let's go through some examples of what this might look like.

So imagine you're engaging with someone who asserts that there are no moral absolutes. Morality is typically kind of an easier concept or example to use, okay, to help us understand what's going on here, okay?

So imagine you're engaging with someone who asserts that there are no moral absolutes, and they argue that morality is nothing more than a social construct, or morality varies from culture to culture, or something along those lines.

Now according to Bonson, this person would not be merely mistaken intellectually, because we would disagree, morality is not a social construct.

It doesn't vary from culture to culture in the way that moral relativists might argue.

Bonson would say that this person is not just intellectually mistaken, but is actively suppressing the truth that they know about God's moral law.

And so in this conversation, it would be crucial to point out that they're very active making moral judgments.

So for example, claiming that something like tolerance is good, or condemning some form of injustice, pretty much betrays their knowledge of absolute moral standards.

And so despite their claims, they live and argue in a way that presupposes objective moral values.

And so this contradiction is a sign of their self -deception. And so they deny absolute moral laws with their lips, but they affirm it in their actions.

You see how there's a contradiction there, okay? And so you see that there's an internal conflict there, okay?

Consider someone who kind of insists that only scientific knowledge is valid, right? The person who holds to kind of some form of scientism, okay?

And that the belief in God is maybe something irrational, okay? And so they argue that the universe can be fully explained through natural processes without invoking any sort of deity of any kind, and so Bonson would suggest that this person is also engaging in a form of self -deception, okay?

Despite their insistence on naturalism, okay, this individual relies on things like the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, and moral judgments, all of which can't be justified within their naturalistic framework, especially if they hold to the view that all knowledge comes through scientific investigation, because you do not know the laws of logic, uniformity of nature, moral judgments, and all those sorts of things through a scientific experiment, okay?

In essence, they're borrowing from the Christian worldview to argue against it, okay? And pointing out this inconsistency,

I think, is one of the ways that we expose the self -deception and the inherent knowledge of God. They know their worldview cannot account for these necessary, what we call necessary preconditions of intelligibility, yet they suppress this truth to avoid acknowledging

God. Now real quick on this point, when I make the statement that the unbeliever is unable to account or provide a justification for the laws of logic, uniformity, moral judgments, and so forth,

I don't want to make that as a passing claim. Of course, the unbeliever is going to attempt to provide justifications for those things, right?

They're not going to be like, well, I guess I can't account for them. Some people do. They will offer attempts to justify those things, but we're going to have to be ready to engage in those attempts and show that they're insufficient, and to show that the

Christian worldview does, in fact, provide those preconditions and can explain those things, and within the

Christian worldview, so on and so forth, okay? All right, let's go with another example, okay? Let's deal with someone who might be a religious pluralist, okay?

Suppose you're talking to someone who believes that all religions are equally valid paths to God. You guys have heard this a lot of times, right?

You know, all religions are true, and if you're familiar with apologetics and logic and things like that, you'll see the problem with that, right?

There's obviously, that's obviously going to be problematic, okay? But basically, you have these people, they argue that no single religion can claim exclusive truth, okay?

And so, Dr. Bonson would, correctly, he would highlight that this person is also self -deceived in this position, okay?

Because the stance itself, that very stance itself assumes or presupposes a higher viewpoint that supposedly understands all religious truths better than any individual religion.

I want you to pay attention to that. So if someone were to argue that no single religion can claim exclusive truth, and so they argue that all religions are equally valid paths to God, that stance itself assumes or presupposes a higher viewpoint that supposedly understands all religious truths better than any individual religion, okay?

It implies an absolute standard of truth that contradicts the relativism it purports to endorse.

You see the conflict there, right? And so by pointing out this self -contradiction, what do you do? You reveal their suppression of the exclusivity of Christ's claims, which they know, but choose to ignore, okay?

And so each of these examples, the key is not just to refute the intellectual positions, but to expose the underlying self -deception, right?

Dr. Bonson's approach here involves showing the unbeliever that their worldview is internally inconsistent and that they're living in contradiction to the truth they inherently know about God.

And so this method aims to break through the self -deception and bring them face -to -face with the reality of their rebellion against God, all right?

Now in the more complicated aspect of this discussion of the apologetic implications of self -deception,

Dr. Bonson speaks of what he calls first -order beliefs and second -order beliefs.

And he kind of explains how understanding first -order beliefs and second -order beliefs will be helpful in understanding the nature of what we mean when we're talking about the nature of self -deception itself, okay?

I said self a lot of times there. So let's kind of unpack what Dr. Bonson is saying here.

So in his analysis, he draws this distinction between what we call first -order beliefs and second -order beliefs.

And so this distinction is, I think, critical in understanding kind of the mechanics of how self -deception works.

And so let's kind of walk through this slowly so that it is understandable and digestible for folks, all right?

And if you're enjoying this and you're finding this useful, let me know with some thumbs up. That helps me kind of know

I'm not putting people to sleep here, you know? And so, yeah, let me know if you guys are alive there, okay?

All right. So let's talk about these first -order beliefs, okay? So I'm going to go through this slowly so that you can follow because this is where people kind of fall off the deep end and they're not really understanding.

I can follow these arguments, I can't put them into practice. Well, hopefully, Ross, the examples

I provided might be useful to you. So I don't know if you just started listening in, but I gave examples of how this could be put into practice, right?

So how do I expose the knowledge of God that the unbeliever has?

For when the unbeliever says one thing with their mouth, for example, there are no moral absolutes.

Do they believe that in their heart of hearts? Do they live that way, okay?

Because there are people who say many things, but they don't actually live that out consistently showing an internal conflict between what they say and how they actually live, okay?

And the way they live, in accordance to moral absolutes, shows that they actually have a knowledge of the moral law that God has written on the heart of man.

And so that's one of the ways to show that they are deceiving themselves and they are contradicting themselves. So hopefully, if you go back and listen to those examples that I gave, hopefully that will be useful to you, all right?

All right, let's continue here. So first order beliefs, what are first order beliefs, okay? First order beliefs are those immediate, direct beliefs about the world and our experiences, okay?

These are the beliefs we hold about particular facts or some state of affairs.

For example, a first order belief could be something like the sky is blue or I have a headache or stealing is wrong, okay?

And so these beliefs are direct and concern specific aspects of reality, okay?

That's what a first order belief is, okay? Now, a second order belief, okay, those are beliefs about our first order beliefs, okay?

I'm going to say that again. So first order beliefs are those immediate, direct beliefs about the world and our experience, like the sky is blue,

I have a headache, stealing is wrong. Second order beliefs are reflective beliefs, where we consider and evaluate our own beliefs, okay?

So we would say second order beliefs are beliefs about our first order beliefs.

So the sky is blue, that's a first order belief. And my belief about that belief is a second order belief.

And so these are reflective beliefs where we consider and evaluate our own beliefs.

For example, a second order belief could be, okay, I believe that I believe the sky is blue, all right?

Or I think that my belief about stealing being wrong is justified.

And notice these beliefs involve what we call a metacognitive layer where we assess and interpret our own belief systems, okay?

Now, help me out, okay? If that makes sense, give me a thumbs up, give me a sign, okay?

You have first order beliefs, the sky is blue, and then you have second order beliefs, which are beliefs about our first order beliefs, okay?

So first order belief, the sky is blue. Second order belief is my belief about my belief that the sky is blue, okay?

Hopefully that makes sense, all right? I'm hoping that makes sense, okay? Now, Dr.

Bonson's analysis shows that self -deception, okay, this is how this relates now to self -deception.

Dr. Bonson shows that self -deception often involves a conflict or a disjunction between first order and second order beliefs.

And so in the context of self -deception, an individual might have a first order belief that is true and evident, but simultaneously hold a second order belief that denies or obscures that first order belief.

I'm going to say that again. So within the context of self -deception, an individual might have a first order belief that is true and evident, but at the same time hold a second order belief that denies or obscures that first order belief, okay?

What do I mean by this? How can I give an example of this? Let's take a look here.

So an unbeliever might have a first order belief in the moral wrongness of lying, okay?

They act and they make judgments as if lying is wrong. Yet their second order belief might be that morality is relative and subjective.

And so here, there's a tension because their direct experience and their inherent understanding affirm the truth, lying is wrong.

But their reflective second order stance denies that first order belief.

Basically, morality is subjective, okay? You see how that works, okay? So for example, consider the atheist and, you know, using morality again.

So the atheist who, you know, argues that there is no God and that moral values are purely human constructs, right?

This is their second order belief. However, in their everyday life, they might show a strong sense of justice or indignation at certain wrongs that they observe.

And they might have an admiration for acts of kindness and so forth. And these responses reflect first order beliefs in objective moral values.

And so when confronted with kind of a moral situation, their actions and judgments often betray an implicit acknowledgement of an objective moral order, even though their second order belief denies it.

And so Bonson would point out that this disjunction indicates a self -deception. And so the atheist's second order beliefs are constructed to suppress the truth of the first order beliefs, which align with the reality of God's moral law, okay?

So you see how that kind of—there's a contradiction and a tension within the first order and second order beliefs there?

And so within the apologetic interaction, you want to point out that tension, okay? First, you're going to have to identify that tension and then point out that tension within the course of your interaction, okay?

Or you can take, for example, I don't know, a scientist.

Let's take a look at the idea of a scientist and the idea of rationality. So take a scientist who basically asserts that the universe is purely material and governed by impersonal natural laws.

Let's say that's his second order belief. Yet in conducting his scientific research, the scientist is going to rely on things like the uniformity of nature, the laws of logic, the reliability of one's cognitive faculties, all first order beliefs that presuppose an orderly and rational universe created by God.

And so notice there's a tension, right? Everything is purely material, impersonal natural laws, second order belief.

Yet he engages in the scientific enterprise with the assumption of uniformity, the laws of logic, reliability of cognitive faculties, which we can show is in conflict with his second order beliefs.

So he has first order beliefs that are in conflict with his second order beliefs, okay? And so Dr. Monson would argue that the scientist's reliance on these presuppositions, the first order beliefs, contradicts their second order commitment to a purely materialistic universe or materialistic worldview.

So the second order beliefs serve to suppress the inherent first order recognition of a rational law -giving creator, okay?

And so understanding this dynamic between first order and second order beliefs,

I think, provide a really powerful tool in apologetics. So when engaging with unbelievers, it's going to be important to highlight these inconsistencies that we're pointing out.

And when doing this, we expose the self -deception and demonstrate that their worldview is untenable, pointing out that they do in fact have a knowledge of God, okay?

And so understanding these concepts, I think, are really, really important.

So let's kind of tackle some important review points here. So if someone were to ask the question, how does self -deception affect an individual's ability to engage in rational discourse about religion, okay?

I think self -deception is going to hinder rational discourse because the individual is not fully honest about their own beliefs and motivations because there is a sinful suppression, okay?

And I think this can create a barrier in understanding and accepting rational arguments, so on and so forth, okay?

And our job is to be able to navigate those discussions skillfully and respectfully to expose the knowledge of God that an individual has, okay?

Now I think a critical point to understand too is that we need to understand the role of the

Holy Spirit in all of this, okay? And so we want to know the role that the Holy Spirit plays in overcoming self -deception, okay?

Within our paradigm, how we're understanding this, the Holy Spirit plays a critical role in overcoming self -deception by convicting the unbeliever of their sin and opening their heart to the truth of the gospel.

And so this is where we're going to have to make the distinction between giving a faithful apologetic, okay, and trusting

God for the results. That is so important because we tend to be pragmatist in our apologetic methodology.

We want to use what, quote -unquote, what works, okay? Well, I used that before and it didn't work.

Well, what do you mean by that it didn't work, okay? Because what comes with the presuppositional apologetic methodology is a theology that involves a particular role of the

Holy Spirit. He convicts the heart of the unbeliever, okay?

And this is why it's important. Dr. Bonson points this out in multiple lectures that he's given in the past. He says our job as apologists is to shut the unbeliever's mouth.

He doesn't mean that disrespectfully. He means, like, give them an answer such that there is really no meaningful comeback, right?

We shut the mouth of the unbeliever, but it's the job of the Holy Spirit to change his heart, okay? If you do not have a proper understanding of the role of the

Holy Spirit, then you could run the risk of carrying the burden of the world on your shoulders, right? A person's salvation relies purely on your ability to argue a certain way with a certain amount of persuasion, so on and so forth.

Now, being persuasive is important. God uses what we're saying, for sure, but ultimately we're going to trust in God to produce the results, okay?

And so this is why we can give the fullness of the biblical presentation about the suppression of the truth and unrighteousness and the call to repentance without being afraid, because we know, especially if you're

Reformed, the concept of God's sovereignty plays a really large role in understanding how all of this works as well, okay?

Super, super important, all right. Okay, so, do -do -do -do -do, that's all

I have here. If there are any questions, I'll try my best to take some of them, all right?

Let's see here. So Emilio Beltran says, so the unbeliever is unaware that he or she knows

God? No, they—we're talking in terms of a subconscious level.

There is a sense in which a man knows God, and there is a sense in which he does not.

Now, of course, the unbeliever does not know God in covenant, in terms of covenant keeping.

Rather, he knows God in covenant breaking. He knows God through the created order. He knows

God internally, but rationalizes this knowledge so as to believe a falsehood, and this is where the whole issue of self -deception comes in, okay?

All right, so that's an important distinction to keep in mind, all right? Let's see here.

Do -do -do -do -do -do -do. Jonathan says, in the future, you should have a livestream about logic.

I can try to invite Jason back on. I mean, he's such a busy dude. However, I teach logic.

Golly, I can do the logic. What's up with that, man? I could do one on logic. I have to—I'm going to have to invite

Jason. I can talk about logic. I mean, he's really—he wrote a book on logic, so I suppose he'd be better qualified, but yeah, that definitely—we should maybe do like a

Logic 101 or something along those lines. Rogue Calvinist says, yo, yo, what up,

Rogue Calvinist? Hey, I just came on your channel, Rogue Calvinist. Came, not on your channel, but I found your channel and like the content you're putting out.

Keep up the good work, man. Appreciate it. I think I'm subscribed, okay? Let's see here.

Turk says, were you on the debate team, coach? The debate team, coach?

At Eli Ayala? I don't know what that refers to. Can you clarify?

I don't know what you mean. I mean, I've been on the debate teacher reacts channel, Nate Sala.

I've been on there to talk about Bonson, and while I don't do a lot of debates myself,

I have some debates on YouTube when I got started in all this. They're floating around.

I think I probably—I like the way they turned out. I think I probably would do a better job now because I think

I've come a long way, but I don't typically debate anymore because it's very time consuming, so I kind of focus on teaching, but I do teach debate at my job.

I teach logic and debate as well as the Old Testament to middle school students, so it's pretty cool.

Yeah, but I'm not sure. Were you on the debate team or was

I a coach? No, so I'm not on the debate team. I'm not a coach, but I do teach debate and logic, and then my students will do a debate at the end of the year on some theological topic.

I think this year they did Can You Lose Your Salvation? So they had to—yeah, thank you for the clarification.

I'm just asking if you were ever in a debate team, and no, I was not in a debate team or in college or anything along those lines.

All of my experience of debate is listening to debate, studying debate, and then teaching debate. I've listened to—I can't even keep track of how many debates

I've listened to. I've listened to so many debates, it's not even funny. I love listening to debates. So debates are usually what help me get inspired to study something new.

So if I hear a good debate and points are brought up like, hey, that's a really cool topic or an interesting topic or that's important to this discussion, then it will inspire me to kind of dig in and study a new topic.

So yeah, and so by listening to debates, doing some debates myself, I try to teach what

I know to middle school students, and as they get older, they do more sophisticated kind of debate -slash -persuasive writing, those sorts of things.

So let's see here. Okay. And I think that's it.

I don't see any more questions there, and that's fine. That's all good. All right. All right.

Yeah. So, okay, so that's fine. We'll wrap things up here. Might be a good idea, too.

Tomorrow, I've got to go to the dentist. Not excited for that, but, you know, got to do what you got to do, you know?

So if there are no more questions, that's perfectly fine. Just to throw the reminder out, guys, if you are interested in supporting

Revealed Apologetics, you can do that by writing a good review on iTunes, which, by the way,

I have not updated the podcast, and I apologize. Things have been a little busy, but now that I have more time,

I will be updating the podcast and uploading the more recent discussions and live streams that I've done.

And so you can write a nice review on iTunes. You can like and subscribe here on YouTube. And one of the bigger ways that you could support

Revealed Apologetics is purchasing one of the courses that I offer on my website. So if you go to revealedapologetics .com,

I think there's a link in the description below this video, you can sign up for my new course entitled

Presup Applied. And so pretty much, I, well, each course is an application of presuppositional, or each class is an application of presuppositional apologetics to some aspect.

So for example, the first lecture is how to navigate apologetic conversations. The second lecture is how to apply presuppositional apologetics to Roman Catholic, I'm sorry, atheism.

The next one is applying presupp to Roman Catholicism. The fourth one is how to apply presupp to presuppositional

Eastern Orthodoxy. That's super interesting topic there. And then the last lecture is how to apply presuppositional apologetics to the cults.

So I worked really hard on doing those things and all the slides and things like that. And so hopefully it'll be beneficial for those who sign up.

But that's a really big way that you could support what I'm doing. And there you go. And so it should be easy to find, easy to do.

If you order those courses, then we'll send it to you within a day or two.

You'll get the content as the content is sent out manually, okay? But there you go.

All right. So, oh yeah, there you go, Ross, yep, that one's for, yeah, it's, hopefully it is something that folks will find useful.

And I think I have some mock dialogues to show like what it looks like in conversation or at least, and then some reflection questions and things like that.

So yeah, I put a lot of work into it. Hopefully folks will find it useful. All right.

Well, that is all for this live stream, guys. Thank you so much for listening in. I really appreciate you guys.

Until next time, I have a bunch more content coming out, but I can't say when because I don't know how

I'm going to feel after I get my dental work done. So if I'm all swollen and like I can't talk, then obviously we'll have to wait a little bit.

But other than that, once I get all that stuff out of the way, expect lots of content and things like that.