Chapter 1: Christian Apologetics by Van Til

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today

I am here with you live, kind of a surprise live stream. Didn't know

I was going to go live. Just found the time this morning and figured why not. And so what

I want to do in this video is I want to kind of explore this book here. OK, this is a little book entitled

Christian Apologetics by Cornelius Van Til. People ask me all the time, when someone wants to study presuppositional apologetics, what book should they start with?

And I typically tell people don't start with Van Til, because Van Til can be a very challenging read.

However, if someone wanted to venture into reading

Van Til, I think the easiest place to start would be with this book, Christian Apologetics.

And of course, this is kind of a newer edition. It's edited by William Edgar. And I believe the notes, the footnotes in this book,

I think were provided by K. Scott Olyphant. OK, now, regardless of what you think of Olyphant and his interpretations and so forth,

I still think it's a useful newer edition. So here you go.

OK, now what I want to do is I want to broadly summarize the first chapter of this book.

And I think in understanding the first chapter really sets the foundation for the presuppositional apologetic method in general.

OK, so I think it's very important to understand where Van Til is coming from. And when I say that, I'm not going to be going into kind of the, you know, the historical influences like Abraham Kuyper or what's his what's his face,

B .B. Warfield and others. What I what I I'm kind of speaking in more simpler terms in terms of the importance for Van Til of having apologetics flow from one's theology.

And I think that's very relevant with respect to the first chapter of this book. And so that's what I want to do.

I highly recommend once again, highly recommend folks pick this up if you're wanting to jump into Van Til.

And you want to just be very careful with some other some other texts that he's written.

They can be very, very difficult. Now, if you were to ask the question, why is Van Til difficult to understand?

Well, there are any number of reasons. OK, number one, English was not his primary language.

And so his writing can come off a little clunky and he is very wordy, which can be complicated for people to follow along.

Also, he's interacting with philosophical schools of thought that the average person today really is not familiar with, at least if you haven't studied philosophy.

And of course, Van Til comes from a specific tradition within within philosophy. He comes from more continental philosophical tradition as opposed to what's very popular today, which is kind of the analytic philosophical tradition.

So he can, you know, Van Til speaks lots about big picture issues, worldview issues.

And of course, that's very, very important in understanding the presuppositional approach as presuppositionalism within the

Van Tilian school is a worldview focused methodology.

And I think that's where apologetics needs to be. OK, not to the exclusion, however, to discussing and interacting with specific data points and evidences and arguments.

But I think as Christian apologists, we need to learn to have one foot in the evidence and the data and the other foot grounded in a consistent worldview perspective.

And I think Van Til helps us kind of keep those things in mind. I think Van Til calls us to be consistent in that regard.

I think one of his main clarion calls is that our apologetics ought to be consistent with our theological convictions.

And of course, for Van Til, his theological convictions kind of placed him straight within the reformed perspective.

OK, so a lot of this comes up a lot, too. So Van Til's reformed theology is very relevant to his apologetic.

And this question comes up all the time. You know, can you be, you know, non reformed and still use a presuppositional approach?

I mean, you have some Armenians that try to use presuppositional aspects and elements within their methodology.

You have Eastern Orthodox people, especially within the current context and online, the online community.

You have Eastern Orthodox individuals trying to utilize a presuppositional approach. But I think that Van Til specifically intentionally sought to develop an apologetic methodology that flows out of a consistent application of his reformed theological foundations.

And so I think presuppositionalism fits best within a reformed understanding of God, a reformed understanding of man, the relationship between man and God, and things relating to issues of epistemology and some of the various metaphysical assumptions that are baked into those sorts of paradigms.

And so these are super things that are important to keep in mind.

Now, again, I'm not going to be quoting from the book. I want to broadly outline kind of the gist of what

Van Til is doing in his first chapter. OK, now, I think it's interesting that his first chapter's title is

I'm going to get I'm going to turn to it here. And this is I think this is so important. I think it sets it really sets the groundwork for understanding a presuppositional approach.

The first chapter, I don't know if you could see that there, is entitled The System of Christian Truth, The System of Christian Truth.

OK, now that's super important because before you get into the kind of the apologetics material in Van Til, he emphasized the importance of first understanding the system that we're seeking to defend.

All right. So in the first chapter, Van Til introduces us to the system of Christian truth. And he begins by emphasizing that the systematic and coherent nature of Christian truth is what we need to be understanding.

We need to be starting with. Right. So unlike other worldviews, which are often fragmented, inconsistent, right,

Christianity offers from Van Til's perspective and, of course, from mine as well, Christianity offers a unified and harmonious system of truth that encompasses all aspects of reality.

OK, so this is kind of the big the big picture that I think is super important to keep in mind. And so this coherence of the

Christian worldview stems from the belief that all truth, OK, all truth originates from the self -contained, self -sufficient

God of the Bible. That's a language that is often used within Van Tilian circles. Right. He is the self -contained, self -sufficient

God of the Bible. And so this God, OK, as presented in Scripture, who is independent and the source of all truth, provides the foundation for the entire system of Christian doctrine.

And so Van Til really underscores that understanding that this system is crucial for a robust and effective apologetic.

OK, so our understanding of God, OK, is related to the strength of our apologetic.

Our understanding of the nature of revelation is going to be related to our apologetic because apologetics, what?

It flows from a worldview. OK, now I'm going to stop every now and then to sip my coffee.

This is my favorite little cup. I got like a little heater.

Keeps my coffee hot. I do not like cold coffee or room temperature coffee.

It's not it's just not right. OK, but anyway, let me put this book over here.

All right. OK, so starting with theology, OK, Van Til speaks of what he calls the self -contained

God. OK, and so Van Til explains in the first chapter that the Christian worldview really starts with what he called the self -contained

God of the Bible. OK, and so God is self -contained. He's independent. He's self -sufficient.

And he's the source of all truth. And God, God has aseity. This is kind of within traditional theological categories where we're affirming that God is ase.

He exists ase. He exists not dependent or contingent upon anything external to himself. OK, now this foundational belief really undergirds the entire system of Christian truth.

And so in contrast to, say, you know, the autonomous man centered perspectives, which are often prevalent in non -Christian worldviews.

And I would argue in non presuppositional apologetic methodologies. Right. Christianity asserts that all knowledge and understanding are grounded in God's self revelation.

And so this means that our starting point in defending the faith must always be God and his revelation rather than any supposed, you know, what we'd call neutral ground.

OK, kind of, you know, we we talked about neutrality in other videos as well. This idea that we can come to an issue without presuppositions where completely objective.

Right. We don't have these pre commitments impacting that that's not what we're dealing with here. OK, we are starting from a uniquely distinct

Christian worldview position grounded in the ontological triune God who's revealed himself both in general and special revelation.

More specifically, with respect to the special revelatory aspect, he's revealed himself in the scriptures.

OK, very, very important in understanding Van Til. Now, of course, Van Til, again, in in the first chapter entitled

The System of Christian Truth, he emphasizes the importance of systematic theology.

OK, let's see if I could find it here. Let me see if let me see if I can get this here. I don't have all of the quotes pulled up here.

Well, again, just to highlight this idea of starting with worldviews,

I think is helpful. If you just go to the first page and if you have this book and you're reading, you're listening to this video.

If you have this book, you open to the first chapter. I think it's interesting that the opening lines, the opening lines of the book is a definition that Van Til offers of apologetics.

And when he offers the definition, this idea of worldviews is baked in there. And that's kind of really relating to the system of truth, the system of Christian truth.

OK, he says apologetics on page one is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non -Christian philosophy of life.

And that phrase philosophy of life refers to a worldview. It refers to the system of Christian truth.

It refers to literally the the title of the chapter, the system of Christian truth. And so to defend the system of Christian truth, we need to know what that system of Christian truth is.

And so in this in this regards, the issue of systematic theology is going to be very important here on page 23.

Van Til says it is important from our discussion so far that systematic theology is more closely related to apologetics than are any other of the disciplines in it.

We have the system of truth that we are to defend. We must therefore look briefly at the system which we are offered.

And then he goes to say systematic systematics divides what it has to give us into six divisions as follows.

Theology, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology, eschatology. And we shall look at each of these in turn.

And of course, moving on from there, he kind of goes through the basic categories of systematic theology.

Why? Why does Van Til begin with systematic theology? Because you cannot talk about something like apologetics without talking about its foundation.

And what is the foundation? It's the biblical theological truths. OK, it's the system of Christian truth.

All right. And so he begins to go through the categories of theology and he talks about the nature of the self -contained

God. Right. Talks about the doctrine of God. He talks about the Trinity. Right. Van Til discusses the importance of the doctrine of the

Trinity within the Christian system of truth. You know, the triune God, the triune nature of God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit for Van Til provides a basis for unity and diversity within creation.

Right. This reflects God's own nature as a perfect unity and diversity. And so the

Trinity is for Van Til is not an abstract theological concept, but rather it's a central doctrine that influences every other aspect of Christian belief and practice.

And so it shows how different parts of the Christian system of truth fit together, basically reinforcing that coherence and the richness of the

Christian worldview and the triune God's ability to bring together both unity and plurality and to bring things into coherence.

OK, and so Van Til speaks in the first chapter of the importance of the Trinity to Christian theology. He also discusses issues relating to creation and providence.

Van Til covers the doctrines of creation and providence, explaining that God is the creator and the sustainer of all things.

Now, this is really important because one of the fundamental presuppositions and starting points for Van Til is what we might call the creator -creature distinction.

OK, this is very important because there is a distinction between creator and creature. We cannot put the creator at the same level as the creature.

And a lot of heretical views are heretical views because they blur that distinction.

OK, and so you go right there to Genesis chapter 1, verse 1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

Right there, the opening sentence of the book of Genesis, you have the creator -creature distinction.

In the beginning, God, the creator, created the heavens and the earth, the creation. And so right there, the opening verse of the

Bible, you have this distinction between creator and that which is created, setting up the proper metaphysical relationship between the maker and everything that the maker has made.

Now, when we talk about the doctrines of creation and providence, these doctrines affirm that the universe is not self -sufficient, but depends on God's continuous involvement.

These are very important, this idea of God's creation and providence. Creation reveals God's power and wisdom, while providence assures us that he governs all things according to his sovereign will.

God is sovereign. And this understanding, I think, rejects any form of things like deism or naturalism, which denies

God's ongoing involvement in his creation. And so instead, it affirms that every aspect of the universe is under God's control and purpose, providing a firm foundation for understanding the world around us.

And coincidentally, this also has implications with respect to how we understand things like the uniformity of nature and the fact that God, through his sovereign will, governs the world through certain means, and they reflect the orderly character and nature of God himself.

So again, these are kind of key points to keep in mind. Of course, for Van Til, revelation is key.

Van Til distinguishes between general revelation and special revelation, which is a typical classical distinction within the study of systematic theology.

General revelation refers to God's self -disclosure in nature, which is accessible to all people, and this is why it's called general, while special revelation refers to God's self -disclosure in scripture, or his self -disclosure through prophets or miracles, these sorts of things.

And so both forms of revelation for Van Til are essential for a complete understanding of God's truth.

General revelation reveals God's existence and his attributes, leaving humanity unapologetu, as Romans chapter 1 says, without excuse.

However, due to sin's distortion, special revelation in scripture is necessary, right, to provide clarity and to give us a fullness of God's redemptive plan.

And so scripture serves as the interpretive key to fully grasp the message of general revelation, right?

And this pretty much ensures that we rightly understand and respond to God's revelation in creation and history.

So those two aspects of revelation, I think, are vitally important for Van Til, and I think are vitally important for us as Christians doing theology and understanding aspects of the system of Christian truth, okay?

Van Til also goes on to discuss biblical anthropology, okay? Now anthropology, just broadly speaking, is the study of man.

There you have the Greek word there, anthropos, okay? And ology, we can kind of think of ology as like the study of, so biology, the study of life.

Anthropology, the study of man. You know, let me see, eschatology, which we'll talk a little bit about, the study of last things.

So there you go, so a biblical anthropology. Now if you were to go to, you know, some university and take like an anthropology class, you might learn about, you know, man's evolutionary history, and how man has come to us in the state that he is now from, you know, less complex, more simpler organisms.

And so that's one way to approach the topic of human anthropology. However, Van Til, I think, emphasized, and of course any systematic theology worth its salt, is going to emphasize that the

Bible has a particular anthropology, okay? The nature of man is different within a biblical conception of God, as opposed to a secular conception of man, okay?

For the Bible, man is the pinnacle of God's creation. We are made in the imago

Dei, okay, that gives us value. Of course, the Bible teaches that God created us with various capacities and things like that.

And so man's importance stands out, and as an apologetic, I think it's important to understand man's role and importance, especially with respect to things that we have to deal with today, with respect to gender identity, and what does it mean to be a man, and what does it mean to be a woman.

That's part of apologetics too, as these are the sorts of things that we're having to contend with when we interact with the world today.

And so being grounded in the theological, anthropological perspective, right, the biblical view of what it means to be a man and a woman is vitally important in doing apologetics, and so it's wrapped up in Van Til's concept of the system of Christian truth being the bedrock out of which our apologetic derives, okay?

So, with respect to the doctrine of man, Van Til discusses the biblical doctrine of man, that man is created in the image of God.

Of course, he doesn't discuss this without talking about the fall of man into sin and its implications for human knowledge and understanding, these are related.

Sin, for Van Til, and of course for scripture, sin has profoundly distorted human perception of truth, right?

Leading to basically a need for the redemption and restoration of our souls and our minds through Christ, okay?

So Christ does not simply save our souls, he also saves our minds, as our minds must be renewed and moving away from the mind that is the product of men being in Adam, okay?

In bondage to sin and so forth, okay? So the image of God in man, for Van Til, is that it must be renewed, okay?

And of course for the Bible as well. The image of God in man is marred, but I think this is a key point, and a lot of people who critique

Reformed understandings of this get this wrong. The image of God in man is marred, but it's not obliterated, okay?

It's not destroyed, it's not removed, which means that while humans still reflect God's character, right, they do so imperfectly.

And so this understanding, I think, highlights the necessity of a renewed mind, as I said before, through the work of the Holy Spirit, enabling believers to rightly know and understand

God and his word, okay? And so Van Til kind of unpacks his understanding of what the

Bible has to say with respect to the nature of man. Alright, I'm gonna take a quick coffee sip there.

Now when I have my coffee, I get a little bougie -bougie, right? So I have this mug, as I said before, but then what

I do is I put whipped cream on the top. I ate all the whipped cream, and then I sprinkle it with cinnamon.

So good, oh my goodness, so relaxing and therapeutic. One second. Alright, I should sip in the microphone so people can get the sense of the bubbles and the taste, you know?

It's kind of a 4D experience, right? Okay, let me actually get one more. Alright, whew!

Okay, so moving through the categories of systematic theology, Van Til again also discusses the importance of the doctrine of Christ, okay?

Within systematic theological categories, this is the topic known as Christology, okay?

And so Van Til elaborates on the centrality of Christ in the Christian system of truth, right?

Christ is the fulfillment of God's redemptive plan and the ultimate revelation of God to humanity, okay?

You see this in the book of Hebrews, for example. I mean, look at the growing buildup and culmination that the writer of Hebrews gives to the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Okay, let's go to Hebrews real quick. Let me actually go here.

I'll share it on the screen here. Let's do this. So we're going to do—let's do ESV.

Let's do Hebrews 1. Alright. Not Hebrews 11.

Okay, there we go. Typo. Okay, Hebrews 1. Alright, I'm going to share this on my screen.

There we go. And look at the buildup here. Alright, we're going to do this here.

So, I don't know if you can see that. It's not the best situation here.

Let's see here. I'm going to do this. Let's see here. I don't know how to—well, if you can see that.

Okay. Look what it says here. It says that, long ago, at many times and in many ways,

God spoke to our fathers by the prophets. But, in these last days, he's spoken to us by his

Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. And I love—not related directly to what

I wanted to get to, but I love verse 3 and 4, highlighting the superiority of Christ.

He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.

After making purification for sins, he sat down, indicating the completeness and finished nature of his work, at the right hand of the majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

Now, this is important, because look what it says. Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets. And so, this is really much in line with what the scriptures teach with respect to when

Jesus says in the Gospel of John, you search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life, but it's they that speak of me.

That's right. It's the Old Testament scriptures, the writings of the prophets, the writings of Moses. All of those things pointed to the person and work of Jesus Christ.

And so, again, I appreciate, therefore, Van Til's emphasis on the importance of understanding and elaborating upon the doctrine of Christ.

That through his incarnation, the incarnation, the life, the death, and the resurrection of Christ, Christ reveals the fullness of God's nature and provides the means for salvation.

And Van Til goes on to explain the fact that he is both fully God and fully man, uniquely qualified to bridge the gap between a holy

God and a sinful humanity. This central doctrine for Van Til, for me, for Christians attuned to the importance of this theological doctrine, this doctrine ensures that all aspects of Christian truth are grounded in the person and work of Jesus Christ, who is the cornerstone of our faith.

Now, again, this is just a survey of systematics, but it is central to understanding the system of Christian truth, which is the object of our apologetics.

Very, very important. This is why Van Til, in chapter one, goes through this. And, of course, he moves through the doctrine of salvation as well.

Van Til outlines the doctrine of salvation. The fancy $20 term for the doctrine of salvation is soteriology.

And so Van Til outlines this doctrine, emphasizing the necessity of God's grace and the work of the

Holy Spirit in bringing individuals to faith. This is the standard fare for those who share

Cornelius Van Til's Reformed convictions. Salvation, for Van Til, is part of the coherent system of Christian truth, demonstrating

God's justice in the way that he deals with sin and his mercy in providing redemption to sinners who don't deserve it.

And so this doctrine encompasses the entirety of the salvation process from election, calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification, de -glorification, showing the comprehensive nature of God's redemptive work.

And so it affirms that salvation is entirely of God's grace, received through faith, and results in the transformed life that reflects

God's holiness and love. Very, very important. Now this sounds kind of, oh, well, you know,

God loves us. But understanding the nature of God's love is theological and, by the way, has immense apologetic implication.

For it is a distortion of God's love that often gives birth to misunderstandings.

I get this question all the time. How can a loving God send people to hell? And the answer is because God is not only loving, right?

He is also holy. He is also just. He is also wrathful against sin. We have an imbalanced view of God, and we have an anemic, so to speak, theological perspective that we're unable to actually defend the biblical position with respect to the nature of God and how we interact with questions like that.

This is a problem. This is why I think it's so vitally important that Bantill starts with the importance of systematic theology.

This is so important. Now, moving on, Bantill, moving through the realm of systematics, also focuses on the importance of understanding the doctrine of the church.

So Bantill addresses the doctrine of the church. Again, the $20 word here is ecclesiology.

Ecclesiology is the study of the church. So Bantill addresses this, highlighting its role as the community of believers and the body of Christ.

And so, again, these are biblical categories as well. So pretty much the church is essential for nurturing faith, providing fellowship, proclaiming the truth of the gospel to the world.

It serves as a tangible expression of God's kingdom on Earth, where believers gather for worship, teaching, and pretty much mutual edification.

So the church's mission is to make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the

Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching people to obey all that Christ has commanded. And so this doctrine really emphasizes the importance of communal life and communal witness to Christ, ensuring that believers grow in their faith and effectively reach out to a lost world.

So church is super important, not simply the building of the church, but the nature of the unification of all those who genuinely follow

Christ. Real quick, there is a question with respect to the book that I am talking about here in the first chapter.

This is Christian Apologetics by Cornelius Bantill, edited by William Edgar. The notes are provided,

I think, by K. Scott Oliphant. I hope that's—no, maybe the notes are from William Edgar.

I don't remember. I know that K. Scott Oliphant edited one of the other books. Maybe I've gotten that wrong.

I do apologize. And if Dr. Oliphant watches this, I apologize if I mix that up. But yes, it is published by PNR, someone is asking.

Let's see here. There we go.

So yes, it is published by PNR. Okay, and again—and so this is kind of—it comes with a string of new additions.

I mean, I wish I can get it. I like to flex when I read The Defense of the

Faith, which is Bantill's most popular work, I think most important work. I have the newer edition with all the updated notes and stuff.

But I also have—and people have seen me flex this on the channel a while back.

I also have a signed copy of The Defense of the Faith signed by Cornelius Bantill himself.

Let me actually go get it. I'm actually looking at it right now. I've shown this before, but I'm going to do it again, okay, because, you know, it's so cool.

All right, I'm back. So here is—it doesn't even have a cover. My cover ripped off. Here is my copy.

I don't know if you can see it. It's signed by Bantill right there on the top. This signature was provided in,

I think, December, if I could read it from the screen, 14, 1973.

Okay, and it says here, Bill Shishko. This is Pastor Bill Shishko. Awesome pastor and mentor of mine some years back.

He also—Pastor Bill Shishko, if the name sounds familiar, he actually debated Dr. James White on the issue of baptism.

Now, of course, Shishko being like Bantill, Shishko being a Presbyterian and Dr. James White being, of course, a

Reformed Baptist. I think Shishko did a really good job in that debate. I hold to Reformed Baptist convictions myself.

I thought those were really good debates. So if you're interested, James White versus Bill Shishko, but he was also a mentor of mine, and he knew

Bantill. He knew Dr. Bonson. And every time I would meet with Pastor Shishko, he would always let me leave his office with a handful of books.

So we had a really cool library with a lot of Reformed writings and, of course, because he knew Bantill and Bonson. There were a lot of material there.

And so I was able to finagle that copy from him. It took me a while.

He's like, no, I don't know if I want to part with that one. But eventually he broke and he let me have that.

And, of course, when I took this book from Dr. Shishko, and it's got all the highlights in it, too.

I think it's pretty cool. Let me see here. Let me see here. Let me see if you can see that it's got the highlights and underlined and whatnot.

When I opened the book up, a piece of paper kind of fell onto my lap, and it was actually a letter written by Bantill.

But you can tell that he was very old because the writing is very shaken, very sloppy, you know, and it's so bad

I can't read it. But it was pretty cool. You can kind of recognize the signature there at the end. But super cool.

It's kind of a geeking out moment here. All right. But let me let me return to the task at hand.

All right. Okay. So, again, so Bantill highlights the importance of the church.

Okay. And this is important. It's not something that should be passed by. Okay. And I think

Dr. White talked about this a lot in various talks that he's given, the importance of the role of the church in doing apologetics.

If you're doing apologetics, you should be connected to a local body. You know, the church also offers,

I think from a very important perspective, accountability. And so it's important to kind of have those structures in place when doing apologetics.

Okay. All right. And, of course, Bantill concludes with the doctrine of last things or eschatology.

Right. And so this doctrine really provides Christians with hope and assurance of God's ultimate victory over sin and evil.

Right. This is what Dr. Bonson, there's a video floating around there on YouTube where he says, you know, when

I debate, he says, I'm really not afraid of any opponent that comes by. And he says, and it's not because I'm prideful or because I think

I'm super smart. He goes, because I've read the back of the book. All right. He knows what happens at the end.

Right. God has told us what we need to know about the unbeliever and equipping us to interact with them.

And, of course, if the Bible is true, the believer stands on the very wisdom of God. Okay. We stand on the foundation of God's word.

And what does the unbeliever have to stand on? Well, obviously, he is standing upon a foundation of sand.

That might look, you know, powerful. There are some pretty nice looking sandcastles out there.

Okay. You go to those like those beach competitions where people make these elaborate sandcastles. I mean, they're great.

They're fancy. It is even the case that I might not be able to build a sandcastle that is so complex and so immense.

However, when the storm comes, will it last? Will it last? And, of course, we know that it will not.

Right. So the Christian stands on a firm foundation, and we have the hope that, in the end, we are victorious.

Okay. This is the value, I think, of eschatology. And so Vantill kind of concludes with the issues of eschatology or the study of last things.

And he discusses how this offers us the hope and assurance that we have God's ultimate victory over sin and evil.

And it points to the future restoration of creation. And that's important, too, and the fulfillment of God's redemptive purposes.

Okay. Again, reinforcing the coherence and completeness of the Christian system of truth.

And so the promise of Christ's return, for example, the resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, really encourages believers to live in light of eternity.

Okay. And we ought to live with confidence that God's kingdom will be fully realized and that they will share, we will share, in his eternal glory.

That's super important because that's not just an issue of generic theology.

That is the Christian hope that we have. And to live in light of eternity and to do apologetics in light of eternity and evangelism in light of eternity, understanding all of the theological and biblical truths that are true and go with us as we go forth to proclaim the gospel,

I think ought to be a great encouragement. For example, when you take a doctrine like the sovereignty of God, it brings great comfort knowing that my job is to be a faithful conveyor and messenger of the gospel, to be able to defend the gospel, but that the conversion of the heart is the job of the

Holy Spirit. That's not my job. That brings great relief, right? Understanding that it is God who brings about that result.

And so understanding the system of Christian truth, again, for Van Til, was foundational.

It is foundational. Okay. And that's why I think this is why he covers it in the first chapter, setting that foundation.

Okay. Now, I am tempted, but then

I'd have to make another thumbnail if I summarize the second chapter. So if there are any questions, maybe

I can take a few questions and then we'll wrap this up. Again, this was kind of a last second. I decided to come on live.

If there are any questions about apologetics, theology, I can try my best to answer them. If not, you know, we'll end things here, and that's okay as well.

And if you guys like this format, I will, you know, next video that I make, I'll cover chapter two.

I can't promise. I promised in the past to go through certain books, and it's just time gets away.

I get busy. It's hard to kind of read the book and kind of gather my thoughts and just jump on.

But if you like this, I will try my best to walk through chapter two or random chapters and maybe go through in order.

I'm not sure. But anyway, so while questions are coming in, if they're coming in, just want to remind folks, if you really appreciate what

I do here, you can support Revealed Apologetics. It is greatly needed and appreciated.

By going to revealedapologetics .com, there is a donate button there where you can donate if you want to help financially.

One of the bigger ways that you can support is either being a monthly giver and or signing up for one of my courses.

So I have two different courses. One is an introduction to biblical apologetics, so it's kind of a basic introduction to presuppositional apologetics.

When I say basic, it's somewhere between basic and intermediary, but easy enough to follow. And then

I have a second course that I just released called Presupp Applied, where I cover how to navigate apologetic conversations, how to apply presupp to atheism,

Roman Catholicism, presuppositional Eastern Orthodoxy, and the cults. And so it comes with five lectures and the presentations and so on.

And so if people are interested in that and they're interested in supporting Revealed Apologetics, you can sign up for those as well.

And I also have some conferences that were recorded with various theologians and speakers covering a wide variety of topics.

So those are some of the ways that you can support Revealed Apologetics. And of course, super chats are always welcome as well.

Any support would be greatly appreciated. I am super excited, and I know I'm talking super fast.

Maybe it's because it's the morning. I'm so not used to talking in the morning. I'm usually doing my show late at night.

I'm kind of more on the tired and reserved side. But this is what I sound like in the middle of the day. So I'm sorry if I if I'm talking really fast.

But I'm super excited because if I go on to the Revealed Apologetics YouTube channel right now, let me go there.

We are at. Nine thousand six hundred and forty something, it doesn't tell me the last number subscribers.

That's awesome. I anticipate that I will be at ten thousand in the near future, which

I don't know. I've got to do something to celebrate. Maybe I'll do like a backflip while reciting, you know, quotations from a book from Greg Bonson.

I don't know. We'll have to plan something cool for to celebrate ten thousand subscribers.

But anyway, and Monday, I think it's Monday. Let me let me double check.

I have. I have. Where is he?

I have Dr. Daniel Faulkner coming on to the show at.

It's the 15th. So let me see. The 15th is Monday. So Dr. Danny Faulkner is a

Ph .D. astronomer. He's going to be coming on to the show to discuss the issue of whether the universe is young.

That's going to be super interesting. I met Dr. Faulkner at the Ark Encounter.

So we just came back from a really big family trip where we drove up. I'm in North Carolina. We drove up to New York, Long Island, New York.

I spent some time with my family. And then we drove up to Pennsylvania, which I had a speaking engagement in which

I discussed at a youth camp. The issues of the all the importance of theology, apologetics and evangelism.

And then from there we went to Wisconsin. OK, we drove out all the way to Wisconsin, stayed with some family for three days.

And then after that, we drove from Wisconsin down to Kentucky. And then we visited the Creation Museum and the

Ark Encounter. And let me just tell you real quick, I don't get into some of the questions. If you have questions, please. I'm kind of blabbing so that if you have questions, then you can you can drop them there.

I'll try to I'll try to cover them. But but I went into the Creation Museum and the Ark Encounter with low expectations because I'm very critical of things put out by Christians.

I'm not a big fan of Christian movies. They're really cheesy. And I love movies. OK, as a matter of fact, before I got into theology,

I wanted to get into movies because I have a theater background and I love acting. I love humor.

So I'm very critical of those sorts of things. I went in with low expectations. And when I went there, I was pleasantly surprised.

The quality of the museum and the Ark itself and the Ark Encounter, all the things that were available, especially with the kids and everything.

It was awesome. We had such a great time. The kids loved it. It was super cool.

And so when we were at the Ark Encounter, Dr. Danny Faulkner was giving a talk on flat earth.

OK, now, again, someone might say, well, why do you waste your time talking about something as silly as flat earth?

Well, remember, answers in Genesis and people who give the talks, they're there for ministry.

And so these are unfortunately things that are popping up in the online community and various aspects of society.

And so they address it. It's it's popular in a weird kind of level, but it's popular. And so I really appreciated.

Hey, you know, he talked about it. God did a great job. He's not a boring speaker. So he was very engaging.

And so I was super happy to listen to him and be able to meet him. He was super nice. And and I'm looking forward to having him on.

OK, so that'll be on Monday at actually 3 p .m. Eastern. So so if you haven't been to the

Creation Museum or the Ark Encounter, I mean, my main focus in this ministry is not like the creation stuff and everything.

I thought it was awesome. I highly recommend it. It was super fun. All right. So let me see if there are any comments or questions here.

And let's see here to do. Let's see.

Those are some super nice comments. Let me see here. Scott says there we go.

Special revelation without natural revelation is empty. Natural revelation without special revelation is blind.

Yep. Yep. I love that. Very good. Let's see here. Humboldt Clay says

I literally just made my wife that cup of coffee 20 minutes ago. Right. With the with the with the whipped cream and the cinnamon.

Oh, it's so good. And I don't have any more whipped cream, but the cinnamon is there. It's resting on the top of the surface and it's so good.

All right. Let's see here. Humboldt Clay. I love the way you teach, brother. Thank you so much. I really appreciate that.

Let's see here. So we have a question from Earth. OK, and we'll see. Do you think man's self -revelation of the subjective inner self through the brain or body bears a resemblance with how

God reveals himself through creation as a as a self himself? OK, I was

I have to read this question slowly to see if I can understand what you're asking. Do you think do you think man's self -revelation.

Of the subjective inner self. I don't know if that makes sense. The self -revelation man is not self -revelatory.

I would say that everything that man knows, even what he knows about himself is revelatory of God. It is a revelation of God is why

I believe the knowledge of God is innate. Right. We have a knowledge of God and the knowledge of God is immediate.

It is not simply something mediated through a looking and seeing. Right. It's true that when the heavens declare the glory of God, I look and I see there's evidence of God all around and I have the knowledge of God by looking at his creation.

But I also believe that there is an aspect of man's knowing of God that is innate in light of the fact that all men are images, image of God.

Right. So I'm not sure. Do you think man's self -revelation of the subjective inner self through the brain?

See, so I don't think the brain. So I don't even think I don't think thinking even occurs in the brain, to be perfectly honest. I think the thinking occurs in the mind.

And so you want to make a distinction between the brain and the mind. They're not the same thing, even though sometimes people, even though people will talk about those categories interchangeably,

I think they're they're different. OK, so through the brain or body bears a resemblance with how God reveals himself through creation as a self.

Yeah, I'm not not really sure exactly what you're asking there. I do apologize. Nate says, wow, you're live early.

Yes, sir. I was not anticipating this, but here we are. You know, Scott Terry says the

Ark Encounter is awesome. Yes. Had a great time. Yeah. And also you said that you met

Danny Faulkner when he debated Hugh Ross. If you could set a link, I've I've never seen that one. I have seen the debate between Hugh Ross and Jason Lyle, which was an excellent debate.

And then I hosted a dialogue between Hugh Ross and Jason Lyle. As a matter of fact, it is my most it is my most viewed video, actually.

Let me see how many views we have on that one. So Lyle and Ross. Let's see here.

Yeah, we're at 57000 views. Yeah, that's probably my most popular video. I highly recommend it.

It was a great a great discussion. Let's see here. To do roadkill says

I would like to see more videos like this. Thank you. Yeah, absolutely. See, this stuff like this helps me. Right.

So I have a bunch of Mantel books. I can continue to go through this one. I can continue to go through some other books as well.

If folks have any suggestions of the sorts of things that they want to see, they can email me at revealed apologetics at Gmail dot com.

And I do read my emails and I will definitely consider doing content that people suggest to me. For example, there was a debate recently between Dinesh D'Souza and Cosmic Skeptic.

And so a lot of people have asked me to do a review. Now, things like that take a little time because then

I have to watch the debate and then I have to take notes on the debate and then I have to formulate responses on the debate. So that's not impossible.

I'll try to work on that. I think that would be a good opportunity to kind of come at that discussion between Cosmic Skeptic and Dinesh D'Souza from a presuppositional perspective.

But that might take a little more time. So. So, yeah, yeah, that's something that definitely

I would be inclined to do. But more videos like this working through chapters of the book, chapters of a book,

I think would be helpful. OK, let's see here. Let's see.

Humble Clay says, hey, did you did you by chance check out the Creation Museum? Yes. So we went to the

Creation Museum first and then we went to the Ark Encounter. And so I think they're like an hour away from each other.

And I thought that my kids would have liked the Ark Encounter better than the

Creation Museum. But actually the kids and I have small kids. Right. I have a four year old, a seven year old and a nine year old.

They actually liked the Creation Museum better than the Ark Encounter, although they also like the Ark Encounter as well.

So I thought that was that was interesting. So. All right. Well, it doesn't seem like there are many questions coming in and that's perfectly fine.

I again, this was a surprise live stream. But if there are no more questions,

I think I will. Yes, there we go. So I'd love to see you.

I do a debate review of that. Yeah, I will. I will look into it. Someone sent me the link to the debate. I will check it out.

OK. Yes. And there were camel ride. My kids rode camels. That was it was cool.

I actually funny story. I rode a camel when I was in Israel. And I never forget the experience because, number one, getting on a camel is not fun.

It is not fun. So the camel you don't climb up on the camel. The camel sits down and you sit and you have to like lean.

I think you lean back or lean forward and the thing gets up quite rapidly and you're like, well, you know. And I had to share the camel with this really, really obnoxious woman from I think she was from Alabama.

And we were sitting on a leather saddle and it was scorching hot.

So I had to see this woman was wearing this long flowing scarf, you know, I guess suitable for desert climates.

And I had to sneak her scarf. I had to like take the portion of her scarf and put it in my inner flank so that my leg wouldn't burn from the leather.

So half of my camel experience was sneaking this woman's scarf to put between my leg, my inner thigh and the leather camel mount.

Very, very interesting. It was an interesting experience.

But nevertheless, Ernest Gomez asked, any starter suggestion videos for Presupp apologetics?

Well, well, yeah. I mean, you can check out my channel. I have an entire video entitled

Presupp for Dummies. Let me see if I can put a link there. Presupp for Dummies.

Let's see if that pops up. I misspelled dummies. I spelled summies. That's not a real word. OK, let's see here.

There we go. So I'm going to share this. I'm going to put in the comments. All right.

Right here. Boom, boom, boom. And you should check that out. That's a video I did a while back.

Presupp for Dummies. And of course, if you just look and search through the channel, there's lots of information.

I have short summaries. There's actually a really good summary. Really good. I say so myself, where I explain

Presupp in seven minutes. Seven Presupp explained in seven minutes.

I'll get that one up for you as well and share that. There we go. Let me get this here.

So share. Boom, boom, boom. And I highly recommend you check these out. They're super helpful,

I think, in explaining Presupp. And then, of course, if you want any other specific aspects or applications of Presupp, then you could search the channel.

OK? Yeah, no problem. All right. Well, I mean, I'm totally down to take questions. But if there are no more questions, then

I will take – to help buy more time, I'm going to take another slow sip of coffee.

So if you have any questions, OK, shoot them over. They can be about anything. I'll try my best to answer them.

But if not, I'm going to take my slow sip and then we'll end. But I'm giving you time.

All right? OK?

Any questions? Any questions? Well, OK, so Frank Odom says, dummy here, but I'm getting better.

And I love that attitude, right? We're all in a process of learning,

OK? And if the word of God is the sword, even an unskilled possessor of a sword can cut someone.

And so a little bit still goes a long way. And so little by little, not everyone can be – not everyone can be the expert, right?

And so, yeah, Presupp is not as difficult as people make it out to be. I mean, if I were to take some time just to briefly explain it, if you were to differentiate, for example, the different methodologies –

I often use this example in my videos that apologetic methodologies like evidentialism and classical apologetics are bottom -up approaches.

They work their way up to the conclusion that God most likely exists or it's the most – it's reasonable to believe that God exists and things like that.

Presupp is a top -down approach. We start with God and his revelation, and we argue that if you don't start from there, you can't make sense of anything.

So basically, simplistically, we're arguing along biblical lines that in his light we see light. Only in the light of God and his revelation can we understand things truly.

And so that's kind of the heart, I think, of understanding the presuppositional method,

OK? Here's a good question. Must we presupp coffee in order to function? No, you don't presupp coffee.

You presip coffee. You got to – it's a very special technique. You want to do apologetics well and think on point.

You must presupp your coffee, and then you're ready to go.

All right. Magnus Conner says, how do you know the Bible is true?

Yeah, OK. So there are any number of ways that we can answer this, OK? When someone says, how do you know the

Bible's true, there's going to be an important distinction between how we know the Bible's true and how we show the Bible is true.

I'm going to say that again. There's an important distinction between how we know the Bible is true and how we show the

Bible is true. I know the Bible is true because my sheep hear my voice, right? When I read the scriptures,

I hear the voice of the shepherd speaking to me. That is very subjective. That is not something that I use necessarily as an apologetic per se, but that's how

I know. How I show, we can appeal to various forms of evidences and argumentation. Now, notice

I use two different terms there, evidence and argument. They're not the same, OK? Evidence are data points that lend to the plausibility of some hypothesis,

OK? We can give evidences of the truth of the Bible. We can demonstrate, for example, its historical reliability, all these sorts of things that you would find in the run -of -the -mill, kind of a

Josh McDowell or a Sean McDowell type of book where it lays out the evidences for the reliability of the

Bible. However, to quote Van Til here, OK, that we ought to talk of the facts but not talk endlessly of the facts without moving to something more fundamental, namely one's philosophy of fact.

And that's going to be the worldview. So I can give evidences that the Bible is true, but what's going to happen? The unbeliever is not going to accept what we count as evidence.

And the reason for that is not necessarily because the information we're offering is bad. Sometimes that's the case.

Sometimes Christians are not employing the utilization of evidence in a proper way. But when you've provided genuine evidence for the truth of the

Scriptures and it's rejected, we need to recognize that there is a much deeper thing at play, and that is one's philosophy of fact or worldview, not necessarily the specific pieces of information that we're using and sharing to demonstrate the truth of the

Bible. And so that's why we go to the more fundamental level. How do I know the Bible is true? Well, I know the

Bible is true by the impossibility of the contrary. Reject the worldview that is revealed in Scripture, and you lose the foundation for things like logic, rationality, science, mathematics, all these sorts of things.

Now the Bible doesn't teach mathematics, but we infer, given the nature of creation and logic, these sorts of things, we can know, for example, what are the preconditions for something like science, and then show that given a

Christian worldview as laid out in Scripture, it provides the necessary preconditions for those things to even be possible.

That's why historically we know that the scientific method, modern science, was birthed out of a Christian worldview, and that wasn't on accident.

The Christian worldview provides various presuppositions and views that create a context for something like science to be meaningful.

And so how do I know the Bible's true? Well, the Spirit of God bears witness to my spirit, right?

How do I show the Bible to be true? I can point to specific data points and evidence, but at a deeper level,

I know the Bible's true by the transcendental argument. The transcendental argument is a justificatory element.

It's a justification for why I believe Christianity's true. So if I say Christianity's true by the impossibility of the contrary, and I proceed to demonstrate why that's the case, that includes the

Bible, because Christianity is what? It is the religion that's provided for us in the Scriptures. And so I would argue for the truth of the

Bible transcendentally. And again, you can see that, what that looks like, in other videos that I've provided on this channel.

Great question. I hope that is useful. Let's see here. Humble Declay says,

Have you seen the Harbor Freight, Doug Wilson, Keith Foskey, Eschatology for Dummies? I have not.

Maybe I'll check it out. Let's see here. Van Til has that famous comparison in chapter one, where apologetics philosophy versus evidence are like warfare, right?

Big guns versus the foot soldiers. Yep, that's true. Okay. Emphasizing the importance of the relationship between philosophy or worldview and how we use evidences in the proper roles that they play in our apologetic.

Earl Bryan says, Do you have a TikTok as well? I had a TikTok and I had a growing following, but I discontinued my account because TikTok is a cesspool.

Perhaps one day I will make another account because I do know that apologetics is needed in that realm.

But for now, I did remove my account. Not that long ago, actually.

All right. Let's see here. Frank Odom, I like this here.

That's one primary thing I've learned through precept. The Bible isn't my source of wisdom, but the only source of wisdom that is true.

Wisdom should be drawn in distinction from knowledge. Knowledge and wisdom are not the same thing. Knowledge deals with content, right?

Knowledge is a justified true belief or however you hash those philosophical categories out. Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge.

When someone says, well, I have wisdom. Okay, so you know how to properly apply what you know. Then we have to ask the question, the famous question, by what standard does one define how knowledge is properly used?

And of course, to speak of something being proper requires a standard of that which is proper. And so again, without an objective foundation within your worldview,

I think you're going to lack the foundation for that. So yeah, I don't think the

Bible is a source of wisdom. I don't think the Bible is my source for wisdom. I think that the Bible is the only source, which kind of is akin to what

Van Til and Bonson said, that I don't think that Christianity is the most reasonable position to hold.

It is the only reasonable position to hold. You know, lending to the exclusive claims of not only the scriptures itself, but the claims of really the presuppositional approach.

So thank you for that. We don't know what true is without this true.

Magnus Conner says, which passages would you prove the uniformity of nature?

Yeah, I would go to Genesis 8, 22. As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.

And that right there, I think, provides the biblical foundation for expecting nature to behave in a particular way.

Now, of course, people say, well, wait a minute. You know, you can't hold to that as a Christian because of God. God can create miracles.

And if he does miracles, then, you know, nature is unpredictable because God can do miracles whenever he wants, blah, blah, blah, blah.

That doesn't work because miracles in the Bible are not random. When God performs miracles, they're not arbitrary.

So biblically speaking, we have a foundation for trusting the fact that very likely the future will be like the past because God has created the world in a particular way.

And coming from a Christian worldview perspective, we take the very likeliness of regularity and uniformity as a promise of God, also acknowledging that God is able to interact with his creation in miraculous ways that does not disrupt the general reliability that the future will be like the past.

That's part of the Christian worldview as well. It is not a function or an aspect of the Christian worldview to assert that God's miracles are arbitrary and random so that, you know, just randomly

I can, you know, drop my cup and then it just starts floating to the ceiling, right? God is not capricious in that sense.

He is not random in that way. And that's why understanding the proper roles of miracles is also part of understanding the system of Christian truth, getting back to, you know, the topic of this video, is understanding, for example, the

Gospel of John calls miracles signs, indicating that miracles point to something. They're not random.

God is illustrating something, teaching something, accomplishing something through the performing miracles.

And so, again, having a proper biblical theological understanding of the role of miracles and things like that are connected to how we understand issues relating to the uniformity of nature in Genesis 8 .22

with respect to God's promise to, you know, conduct his sovereign control over creation such that, you know, the author of Genesis can say that as long as the earth endures, sea time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night will never cease.

Right? So that's a particular scripture that I would use. All right.

Nate Warner says, How do you respond when people dispute that a biblical scientist is a possibility? A biblical scientist, even when you bring up examples like Boyle, Maxwell, Newton, and Kepler, who are all biblical creationists.

Are you saying an impossibility? How do you respond when people dispute that a biblical scientist is an impossibility, even when you bring up examples of biblical scientists like Boyle, Maxwell, Newton, and Kepler, who are all biblical creationists?

Yeah. So I'm going to assume that you meant impossibility. This is very important because the skeptic often will hijack the term science.

Right? You say, well, all scientists believe in evolution or something like that. I'm just making this up. Okay? And then you say, well, wait a minute.

I know a scientist who disagrees with, you know, the macro evolutionary theory and so forth.

And so I'm like, well, oh, well, but he's a creationist. So he's not really a scientist. He believes the Bible. Right?

Now, of course, inherent in that hypothetical interaction is the assumption that scientists are, the only real scientists are the ones who kind of agree with what

I say. But if you believe the Bible, you can't be a scientist because that's faith. That's not science. You see, there is a hijacking of the term science and what constitutes a scientist.

See, science is a method of investigating the natural world. There's nothing inherent in science itself that does not include an acknowledgement of God as the foundation for science and these sorts of things.

Right? So you want to be careful when someone hijacks a term. Okay? So when someone says, oh, being a biblical scientist is impossible,

I'm going to ask, well, why? Well, because science only deals with the natural world. Well, even if that's true, which

I do think that the purview of science is investigating the natural world, what does that have to do with God? It has nothing to do with, it doesn't speak to the deeper issue as to whether God is necessary for the very possibility of science itself.

And so you want to highlight and point out the inherent bias in this sort of line of thinking.

Okay? Of course, you can bring up those counterexamples and of course, if the unbeliever acknowledges, yeah, okay, they were biblical creationists, but they were the exception.

Or their biblical commitments really didn't touch or bear on their scientific accomplishments.

So again, you can say that, but saying so doesn't make it so, and so I would respond by showing that that's simply just not the case.

Okay? All right. Good question there, Nate. Thank you. Let's see here.

Let's see. Yes.

So how would you respond to presupp being circular reasoning? Well, it depends, you know, the nature.

When someone says circular reasoning, what do they mean? Okay? I make a distinction, I think it's an important distinction, between circular reasoning and circular argument.

Okay? There is no presuppositional argumentation, transcendental argumentation that takes the form of a circular argument, in terms of which the conclusion is also stated in one of the premises.

Right? So no one's saying the Bible's true because the Bible's true, therefore the Bible's true. Right? No one's saying those sorts of things. However, I am engaging in circular reasoning at the fundamental level.

I would just simply point out the clear point that not all forms of circular reasoning is fallacious.

Okay? Many forms of circular reasoning is fallacious, but when you're dealing with fundamental, ultimate authorities, then by definition, those are going to have circularity to it.

Right? So when someone kind of says, hey, you know, I think that we determine truth by appealing to our reason.

And so when I ask the question, well, how do you know your reasoning is, your process of reasoning is reliable? Well, of course, the way they're going to prove that is what?

Using their reason. Right? So they're going to have to use their reason to demonstrate the reliability of their reason, which, according to them, that's circular reasoning and that's kind of an inappropriate way to go about it.

Now, of course, you can't demonstrate the reliability of reasoning without using your reasoning. And of course, as Greg Monson has illustrated somewhere,

I think in a talk or in a book somewhere, he says that you do not correct the human eye with your eyes closed. Right? You assume the reliability of the eye to correct the eye.

Right? So when we're dealing with kind of fundamentals, there's going to be a level of circularity inherent.

I have a good quote here. Let me see if I can find it. Just bear with me for like 20 seconds. One second. So less than 20 seconds.

Here we go. So I have it here. So this is a good book by Robert Raymond. It's called The Justification of Knowledge.

And there's a section in here where he quotes Dr. Greg Monson to this effect. And this is,

I don't mind reading it. It's a really good quote. It's a long quote, but it's a good one.

Okay? So here is Robert Raymond, and then he begins to quote Greg Monson relating specifically to this question here.

So this is Dr. Raymond. When the believer and the unbeliever disagree regarding biblical truth, this disagreement is not simply over isolated facts inasmuch as what any man regards as factual is inevitably governed by a more basic philosophy of fact.

That is, by value governing, possibility determining, religiously motivated presuppositions.

Greg Monson is entirely correct when he writes, quote, and this is a quotation from Dr. Monson. Ready? And this is directly related to your question.

All argumentation about ultimate issues eventually comes to rest at the level of the disputant's presuppositions.

If a man has come to the conclusion and is committed to the truth of a certain view, P, when he is challenged as to P, he will offer supporting argumentation for it,

Q and R. But of course, as his opponent will be quick to point out, this simply shifts the argument to Q and R.

Why accept them? The proponent of P is now called upon to offer S, T, U, and V as arguments for Q and R.

But all argument chains must come to an end somewhere. One's conclusions could never be demonstrated if they were dependent upon an infinite regress of argumentative justifications, for under those circumstances, the demonstration could never be completed.

And an incomplete demonstration demonstrates nothing at all. Eventually, all argumentation terminates in some logically primitive starting point, a view or premise held as unquestionable.

Apologetics traces back to such ultimate starting points or presuppositions. In the nature of the case, these presuppositions are held to be self -evidencing.

They are the ultimate authority in one's viewpoint, an authority for which no greater authorization can be given.

That is a quotation from A Biblical Introduction to Apologetics, pages 33 through 34, and the particular full quotation has been provided from this book,

A Justification of Knowledge, by Dr. Robert L. Raymond. You can pick this book up online. I think it's available on Kindle as well.

Okay? So at a fundamental level, you can't avoid circularity. Okay? But interestingly enough, the presuppositional claim is that our circle is not only not fallacious, it is also a circle that saves intelligibility.

Then unless you start with that foundational circle, resting upon the self -attesting authority of the triune

God of Scripture, unless you start with that, you lose the foundation for everything else. Right?

So hence you have the indirect proof for God's existence, the truth of Christianity, the transcendental argument. That's why we argue, quote -unquote, by the impossibility of the contrary.

Okay? All right. So let's see here. Frank Odom says,

Will this broadcast be loaded later onto YouTube so I can share it with others and listen to it in its entirety? Okay. So this is live.

So when I do live, one of the main reasons I do live is so that I don't have to edit. So this is live on YouTube now, and when

I'm done, it's up on YouTube. You can share it now, and you can share it later. It's going to be up. It's up now, and it will be up later.

Okay? Let's see here. So Nate says, Revealed apologetics? No. They dispute it as possible to be a biblical creationist, sometimes even

Christian, and a scientist. They say those guys don't fall under the biblical category. I still don't know what that means.

What does it mean, they don't fall under the biblical category? I'm not sure what you're asking there. Maybe you can clarify, and then I'll try again.

All right. Let's see here. Scott Terry says, I'm writing an article comparing and contrasting

Van Til's precept with Michael Heiser's work. Any insights on the allegation that reading the Bible in its ancient context undermines precept?

No. If you're interested, and I'll put this in the link, I did, let's see here, precept applied to Pentateuch.

Okay, let's see here. All right, so I did a video entitled Precept in the

Pentateuch. Let's see here. I'm going to put this in the,

I'm going to share it. Okay. There we go.

So you can check that video out as well. Precept in the Pentateuch? No, I don't think it undermines precept as well.

What is precept based upon? It's based upon certain theological truths. Is it Michael Heiser's position that God is not metaphysically ultimate?

Right? Is he not metaphysically ultimate? If he is metaphysically ultimate, that has implications as to how one understands the facts of creation.

Remember the creator -creature distinction, right? So the basic theological categories laid out in the

Old Testament provide the bedrock for a presuppositional outlook. That's why when people ask me all the time, does the

Bible teach precept? And I say, well, it depends. I think it does, but there's no verse that summarizes presuppositionalism.

When you take the theological and biblical truths of Scripture in its entirety, what you get are the foundations out of which a presuppositional approach emerges.

With respect to the creator -creature distinction, the authority of God, the fact that there is no greater authority, that when he made a promise to Abraham, he could not swear by anyone else, so rather he swore by himself, there we go, that God is the fundamental ultimate there, that he, in the beginning,

God created the heavens and the earth, God created everything, and hence is the definer and father of the facts, so to speak.

So I don't think that it undermines at all. Now, understanding the

Bible in its ancient context I think is vitally important, and whether one agrees with Dr. Heiser or not, I think we can commend

Dr. Heiser for emphasizing the necessity of getting back to the ancient context, but I don't think that by doing so, it has the implications that one might suggest here.

All right. All right. And Frank Odom says, Love it. Thanks, brother. Christ your chaos.

Amen. Let's see here. So Nate Werner clarifies, Real apologetics, they say they were

Christians, but that doesn't mean their belief in the Bible affected how they did. Yeah, so I addressed that. Sure it did.

Absolutely. Okay. Science is derived out of a context of the assumption that nature is uniform.

That is a biblical assumption, right? That nature is such that we can make predictions and test our hypothesis, these sorts of things.

Even the idea of the scientific method developed by Francis Bacon. This is all based upon a worldview.

Science doesn't just exist in a vacuum, nor did it exist in a vacuum at the time the individuals you mentioned were doing their work.

Okay. So I would disagree. And of course, that doesn't mean their belief.

You're trying to tell me that one's fundamental beliefs about the nature of reality doesn't affect how someone does science.

How do you square that circle? Okay. Obviously, you take assumptions with you when doing science.

So to say that there's no... Of course, even today, people's non -belief in the Bible affects the sorts of conclusions that one is allowed to draw from the scientific data that we draw today, right?

So again, when someone makes that argument, it just shows the philosophical naivete of where that question or that assertion is coming from.

All right. All right. Well, we are at one hour and 12 minutes. Let's see.

Okay. One more question. That's a good one. Do you have any methods for memorizing scripture?

Okay. This is gonna be the last question. I'm gonna do... This is the last question I got. Now I actually do have to begin to sign off, but I'm going to share this here.

Let me see. One second here. Memorizing scripture. Let me see if I could find this here.

I hope I could find this. Okay. How to memorize scripture.

This is a great article, and I'll read it. I'll read it for you right here, but I'll also put the link if you want to go, and this is super helpful for me.

I'm gonna copy this. This is an article from my friend Matt Slick, okay?

And whether you like Matt Slick or you don't like Matt Slick, you gotta admit, he's pretty good at memorizing scripture.

I love Matt Slick. I've learned so much from him. He's a good friend, and he has this article here, and I wanna take the time.

Let me actually get it up here, because this is a great question. I think it's an important question as well. So let's see here.

So we're gonna present. We're going to, let's get rid of this. I'm gonna get rid of this.

Stop screen. I'm gonna present here. Share screen.

How to memorize scripture. There we go. So I'm gonna read this for you guys. I think it's a really good, super helpful, okay?

And this is an article from Matt Slick on his Karm website. How to memorize scripture.

Many people don't think they can memorize their way out of a new shopping mall, let alone remember a verse in the Bible. I've spoken with hundreds of people about scripture memorization who say the same thing.

I have a terrible memory. My answer to them is nonsense. Everyone memorizes all the time.

You've learned to speak, haven't you? You've memorized thousands of do's and don'ts in life, right? You know your social security number, your phone number, your address, how many brothers, sisters, or children you have, how to get to work, and what to do when you get there.

The problem is not that people can't memorize. It's that they won't memorize. The Bible is the foundation for witnessing, and you must memorize verses to be able to use it.

This applies to your devotional life as well as witnessing. One serious problem I found is that most people have memorized fewer than seven verses.

The average Jehovah's Witness was committed many more to memory, and given the opportunity, could make the average

Christian feel as knowledgeable as banana bread. I love that line. What I would like to do is help you memorize better, and so Matt Slick here offers four steps to memorize scripture.

He says, these are four easy steps to scripture memorization. Let's use, and as you hear me say this, by the way, see how the process works and helps with memorization.

Let's use 1 Peter 2 .24 as an example. And he himself bore our sins in his body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by his wounds you were healed.

Now step one. The step one, Matt, suggests remembering the location. So the first step is to memorize the location, not the verse.

The reason for this is if you forget the verse, but you've memorized the location, you could always look it up. So first, memorize the location.

Follow along, guys. 1 Peter 2 .24. Say 1 Peter 2 .24 over and over again.

Don't worry about what it says at first. Just memorize the location. Make sure that when you say 1 Peter 2 .24,

it flows smoothly off your lips. Say 1 Peter 2 .24, emphasizing different syllables.

Say 1 Peter 2 .24, or 1 Peter 2 .24, or 1 Peter 2 .24,

or even 1 Peter 2 .24. But say 1 Peter 2 .24 enough times that when you say 1

Peter 2 .24, it's as natural as breathing. Step two, get the gist. The second step is to learn the gist of what the verse is.

In this case, it's very simple. Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross. Say Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross in different ways.

Say Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross, or Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross, or Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross, etc.

But say Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross enough times that when you say Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross, it's as natural as saying 1

Peter 2 .24. Kind of repetitive, isn't it? Matt's third step is association.

The third part is more fun. This is where you associate the two together. Say, 1 Peter 2 24 is

Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross. Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross is 1

Peter 2 24. 1 Peter 2 24 is Jesus bore our sins in his body on the cross. Say this over and over again about ten times.

In no time, if you do this, you're gonna memorize it. So this association part is important because it helps you think of one part whenever you think of the other.

For example, if someone asked you, where does it say that Jesus bore our sins in his body? You'd immediately reply with 1

Peter 2 24. It works, and yes, it does work. And the last step is easy.

A piece of paper, okay? The fourth and final part is to take a piece of lined paper, eight and a half by eleven, and draw a vertical line about one inch from the left hand side.

Write the verse location in the left column on your paper, and on the right side simply write the verse. Do this with each verse you want to remember.

Fold it up, put it in your pocket or your purse, and carry it with you wherever you go. When you forget a verse or its location, simply pull out the paper and refresh your memory.

In no time at all, you'll have over 100 verses committed to memory. Memorization is, this is so important, memorization is like exercise.

The more you do it, the easier it gets. The less you do it, the harder it gets. So do it. If you follow this procedure, your mind will become like a sponge.

You'll end up memorizing all sorts of stuff with the greatest of ease, like how many socks are in your drawer, everything that's in your refrigerator, and even where your car keys are.

And one more thing, you'll be amazed at how the Lord uses what you've memorized. Super, super important, okay?

I didn't mind reading that entire article, just so you could hear it, just in case someone doesn't actually click on the thing.

Scripture memory is super powerful in doing apologetics, so I highly recommend that, you know, look through that article and that will be helpful to you, okay?

Let's see here, I said that was the last one, but you got, we got a couple here, and there's not too much, so maybe, maybe we can cover them.

Magna Carner, Magnus Carner, greetings from Dublin, awesome! Well, top of the morning to you.

Okay, I don't know if that's a good accent, but I'm sorry if I, if I, if I ruined that. Let's see here,

Scott Terry says, frankly I think this volume, Christian Apologetics, that Eli is reviewing is probably the best book to start with Van Til.

Yes, this is, this is the book I tell people always to start, to start, because Van Til can be very difficult, but this,

I think is pretty manageable for the average person. Earth asks the question, this looks like the last question, how do you agree what truth is with an atheist or naturalist?

How do you agree what truth is with an atheist and naturalist? I mean, how,

I'm not sure I understand the question. You, you might have a dispute over what truth is, okay?

At a deeper level, right, the Christian and the non -Christian are gonna have some important disagreements.

For me, truth is anything that conforms with the mind of God. I'm a believer, I'm gonna accept that definition. I also believe that truth is that which corresponds to reality, but the fundamental foundation of reality is what?

It's the triune God who reveals. So, we can, we can agree on a standard definition, but I think at the most fundamental level, there's going to be disagreement.

So we can have superficial agreement, but at a fundamental level, at a deeper level, there's gonna be disagreement.

So, I'm not sure exactly how you're, how do you agree what truth is with an atheist?

Well, depending on how fundamental we get, we're not gonna agree. And so, when we point out the fact that we will not agree at the fundamental level, that helps expose the reality that the

Christian and the non -Christian are operating under different philosophies of life, as Van Till has defined for us in Christian Apologetics, page one, first sentence.

Apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life over against the non -Christian philosophy of life.

Here's the thing, Earth. Many unbelievers don't realize they have a philosophy of life.

They don't realize they have a worldview. And so, just as Van Till has taught us that we must learn to be epistemologically self -conscious, we must be self -conscious of the fact of our theory of reality, our theory of knowledge, our theory of ethics.

We oftentimes have to help the unbeliever to be self -conscious of their own commitments. Because when we do that, then we help the unbeliever see why, at the heart of the issue, why we disagree over, for example, what truth is.

And so, when we get those foundations exposed, then we can compare. Well, you have a view of truth.

I have a view of truth. Which view of truth makes sense? And that's where you get into the worldview critique, the internal critiquing of the other person's perspective and, you know, inviting the critique of your own perspective as well.

So, I think that's how I would go about it. All right. Well, this is it for this episode, guys.

Thank you so much for joining me in this kind of, like, you know, unpredictable. I totally didn't know I was gonna be live today.

But here we are. And I hope that this was enjoyable. I will try to, perhaps, try to go live sometime in the future to cover

Chapter 2, which the title of Chapter 2 is...let's

see here, what is the title of Chapter 2? The title of Chapter 2 is The Christian Philosophy of Life.

The Christian Philosophy of Life. So, the first chapter is The System of Christian Truth. Chapter 2, The Christian Philosophy of Life.

And in this discussion, he goes into, well, he goes into great detail on a number of issues. I don't want to jump ahead of myself, but we'll tackle that later.

On Monday, remember, I'm having Dr. Danny Faulkner on to talk about the age of the earth and that interesting debate.

And so, until next time, take care and God bless. Be sure to subscribe if you haven't. Share the video if you want others to see this content.

And I thank you guys so much for following the channel and being so respectful and supportive in the comments.