LIVE Q & A: Youtube Comments & Audience Questions

All right. Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and I am back from a break.

I took a break from the month of March and just to kind of concentrate on other things for a little bit, just to take a little breather, and now we're back.

So it wasn't a complete break. I had the opportunity to fly over to Arizona over there at Apologia Studios to do some recording there.

I recorded another five -part series on presuppositional apologetics applied, and I did some work there on the

Ask Me Anything podcast. Now, all of this is available – at least the Ask Me Anything episode is available to those who have a subscription to Apologia Studios All Access.

So it's not somewhere where you can just go and watch it. You'd have to subscribe, which

I highly recommend folks do. There's actually a lot of great resources there at Apologia Studios. So if you're interested in that, that's where that can be accessed.

But I had a great time over there hanging out with Isaac and Carmen, and I got to see

Jeff for a couple of minutes – not too long. He's a very busy guy. And I didn't get to see

Dr. White this time around. I think Dr. White was just on his way from his debate marathon.

He was traveling all over the place doing all sorts of debates on Calvinism. I think he debated

Dale Tuggy on the Trinity or something. I don't remember the specific topic. But yeah, so I didn't get to see

Dr. White. Saw Jeff for a couple of minutes. But the guys who were hosting me, they were great, and I had a really good time.

Got to hang out with Vocab Malone. So I went over his house, did a live stream there in his studio. And actually, come to think about it,

I think I hung out with Vocab more than everyone else. So that was pretty cool. Got to hang out with him, I think, two or three days.

He showed me around various parts of – I think we were in Phoenix. So it was super cool.

Had a lot of fun, and hopefully that it's not my last time. So hopefully

I'll be back there to do some more work with Apologia. Now I was supposed to – it was

April Fool's today, right? I was supposed to have a guest, Jason Mullett, to talk about the question of why the

Christian worldview. And Jason Mullett is a Christian apologist. He is a presuppositionalist, very sharp guy.

He had a podcast back in the day that he used to watch – listen to, rather, for a while, and I loved it. So I invited him on.

He was scheduled for today, and then I got a message last second. Something came up, family stuff, and so we have to schedule.

So what I did was I took my Ask Me Anything episode that was scheduled for April, I think, 9th, and kind of just moved it to today.

Because it's always easier when I don't have a guest because I can just do it whenever I'm able to do it.

And sometimes when you're having a guest on, there are a lot of technical things that could happen, last second things that you have to be able to adapt to, and there you go.

So I'm super happy to be here. I'm not going to waste too much time. We're going to jump right in. This is the

Ask Me Anything. Now, I've anticipated – pardon – I've anticipated the possibility that there would not be questions.

And so I have collected questions that I gathered from the comments section of my

YouTube channel. And so if I don't get a lot of questions here in the comments, I will address those.

And I took some screenshots of interesting questions that I missed after collecting my questions and putting in a document that I have in front of me right here.

I caught some last second questions that might be useful to address as well. So just to clarify then, there are a few questions here in the comments.

And if you do have a question, I highly recommend you preface your question with the word question.

I don't know how many people are going to watch this live, but if the audience, for example, increases and there's a lot of chatter in the comments, then

I will lose your question, okay, unless you preface your question with question.

All right? Okay. So let me dive in. I have a cup of coffee. This is my new favorite toy, by the way.

This is a coffee mug, but I have this little coffee mug heater next to me to keep my coffee warm.

So there you go. Let me take one sip, and then we'll jump right in. Okay. All right.

So let's see what's on people's minds here. So Samuel Lee asked the question,

I was a graduate -level biblical studies student and still don't understand what presuppositionalism is.

Would you be able to break it down for a five -year -old asking for a friend? Okay. So Samuel Lee, presuppositionalism is super simple.

Unfortunately, presuppositionalism sounds really complicated. So ready? Watch this.

Okay? The triune God exists. His word is true. We argue from that position, not to that position.

Okay? And so this makes the presuppositional apologetic method a top -down approach of apologetics as opposed to, say, a bottom -up approach.

So a bottom -up approach apologetics would work one's way up through various arguments to the conclusion, therefore,

God exists. It's very likely that he exists. It's the most reasonable position to affirm that he exists, anything along those lines.

The presuppositional apologetic methodology will start with God and his revelation and will argue in this way.

Unless you start with God and his revelation, you can't make sense out of anything. And so we proceed to show that the unbeliever's worldview cannot provide what must be the case in order for there to be knowledge, in order for there to be logic, in order for there to be uniformity in nature, which are the foundations of science, all these sorts of things.

So that's kind of the approach that we take. It's called presuppositional because it deals a lot with one's fundamental assumptions, right?

They're presuppositions, those kind of pre -beliefs that people take to the discussion.

So, for example, when I'm speaking right now, I'm presupposing a whole host of things that are the necessary preconditions or what must be true in order for, say, the sentences coming out of my mouth to be meaningful.

So one of the presuppositions that I have is I presuppose the laws of logic, right? I presuppose the law of identity, which states that something is what it is, it's not what it's not.

The law of non -contradiction, a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. And the law of excluded middle, a statement is either true or false, there's no middle option.

So I'm presupposing those categories when I'm uttering sentences. So that's a presupposition. So presuppositional apologetics focuses on the not so much specific isolated facts under dispute, but we're focusing on the presuppositions of those facts.

What are our presuppositions and do our presuppositions provide a meaningful context to make sense out of the things that we're talking about, okay?

Now, if you want kind of a very, very super -duper simplistic definition of presuppositional apologetics, presuppositional apologetics can be wrapped up in the idea that's within certain scriptures that I think are useful.

There's a passage in Psalms where it says, in his light we see light. I mean, that's just a very simple passage, right? In his light we see light.

In essence, only in the light of God's revelation can we see things clearly, the way they're meant to be seen, or understand things the way they're meant to be understood.

So only in the light of God's revelation can we understand anything. And we believe that as Christians, and then we argue that with the unbeliever that unless they're seeing the world in the light of God's revelation, they can't see the world truly if what their

God -denying perspective says is true, okay? So hopefully that – I threw out a bunch of things.

Hopefully that's a little helpful with respect to the question you're asking. A five -year -old – there are some super, super slow five -year -olds, and there are super, super smart five -year -olds.

So there's a spectrum there. I hope this explanation would make sense to you.

And I apologize if I used some words there that went over your head. But hey, if you don't understand, here's the magic of asking questions.

You can rephrase your question for clarification, or you could ask it again, and I'll try it again.

So hopefully that helps a little bit, okay? All right, thank you for that question, Samuel. Okay, so this question comes from – oh, man.

I am not going to try to butcher the name. I do apologize. But let's just tackle your question here.

Hey, Eli, how do we apply precept to indigenous native belief systems that are intricately weaved in the actual culture?

Loved your episode on false faiths. Would you simply say it's the same approach? Yeah, so thank you for the kind words there.

Thank you for expressing the fact that you enjoyed that episode there on false faiths. I had a lot of fun doing it, and so I appreciate that.

But yeah, so the presuppositional approach doesn't change. Our method doesn't change when we're engaging people from different worldview perspectives.

Our emphasis might change. Obviously, the content of what we're discussing is going to differ depending on the belief system that you're interacting with.

But the basic kind of method is going to stay the same. So for example, how to apply precept to indigenous native belief systems.

So now if you think of apologetics as an application of Christian theology to unbelief, what you're going to do is you're going to bring your

Christian theology to bear on the entire apologetic situation you find yourself in with the indigenous individual.

For example, even when I'm speaking with an indigenous native belief system, what the

Bible says about the natural man is still true. It doesn't matter if you're talking to a Mormon. It doesn't matter if you're talking to a

Muslim. It doesn't matter if you're talking to someone whose religion doesn't have a specific title attached to it.

Maybe it's in the deepest, darkest jungle somewhere. What the Bible says about the natural man is still true, and what the

Bible says about the natural man is still going to have to inform how we interact with the specific individual.

So let's just jump right into – I'm going to put that up on the screen there. Romans 1, verses 18 through 21.

Let's read it here. And this is still true. If you're going to be – if you're sharing the gospel in a foreign context and you are engaging with an indigenous people group where their belief systems are intricately weaved into their culture, all these sorts of things, these truths that are given to us in Scripture are still going to inform how we approach them.

So here's what the Bible says, verse 18 and on. Check this out.

I'm going to return to that section in just a moment, but let's continue on. Verse 20. Okay?

Verse 21. Okay? And then it goes on to talk about God giving them over.

Now, I want you to take a look at this. Okay? Now, this is all bouncing around in the background of your mind. Right? We are presupposing these categories even when we're talking to an indigenous people group.

And so we're going to need to understand what the Bible says with respect to man's situation.

Okay? And this is going to go across the board. This is true of everyone. Okay? First, we hear that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

So whether you are a Mormon, whether you're a Jehovah's Witness, whether you're a Muslim, whether you are from the Baha 'i faith, doesn't matter.

Whether you're an indigenous tribe in deepest, darkest jungles. Okay? It is still true that the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against the ungodliness and unrighteousness who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

So the indigenous people group are engaging in unrighteous suppression of the what?

Of the truth. And so there's a sense in which they have the truth. Why do they have the truth? Because that which is known about God is evident within them.

Check this out. Not because someone showed it to them. Like, like, I showed them through some argument or whatever.

It says, for God made it evident to them. Right? For since the creation of the world is invisible, attributes of eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are what?

Unapologetus. Without excuse. For even though they knew God. That phrase, knew God. Okay?

The Greek behind there is nantes tontheon. Knowing the God. Okay? They have a knowledge of their maker.

Now, this is important because this is what we are, how we are approaching the indigenous people group.

Whatever I'm going to say to them, which is going to require conversation, learning their language, learning their ideas and their concepts, and then trying to, when we learn what they believe, we're looking for points of contact.

Okay? Points of contact. Okay? Now, I want you to remember, looking for points of contact with an indigenous native belief system, you know, in the people or whatever religion, this is not the same as looking for a neutral category to make a connection with them.

Right? As you've heard me say ad nauseum, there is no neutrality. What we're looking for is not neutral ground, but common ground.

Okay? They are made in the image of God. Whether they use those categories or understand those categories, it's still true because the

Bible is giving us the divine commentary on the nature of the person that we are interacting with.

Okay? So when we're applying a presuppositional approach and we're communicating with the people group and we learn a little bit about their concepts and about their beliefs and things like that, we are opening our minds and being sensitive to the idea of recognizing possible points of contact.

Okay? For example, you know, think in terms of the

Apostle Paul when he's in Athens and he observes all of the idolatry around him. Okay? He finds a point of contact there in Acts 17.

Okay? I think reading Acts 17 I think is a useful tool in approaching this specific question.

But all in all, it is going to involve the same approach. Okay? The unbeliever knows

God. He is without excuse. And we're going to use, once we get more details as to what they believe and all that sort of stuff so that we could have the point of contact, right?

We can use the two -step approach that's given to us in Proverbs 26. All right? Answer not the fool according to his folly, lest you be a fool like unto him.

And then answer the fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit. Okay? We're not going to adopt the assumptions of the indigenous people group.

Okay? But then again, let's hypothetically adopt them and show that they actually reduce to foolishness.

Okay? And I don't care what culture you're in. There is a category of foolish reasoning in every stream of human thought.

And so we're going to have to, you know, again, it's going to depend who you're talking to. But we're going to have to draw those things out while we are in communication and relationship with them, especially when you're in a foreign context where you're going to have to do a little bit of learning about what people believe and their thought categories and things like that.

But the general approach is going to be the same. Right? We're still going to apply a presuppositional methodology as to how we approach these individuals.

And that's not inconsistent with pointing to specific data points or evidences in favor of the

Christian worldview. And this, again, presuppositional apologists and presuppositional apologetics is not allergic to appealing to evidence.

Okay? So that's kind of my thoughts on how one could approach. Now, when you speak of indigenous native beliefs, that's a very ambiguous phraseology there.

I mean there's going to be more content to a specific example that you might be referring to. But the overall approach,

I think, is going to be the same. All right? All right. I hope that was helpful.

Let's move along here. I'm passing by. Everyone's saying hi. So hello.

Okay. All right. Peter W. says, what did you think of the White Flowers Debate?

The Flowers Debate, John 6, right? So yeah. Okay. So if I was not a

Calvinist, I am a Calvinist. And so obviously I'm going to side with Dr. White in his theological position and his interpretation of John 6 and unconditional election and these sorts of things.

But if I wasn't a Calvinist, I would still say – phrase it this way.

If I wasn't a Calvinist and I was a provisionist, I would still say that Dr.

White won the debate as I saw it. Okay? Now, win –

I use the word win in the sense that Dr. White, I think – maybe he didn't do this in the best way that he could.

But I think he walked through the text. He made a case for his position. Okay? And so that's basically what you're going to want to do, right?

I do not think Dr. Flowers did that in a focused enough way. He did what many people predicted he would do, and he jumped to various issues that I don't think were germane to the specific proposition of the debate.

Now, again, there are going to be people who disagree with me. They're going to say, hey, those side topics that he brought up, they were related.

I don't think they were related in the way that Dr. Flowers thinks they're related. And even if they are tangentially related,

I don't think his approach in terms of the topics he brought up was good relative to the specific things that they were debating that night.

So I think Dr. Flowers was all over the place. I don't think that Dr. White – he actually looked tired, which

I wouldn't blame him. He just came off a bunch of different debates and then debated Dr. Flowers. Maybe he was a little tired, but he didn't look 100 percent to me.

But overall, I think he does what Dr. White does, right? He walks through the text. Now, again, if you disagree with Dr.

White's position, then you're going to have to walk through the text and show where his exegesis is false and where your exegesis is correct.

And I think Dr. Flowers tried to do that at some stronger points. But then I think there was a certain point in the debate where he kind of jumped around, and I thought the debate at that point lost its focus.

So that's my opinion kind of in a thumbnail sketch. All right? Coffee break.

I have to be careful. The cup is like metal. So the metal is super hot.

So I'll be talking, and then I'll take my quick break. I'm like, oh, I burned my lip. That would be embarrassing. I wouldn't want that to happen here.

So let's see here. All right.

Okay. So Jonathan Lowe says, I have a very interesting question, brother.

Well, at least I think it's interesting. Okay. All right. Well, I'm looking forward to reading it as I move along.

Okay. What do you think is the best Bible translation to give an elementary age child who can read a

Bible for their own personal use? Yeah, I have no problem with the

NIV. My daughter has an NIV, and she's only in fourth grade, and she could read.

I mean, she reads really well. I think her reading level is beyond a fourth grade reading level, better than I was when

I was a kid. I couldn't read well at all when

I was in elementary school. Reading actually is something I stumbled into later on when

I got into apologetics and had questions about my faith. Then I developed a love for reading. But, oh, my goodness, elementary school.

I'm like, oh, the word. Sorry. Yeah, I was really bad.

But, yeah, I like the NIV. The NIV is a good translation. That's not too difficult. Like, you don't want to give your fifth grade son the

NASB. That can be a little challenging, although not impossible. I mean, it's still understandable.

It's with anything. You kind of have to learn how the words read off your lips, right?

There are certain phrases that are kind of like it's a little awkward. But, I mean, there are people who were raised on the

King James from childhood. And so it all depends. Yeah. But I like, me personally,

I like the NIV. I think that's a fine translation to give someone who's elementary age.

I would try to stay away from the paraphrased Bibles where they take lots of liberty in terms of how certain phrases and terms are used.

So I'd be careful of, say, the what's that translation? Oh, my goodness.

Oh, my goodness. Why am I forgetting this? Okay, so the NIV, ESV, then there is the message, okay?

I stay away from the message Bible, but that's just me. But, anyway, those are my thoughts there.

Hope that helps. Let's see here. How do I defend the notion that the impossibility of being consistent with a position makes the position false?

Hmm. Not sure I understand the question. How may I defend the notion that the impossibility of a, okay, of the impossibility of being consistent with a position makes the position false?

I'm going to ask you to rephrase that question. I'm not sure what you're asking.

I'm going to read it again, okay? See if I can process it. How may I defend the notion that the impossibility of being consistent with a position makes the position false?

Okay, I don't know what you're asking. Although, if you show that a position is inconsistent, then you show that position is false.

Since inconsistencies, and if what we mean by inconsistencies is logical contradiction, then by definition, logical contradictions cannot be true.

So if you show a position to be essentially contradictory, then it follows that it's not true. Since the key ingredient, if you were going to bake a cake, a truth cake, one of the key ingredients to a truth cake is consistency, right?

You cannot have inconsistency in truth. I hope that makes sense, right?

So I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but I hope my attempt there was a little bit in line with what you're asking.

So I have to, I deal with the questions as they're sent to me, right? That's how it looks.

So I do apologize. Let's see here. Reform Disciple, thank you so much for your $5 super help.

Wow, I haven't got a super chat in a long time. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. All right, so what is the significance of the

Munchausen trilemma regarding the virtuous circle of revelatory epistemology?

Okay, so the significance of—let me see what you're asking before I get into this. What is the significance of the

Munchausen trilemma regarding the virtuous circle? Yes, so if you have the

Munchausen trilemma, this is kind of the three options you have in terms of providing justification for a position.

Let me get the actual definition here. So I'll make sure I'm getting this correct, and then

I'll share my thoughts with respect, not Munchausen syndrome. All right, let's see here.

Okay, Munchausen dilemma. Okay. Okay, so let's see here.

Oh, my goodness. I don't—okay. Let me try to answer this question without giving—so the

Munchausen trilemma, you either are going to affirm something dogmatically. You're going to affirm something and then justify it with something else, and then you have kind of an infinite regress of justifications, and so you don't actually justify the specific thing in question.

I don't remember the other option off the top of my head. Actually, I had it marked down in a book I was reading, so I do apologize.

I'm kind of forgetting. But, for example, when we speak of revelatory epistemology, when we're trying to demonstrate the truth of the

Christian worldview, one of the ways that we justify the Christian worldview is through transcendental argumentation, okay?

So, for example, I'm dogmatically asserting the truth of the Christian worldview, but I'm not stopping at a dogmatism, okay?

I'm trying to demonstrate the truth of my dogmatic assertion. Now, when

I am arguing from a fundamental presupposition and someone asks me, how do you justify your fundamental presupposition, okay?

What I cannot do, and this is kind of mentioned in the Munchausen trilemma, I cannot appeal to something more fundamental than my ultimate presupposition, okay?

Now, if I give a justification for my justification for my justification for my justification, you kind of go back ad infinitum and you never justify the thing in question.

What we're doing is we are justifying our fundamental presupposition by appealing to its own transcendental necessity, that if you deny it, you have to implicitly affirm it, okay, even in its denial.

And the best example of this would be logic. So, if I were to justify logic, I would say logic is true by the impossibility of the contrary, okay?

Deny logic, and to verbally deny logic requires logical categories, even in your denial. And so it's proven, even in its denial, okay?

And so, notice, though, that I'm not justifying logic by appealing to something necessarily behind logic, necessarily, when we're talking about logic, if we're just talking about logic.

We do go behind logic in the sense, metaphysically, we think that logic is a reflection of God's thinking, but just bear with me.

We think of logic kind of in an isolated category. What we're doing is that we are justifying logic by showing that it's true by the impossibility of the contrary.

Deny it, and you have to affirm it. And that's basically what the transcendental argument is. When we appeal, for example, to revelatory epistemology, the idea that knowledge comes through revelation and that that is an aspect of the necessary preconditions for intelligibility, and someone says, well, how do you know that's true?

That's where the transcendental principle or transcendental forms of argumentation is going to come in.

We're going to prove it by the impossibility of the contrary, okay? I hope that makes sense. I was a little wordy there.

Munchausen trilemma, I was just reading about it, and for some reason I can't think of the trilemma itself. I'd have to look it up just to be sure.

I don't know why. I had a brain fart there for a second. I do apologize. But thank you for that,

SuperChat Reform Disciple. Hope that was somewhat helpful. Reform Disciple comes swooping in.

I'm going down in order for another one. We often say the Bible is self -authenticating. Is this important to precepts, and how is it self -authenticating?

Any resource for this topic? Yeah, okay, so we often say the Bible is self -authenticating.

And the reason why the Bible is self -authenticating is because of the nature of the authority the

Bible holds. If God is the ultimate authority and the Bible is

His Word, then His Word comes with the ultimate authority of the one who speaks it.

And so how do we justify an ultimate authority? We do not do it by appealing to something more ultimate than the ultimate authority.

Otherwise, it would no longer be an ultimate authority. And so when we say the

Bible is self -authenticating, because of the nature of the authority of God, and in fact because the

Bible is His Word, it comes with its own intrinsic authority.

And in that sense, it is self -authenticating. It is not authenticated by appealing to something beyond it or over it or more ultimate than it.

Is this important to precepts? Yes, it is fundamental to precepts because we are not simply arguing from a authority.

We are arguing from the authority, the only authority, that is in a position to reveal to us the true nature of the world and to tell us or to give us a foundation for knowledge and intelligible experience itself.

Okay? Any resources for this topic? I would highly recommend Greg Bonson's book, Presuppositional Apologetics, Stated and Defended.

He talks a lot about the self -attesting nature of Scripture. That's kind of standard fare for presuppositional stuff.

So you read anything by Bonson, there's going to be mention of the self -authenticating nature of Scripture.

So Scripture is self -authenticating because God is self -authenticating. We do not test the

Word of God by appealing to something more fundamental because of the nature of who He is.

Notice that when God swore a promise to Abraham, the Bible says He swore by Himself because there was nothing greater than Him.

If there's nothing greater than Him, then He can't swear by something beyond Him so as to trust the covenant that He's about to make.

He is the standard. And so in that sense, His Word is justified because it is His Word. How do we prove this to be true in apologetic context?

We try to prove it to be true by a transcendental form of argumentation that allows us to argue for our position and to allow

God to hold the proper place of ultimate authority that He has. Okay? Great question.

Nick Caravella, I loved your talks on apologia, apologia, apologia. I get confused with that.

Thank you so much. I appreciate that, Nick. Corinth Chandler, thank you so much for your $10

Super Chat. That's very, very greatly appreciated. Thank you so much. Let's see here.

Let's see here. In the Creed, someone states their worldview is known only through personal revelation and they don't see a problem with that.

They apologize it hasn't been revealed to you yet. How do you call their bluff? Yeah, so it's arbitrary, right?

This is what we are saying, unbelieving positions reduced to arbitrariness, inconsistency, absurdity.

If it's personal, then how are we to know it? How is one to argue for the truth of their personal revelation?

Okay? That's going to be—in other words, they're making a bare authority claim. Now, the presuppositionalist is making an authority claim too, right?

But we're not making a bare authority claim. We are actually arguing for it through transcendental forms of reasoning.

Okay? So when someone appeals to personal revelation, sure, someone could appeal to anything they'd like. But are they in a position to justify that?

If they're not able to justify that, then it's just their authoritative word and they're not demonstrating anything.

Indeed, you can't demonstrate a personal revelation without some kind of argumentation.

So I would ask for an argument. What is your argument that your personal revelation is true?

And to which the person could say, well, what's your argument, Mr. Christian, as to why the Christian worldview is true? And then

I offer a transcendental argument for the truth of the Christian worldview. And on top of that, the Christian worldview is not something given simply through personal revelation through certain individuals.

The revelation of God is public. We have general revelation, which is public to everyone, and we have special revelation, okay, which can be examined.

That's why we have the Bible. You could examine the Bible, right? So these things are very different claim than what the

Christian is making. And so I call their bluff by saying, okay, why should I think your personal revelation is true?

Okay, well, he hasn't, you know, it's only known through personal revelation. And so it hasn't been revealed to me.

Okay, hasn't been revealed to me. So I'm in a position to reject it. Okay, so that's how

I would call their bluff. Okay, let's see here. Context, they're stubborn and will not give in to say to saying anything that they actually don't believe.

I'm not sure what that means. Okay, let's see here. Reform disciple.

Have you heard anything about gentries? That's Kenneth Gentry's new commentary. Are you post mill and do you plan on getting that commentary?

I did hear about a commentary that Kenneth Gentry is pointing out, is putting out, and I do.

Eschatology is a study of last things, end times. We talk about the end times, the different views, pre -trib, post -trib, no -trib, amil, pre -mil, post -mil, all those sorts of views.

You're dealing with eschatology, the second coming of Christ, the resurrection, things like that. That used to be a topic that I used to study a lot.

As a matter of fact, people who know my story, the study of eschatology is what got me into apologetics.

It was my introduction to Gary DeMar's book, Last Day's Madness, The Obsession of the

Modern Church, that I learned about American vision. By extension, I learned about Greg Bonson because a lot of his material was sold on there.

That got me into precept in an indirect way. I plan on getting it. I very much respect the work of Kenneth Gentry.

I am personally a tentative post -mil. If that makes sense.

I am post -milennial, but tentatively. Eschatology is a very difficult topic. I'm a post -millennialist, but I like to hear what other people have to say, if that makes sense.

Let's see here. Okay, thank you. I'll call you Henry. I'm so sorry.

Thank you for that, Henry. Thank you for clarifying. I appreciate that. Let's see here.

All right, Jeremy says, how can I approach an elder at my church who preaches about grasping predestination?

How can I approach an elder at my church who preaches? What does that mean? I don't know what that means.

Preaches about grasping predestination? Like understanding it?

I mean, if someone's saying, hey, we need to understand predestination, I would say, amen. Yeah, you do. The word's there in the

Bible. Predestination is in the Bible. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking. Try rephrasing your question. Maybe I can answer it after you rephrase it and clarify a little bit, okay?

Sorry about that. Let's see here. James Brooks, hey, can you get

Flowers and Bing Yong on your podcast to discuss the foundation of compatibilism? It would be a great discussion.

I don't know if that would work, to be perfectly honest.

And again, I would say this, even if I was a provisionist, okay?

Like Layton Flowers. If Layton Flowers got on the show with Dr. Guillaume Bing Yong, Dr.

Flowers, I don't think it would end well. I think this Guillaume Bing Yong is, let's just say,

I think the other side would probably do better with someone else other than Flowers going up against Bing Yong, in my personal opinion, okay?

Now, that being said, I did have Guillaume on to critique Layton Flowers, Tim Stratton, and Braxton Hunter.

And he came on twice, and I think each time it was two hours. He had four hours worth of content where Dr.

Guillaume is interacting with Dr. Braxton Hunter, Dr. Tim Stratton, and Dr. Layton Flowers.

And I think that's an excellent – and we talk about compatibilism and all these sorts of things. So I think that's an excellent resource.

So go on my channel. It's in the backlog. You've got to search it. But search Guillaume Bing Yong, Tim Stratton.

You put those names in the search on Revealed Apologetics, and you're going to find it. And it's an excellent – it's actually one of my favorite set of episodes.

So there you go. I don't know if I can get Bing Yong to do that. Yeah. And I did invite

Tim Stratton, Braxton Hunter, and Layton Flowers to come on when Guillaume was on, and they respectfully declined for their own reasons, which is fine.

So I did try to do this in the past, but I think the videos speak for themselves.

And even if you come away disagreeing with Guillaume and the Calvinist perspective, you're still going to benefit from the discussion anyway.

So I highly recommend folks check those two episodes out. Okay? All right.

One second here. All right.

Let's see. All right.

So In the Creed says, do I misunderstand presupp if I feel like it's easy to grasp? It's basically, justify your worldview, your epistemology, your ethics, your moral, and your metaphysics state of being in the universe.

Yeah, that's fine. I mean, yeah. So presuppositional apologetics, we're defending the faith. We're presupposing the metaphysic of Scripture, the epistemology of Scripture, which is revelational from our perspective, right?

And the ethics of Scripture. So we're defending the whole Christian worldview as a system, right? And so we think we could justify this.

One of the ways we justify it is through transcendental reasoning, transcendental argumentation. So, yeah,

I mean, that's fair. I mean, there's more to it for sure. I think there's a biblical foundation to why we do this.

So you can understand presupp from a biblical perspective. You could understand presupp from a theological perspective because there's some theological emphases within the method as well.

And you could understand presupp from kind of a philosophical perspective. But, yeah, for the most part, I think that's okay.

Obviously, there's more to it, but that's fine. Yeah. Let's see here. Let's see here.

The Duke of Duke. I like what you did there. Okay. The Duke of Duke.

Given the position that the world isn't designed, why would atheist materialists expect for the external reality to justify the basic presuppositions needed to justify reason?

All right. So there's a bunch of things with this question here. So given the position that the world isn't designed, why would an atheist materialist expect for the external reality to justify?

Okay. So justification. When you provide a justification, you provide an argument. So external reality doesn't provide arguments.

People specifically do. So reality to justify the basic presupposition needed to justify reason.

Right. Okay. I'm not sure I understand your question, but if an atheist materialist is arguing for a position or arguing against a position,

I think it's completely fair to ask the person, given your worldview, how do you justify the very things you're using to criticize other worldviews?

Right. And this is just kind of making someone be aware of their own presuppositions, their own worldview assumptions, and making them give an account for it.

Okay. The Christian is willing to do it. Even if you disagree with the Christian, at least the Christian is going to try to justify their basic presuppositions, maybe not to your satisfaction or anything like that.

But if the atheist is going to assert things and make arguments and try to justify certain assumptions and certain positions, yeah,

I'm going to ask them, how do you justify the very reason that's required to make the arguments that they're making and these sorts of things?

I think that's a perfectly fair question. Now, I just answered your question in the best way I could, given that I'm not sure

I understand your question, but I want to be respectful, and I took your question and I'm like, let me try to say something to it. So if I didn't answer your question,

I'm totally sorry. I tried. At least I admit it, right? I wasn't pretending like, oh, yeah, that's an easy question to answer.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I apologize, Duke of Duke. Hey, you guys are doing a good job prefacing your question with question.

I appreciate it. I feel like sometimes I'll ask people to do it, and then they don't do it, and then

I just have to sift through the questions and the comments that are mixed together.

So thank you. And I hope

I'm not talking too fast. Maybe folks in the comments, give me thumbs up if you think my speed is – because I'm trying to get to as many questions as possible.

So there you go. Okay, so Ethan Park says, does the

Bible's creation and historical timeline support the idea of a young Earth around 6 ,000 to 7 ,000, so we will say 6 ,000 to 10 ,000 years from Genesis 1 until now?

Okay, so I tend to lean towards a young Earth position. I have no problem with that.

I think exegetically it's probably the best way to approach the text. And so I'm going to say that yes, but I want to be flexible.

I do think that there are some issues with how people kind of calculate the specifics of how long everything took.

Again, that's not an area of my expertise. If I were just going to take, for example, what seems to be what the basic straightforward reading of Genesis, I'm going to lean towards a more young Earth interpretation.

But I do that carefully because I know that every view has their issues that need to have more nuance in terms of how they are approached.

So that's all I'm going to say to that. I do think the

Bible supports a younger timeline. Specifically how many years that is, I'm not sure.

I'm not sure. Definitely not. I've never tried calculating it personally. But there you go.

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

All right, so Philip says, what is the best response when someone says, why is

God hardening someone when they're already born that way? Yeah, so okay, so this is the distinction between one second here.

Let me get something up here on my screen here. Bear with me for just a moment.

That's a great question, by the way. Let me see here. Let's see over here.

Right. Okay, I'm sorry. I apologize. A bunch of things working here. Okay, so the question is, what is the best response when someone says, why is

God hardening someone when they are already born that way? Here is where we're going to have to understand the important distinction between total depravity and judicial hardening.

They're not the same, right? So we asked the question, why does God harden the reprobate? Okay, someone who's reprobate.

Isn't that redundant? That's kind of the question that we're that we're often, you know, it's often put forth. Total depravity is, and I do believe it's biblical, so I'm just going to assume it's biblical here and not argue for it necessarily.

But total depravity is the natural state of all people. Judicial hardening is not what condemns a person.

Okay, judicial hardening is the providential means by which God brings about a specific end.

Okay, for example, God hardened Pharaoh, but this hardening is not the same as damning

Pharaoh. Pharaoh was already an unbeliever. Right. So basically it was the hardening of Pharaoh that brought about the opportunities for the plagues.

It's the hardening of the Israelites that bring about the opportunity to accomplish some further goal or end. If you take a look at the history of Israel and God hardening various individuals.

Right. So they are related, but they're not the same. And I think we need to keep them distinct. So total depravity or total inability is not the same as judicial hardening, as one refers to the natural state of those in Adam, while the other is a hardening to accomplish or bring about some specific end.

Okay. So with respect to Pharaoh, it's said explicitly that God hardens him so as to display his glory.

Okay. So if God is trying to save everyone equally, for example, then why is he judicially hardening anyone?

This is what we hear, right? You got to remember a judicial hardening confirmed someone in their unbelief, causing them to continue in a rebellion.

Right. To continue in their unbelief. Okay. So we have a difference between total depravity and judicial hardening.

They are one is the natural state of man. The other is accomplishing a certain purpose. Okay. By hardening a person who's already an unbeliever and is at enmity with God, brings about various things in history in which

God is accomplishing. So I hope that helps a little bit. But that's a good question. I think those two things need to be distinct.

They are related, but they're not the same. Okay. Thank you for that question. Alexander Medeiros.

I think maybe I got that. God bless, bro. You and your family doing well. Thank you so much. Yes, we're doing great.

Thank you so much for the super chat. I do appreciate it. We're doing well. Thank you. Let's see here.

How did the Jews turn from dark skinned black to white with blue or green eyes? I have no idea.

I don't know. I don't know that I have. That's a good question. Don't know. Sorry about that. So when you just admit that you don't know something, it's easy to just keep going.

I would just keep going. Let's see here. Cesar Paiva.

What do you think of Ryan Hemlar, Australian? I do not know who that is. I do apologize.

If you drop me a link in the comments, maybe as a video or something like that, I can take a look and maybe share it on a different stream.

But I do not know who that is. All right. Let's see here. MJ Jackson.

Thank you so much for the $10 super chat. I appreciate it. How does the preceptor get around issues regarding the text of scripture?

Without recourse to probability. In other words, which Bible is self -authenticating and can we know this with logical certainty?

Yeah. So in other words, the Bible is the word of God. What it teaches is true regardless if someone hasn't read it yet.

So the Bible gives us the true state of affairs even before I read the Bible. Those things are true.

The preconditions, God's revelation is still true even before I read the Bible. When you say which

Bible is self -authenticating, I don't think this is a precise enough question because when we speak of the word of God, we're not necessarily speaking of, say, like a specific translation.

The words of God that have been preserved to us throughout the ages, I think, is found within the manuscript tradition.

Okay? It's not necessarily like I have an ESV study Bible here, you know, like in my hand or an

IV. When you look at the textual tradition, the manuscript tradition, it is preserved in there.

Now there's some work that needs to be done to clarify various things, you know, through the practice of textual criticism.

But when you say which Bible is self -authenticating, I would say the words that have been preserved in the manuscript tradition.

And the Bible translations we have today, I think, are a good representation of what

God has said and the message that has been passed on through the ages.

Okay? Now, when you say, how does a presupper get around the issues regarding the text of Scripture without recourse to probability?

Well, the nature of our argument is that God has spoken. This is something that is a presupposition.

Okay? And it's a precondition for intelligibility. So I affirm that God has spoken.

And I demonstrate that God has spoken specifically in the words that have been preserved for us by the impossibility of the contrary.

Reject the message that we have in God's written word. Then your worldview or your position is reduced to absurdity.

Okay? So the necessary preconditions are still the case, the ones that are laid out for us in Scripture and Revelation, all these sorts of things.

All of that is true even prior to reading the Bible or even prior to textual critical analysis and these sorts of things.

And even to engage in textual critical analysis, you still have to have a meaningful worldview that can make sense out of the very enterprise of textual criticism.

And so you can make an argument, unless the Christian worldview is true, unless the triune God exists and his word is his revelation, you do not have the necessary ingredients for something like textual critical analysis.

So textual critical analysis presuppose certain worldview commitments that can only be grounded in the context of a

Christian world and life view. All right. Great question. There's obviously more to unpack in that, but that's my thumbnail response there.

Thank you so much. Let's see here. Reformed disciple, two dollars, one free coffee on the house.

Happy late Easter. Thank you so much, man. I really appreciate it. I'll sip to that. Okay. Let's see here.

All right, man. I thought I would. I have so many questions that are prepared. I didn't know so many people are going to ask a bunch of questions.

So these are really good questions. So that's okay. Maybe I could save the stuff I have for maybe another time. Thank you for the questions here.

So what is your Alexander ask? What is your favorite way to deal with the objection that we have to use our senses and reasoning or other axioms to read the

Bible to justify our worldview? God bless, bro. Yeah. So there is an important distinction between what we call proximate starting points and ultimate starting points.

Okay. When someone says, well, you know, you can't start with God. You have to start with your own reasoning, your own senses, right?

You have to read the Bible before you even know what the words of the Bible are. Okay. This is not something that a presuppositional list is bothered by.

Okay. There is a distinction between where we start proximately and where we start.

Ultimately, people will say, for example, you either start with God or you start with your own mind or your senses or whatever.

That is a false dichotomy. Okay. I would say we start ultimately with God, but we start proximately with our mind, our reason, our senses.

Right. And the only reason why our senses can function in the way that they do is because they simultaneously exist within the context of the triune

God who created those things. Right. So to start with your senses, a presuppositional list could easily, and Bonson would affirm this, you start with your senses, proximately speaking.

But the proximate starting point exists within a metaphysical context, and that is the triune God and the epistemological context, his revelation.

Okay. And so we start with God and his revelation, and those are the preconditions for our proximate starting points, our own reasoning, our own senses, and things like that.

Okay. So I would make a distinction between the different ways, the different things, the different ways in which one can, quote unquote, start with our senses or start with God.

God is our ultimate starting point, our ultimate metaphysical context, his revelation, and our senses and our reasoning are our proximate starting points.

Okay. All right. Let's see here. Alex Harmony Music, nice name.

What are some theological positions that both Calvinists and non -Calvinists share? Well, non -Calvinist is going to be a broad category, so I would say all

Christians within Orthodoxy are going to share the correct doctrine of Christ with respect to his humanity and his deity.

So, for example, I'm a Calvinist. If I was hanging out with a provisionist, a provisionist is most likely going to hold to the idea that Jesus is the

God -man, right? He's God in human flesh, but he also has a human nature, so he would hold to the hypostatic union, these sorts of things.

Non -Calvinist and Calvinist would affirm the Trinity, okay, that there is one being who is

God who exists as three simultaneous co -eternal persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Calvinists and non -Calvinists can both affirm justification by faith alone.

Of course, there's going to be some details as to how we understand the details of all those, but we can agree on what we call essential doctrine and disagree over what we call non -essentials.

Now, it's important to understand that non -essential theological doctrine is not not important simply because we call them non -essential.

What I mean by non -essential is just that they are not an issue of salvation. So, for example, an example of a non -essential doctrine,

I'm a post -millennialist with respect to my millennial position, but if you're a pre -millennialist, okay, you know, if you're a believer in Christ, right, and you're a

Christian, I'm going to see you in heaven, and we're going to find out, you know, one of us was right, the other one was wrong, or both wrong, or whatever the case may be.

In that sense, our theological belief with respect to that topic is not essential to salvation, okay?

So, there are many, many other, you know, you have charismatic Calvinists, Calvinists who believe that the miraculous gifts are still for today, and then you have some non -Calvinists that believe that.

So, there are a lot of things that you could have in common. It just depends. It depends.

Let's see here. What do you think about need -God -net ministry and their apologetics?

Never heard of them. I do apologize. Yeah, if you are asking about a ministry or an individual, give me a link, or you could email me at revealedapologetics at gmail .com.

I'll look it up, and then I could share my thoughts in the future. So, sorry about that. I've never heard of that ministry.

All right. So many questions. I appreciate it. Okay. You were not talking too fast.

I had to go double time to get caught up. Okay. Go on. Good speech.

I appreciate it. Okay. Yeah. So, more debate says, please comment on the atheist response when we say they can't know anything without God, and they give the example,

I know I'm not your God. Yeah. So, notice the statement here. I know

I'm not your God. Okay. I'm going to ask logically prior questions.

Okay. All right. What is an I? Can you know what an I is?

What is individuation? What is personal identity? Okay. Given the materialist atheistic perspective, does it even make sense to say that one has an enduring self through time?

Right? They don't have an immaterial soul. Right? They are constantly, if they're material, they're constantly going through flux.

So, physically speaking, the individual is not the same person they were when they started the conversation with you.

And so, I would ask the logically prior question. When you say, I know I'm not your God, well, wait a minute.

How do you know that you're an I? Okay. Within your worldview. Okay. Because there are presuppositions entailed in that very statement itself.

And so, I'm going to ask, what are the necessary preconditions for the statement,

I know I'm not your God? Okay. Now, we know he's not our God. And we know that he knows that he's not our

God. Okay. But I'm going to ask that logically prior question to get under what that statement is presupposing and showing that he can't have the very presuppositions necessary for the meaningfulness of the statement,

I know I'm not your God. So, I would challenge the person to describe the

I. All right. This reminds me of Descartes, I think, therefore, I am. Well, when Descartes tried to doubt everything, he did not doubt everything.

Right. He did not doubt personal identity. He did not doubt the laws of logic necessary to utter the statement,

I think, the cogito ergo sum. Right. So, we're going to go at the rock bottom.

When someone makes a statement, I'm going to ask, what are the preconditions of that statement within your own worldview? Can you justify the very statement?

Okay. Because if you can't, you can't provide a context for the

I, the meaningfulness of the I, personal identity through time and so forth, and uniformity, and these sorts of things. How do we know the

I at the beginning, I know, is the same I'm that follows after the word no there in the statement.

Right. Again, simple statements presuppose a whole host of metaphysical assumptions. We're trying to ask them to justify those things, given their materialistic atheism.

Okay. If the person's a materialist. If they're not, I mean, you're going to have to deal with, depending on what flavor of atheist you're talking to.

But, but my advice to you would go, go to the issue that is logically prior to the very meaningfulness of the statement itself and ask them to provide a justification for that.

Okay. I don't need a justification. Okay. Well, you don't need a justification. Well, then you're being arbitrary. Right. Then I don't need a justification for God.

And so I'm perfectly fine. Just the way I am. And so that's it. No, we can't argue because we're just going to be like, okay, cool. I just assume this.

You just assume that. Oh, well, you know, if we argue along those lines, then we wouldn't be able to argue about anything. So, so that's how

I would tackle that. Okay. Take another sip. One second. All right.

Babyfoot says, if you start by presupposing God's existence and argue from that position, isn't it trivially true that any worldview that denies

God's existence is absurd? No, it's not trivially, trivially, trivially true.

And we're not just saying, oh, if you don't presuppose, if I presuppose God, but then you disagree with me, then you're disagreeing with me is what makes your view absurd.

No, the absurdity comes in demonstration. We're demonstrating, demonstrating the absurdity of their position if their position is the denial of the

God that we're, that we're presenting. In other words, I'm asserting that all men know that God exists as part of the Christian worldview.

And if you deny that knowledge, then you can't justify the things you take for granted. Okay. Now, we're not just making that statement.

We're wanting to demonstrate that through actually asking the unbeliever to justify the things they take for granted, given their own

God denying position. So we're not simply saying your view is absurd because it disagrees with mine. That'd be arbitrary if that's what we were doing.

Simply. We're trying to demonstrate why it is actually the case that it is absurd when they reject the

Christian position. Okay. All right. Hope that makes sense there. Mr.

Wolfe, thank you for being on Wise Disciple the other night. It was very helpful for me. Well, I appreciate that. Thank you so much. I'm glad it was, was helpful, helpful to you.

I appreciate that. Thank you. Uh, let's see here. Holy tomatoes.

Alan Torres. Thank you so much for the $50 super chat. That's very, very kind. I really appreciate that, brother.

Thank you. Wow. Really appreciate that. Now you guys are so nice.

Let me see here. Speaking of nice, I'm so happy that, um, there's no fighting in the comments.

Okay. The comment section of my videos, generally speaking, have been really good with some minor exceptions.

So I really appreciate the spirit with which, uh, the discussions, um, you know, proceed in the comment section.

So thank you. That, that does mean a lot, a lot to me and, and Alan, thank you so much again for, for your support. I really do appreciate that.

Thank you. All right. Let's see here. Okay. Scott Terry.

Eli, have you read or interacted with Dr. Ronnie Morad's Transcendental Arguments and Justified Christian Belief?

I think Vantillians ought to be all over his material. I have not. If you send me a link, I'll check it out.

That sounds important. So, uh, I will try my best. Uh, let's see here.

All right. Let's see here. Scott.

Oh my goodness. Scott, thank you so much, man. Oh my goodness. You guys have been so generous. I appreciate it.

Uh, thank you for all you do. Eli, priest of apologists need a role model like you. Thank you.

I appreciate that brother. Thank you so much guys. Uh, wow. This is, uh, I am humbled.

You guys have been super supportive. I really appreciate that. Uh, making me feel real small.

Hey, $2. Remember the woman who just put the one single penny into the, it's all about an issue of the heart, right?

Okay. Uh, so, uh, $2, $50. It is appreciated either way. I really, I really do appreciate it guys.

Thank you. Um, all right, let's see here. Uh, let's see.

Do, do, do, do, do, do, do, do Alan Hargis Hargis. If an unbeliever were to ask you how miracles are performed, such as turning water into wine, how would you respond?

Uh, I mean, I don't know. How are they performed? How does God turn water into wine?

I don't know the mechanics of it. I don't know that he does it. We can know how he does it.

All I could appeal to is his power. If God is omnipotent and, uh, he's created all things shortly, he can do what he desires with what he's created.

Um, and I think that answer is sufficient, right? Uh, if an unbeliever were to ask me how that's really irrelevant as to the important, more important question of, uh, has

God in fact performed miracles? Okay. There are a lot of things that I don't know how

God does, but that he does. It is something we can argue for how he does it. Um, uh, well,

I'm just going to appeal to the power of God. Right. Um, so there you go. Uh, and if he's an unbeliever,

I mean, this is not a got you kind of question. Uh, there, you know, there are many things we don't know how God does it.

It's irrelevant as to whether God exists, right. Or we're going to be dealing with whether God exists or whether we have good reasons to believe that he has in fact revealed himself and perform the miracles that the

Bible records that he's performed. Uh, let's see here, brother. I don't,

I don't know. I don't know how to pronounce that last name. What is Zechariah eight 20 through 23 talking about?

Can we get exegesis? Oh boy. Oh my goodness. It's been a while since I've been in Zechariah. I'm gonna try to read it real quick.

And if I don't know, I'm not going to mishandle the word of God. I might be something I'd have to study up on.

Um, but I do take notes of these questions. So I don't like to say I don't know twice. So, um, I will, uh, read the text.

If I don't have anything to say on it, I'll be sure to look into it a little bit and then share my thoughts at a later time. So let's take a look at the text here.

So, uh, Zechariah chapter eight, verse 20 through 23. Okay. Thus says the

Lord of hosts, it will be yet that the peoples will come. Even the inhabitants of many cities, the inhabitants of one will go to another saying, let us go at once to entreat the favor of the

Lord and to seek the Lord of hosts. I will also go. So many peoples and mighty nations will come to seek the

Lord of hosts in Jerusalem and to entreat the favor of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts. In those days, 10 men from all the nations will grasp the garment of a

Jew saying, let us go with you. But we have heard that God is with you. Yes.

So I don't know. Okay. But I'm going to take note. Zechariah eight, verse 20 through 23.

And, uh, brother, you've given me homework. So I'm going to do my homework. I'll make sure I look that up.

And if you come on our next stream, I will be sure to share my thoughts. Thank you for that question.

All right. All right.

So babyfoot says, I don't think they need to justify the presupposition. Otherwise it wouldn't be a presupposition. Oh, so there is some equivocation going on here.

Uh, the, to think that a presupposition does not require justification is to equate a presupposition with an axiom.

If you think, if you look in the philosophical literature, axioms are by definition unjustifiable. They are fundamental starting points.

And sometimes presupposition, the word presupposition can be used in the sense of an axiom.

Um, but that not, that is not always the case. When you think, uh, in terms of the history of transcendental argumentation, transcendental arguments try to do just that.

They try to justify ultimate presuppositional commitments. And so in that sense, presupposition can be referred to an elementary assumption that can be justified with transcendental argumentation.

Or you can use presupposition in a way that is akin to an axiom. Now this is one of the reasons why presuppositionalists don't like the, the, the title presuppositional apologetics because the word presupposition is ambiguous.

There are different ways in which it's understood. So a presupposition is a fundamental starting point. How do you get behind a fundamental starting point?

You do not appeal to something more fundamental than the fundamental starting point. Rather, the presuppositionalist is going to appeal to its transcendental necessity.

And hence you have the transcendental argument that would be presented in that context. But if someone says, well, I don't need to justify my presupposition.

It's like, okay, so you, so everything you build your world on, your worldview on is based upon an unjustified presupposition.

Now tell me why that's not arbitrary. Right? Someone could say they don't need to justify it. Uh, that doesn't make it so, right?

And that's important to keep in mind. Uh, let's see here. Thank you for that. Uh, let's see here.

Yes, people can presuppose anything they want. That's true. But can you justify what you presuppose? If you don't need to justify what you presuppose, then it's arbitrary.

Okay. Hmm. Reformed Disciple 1689. Uh, what do you think about inspiring philosophy saying precept is a joke and a waste of time?

Uh, well again, uh, Michael Jones is a friend of mine and I really appreciate him. He's been, uh, a good friend and put, puts out a lot of good content.

Obviously it's, I'm not going to agree with everything that he puts out, right? I've had Michael Jones on my show before and I've had the opportunity to share the platform with him while speaking at a conference in Indiana I had a great time.

He's a very funny guy and I very much appreciate him So but presup being a joke again, that's a statement

That is not an argument, right? If presup is a joke because and a waste of time because when someone observes it being used

They do not see results again I think it's not a good thing to see an apologetic method as something that is merely a pragmatic tool, right?

I'm a presupposition list because I think that it is a biblical approach to defending the faith Whether it's pragmatic or not or useful

I don't know what that that's going to mean Something is useful to me in as much as it accomplishes the purpose for which it was set forth

And so I do a presupposed when I do a presuppositional apologetics. I don't find it a joke I've had much success in using it as well.

And I have not found it a waste of time Now are you going to see people online that don't respond to it very well?

Yeah, that's fine. That doesn't mean it's a joke or a waste of time I know people who hear classical argumentation and find it a joke and a waste of time

But that doesn't mean it necessarily is a joke or a waste of time, right? So it depends who you're talking with depends on the context and things like that But saying presup is a joke doesn't make it a joke, right?

You have to have an argument and from my experience listening to the critiques of presuppositional apologetics and I'm not saying that there aren't

Good critiques. I don't mean good in the sense that they go through but they're well thought out and they take seriously what presuppositional list are actually saying the majority of critiques both from lay critic critics and Professional professionally trained critics are and I and I would say this if I was not a presuppositional list

But knew the issues I would say that they are laughable and deplorable that shows a lack of research not taking seriously

Really the philosophy and theology that lies behind why presuppositional is say what they're saying Then you do see a lot of hand -waving

Misrepresentation quote mining and then quoting things out of context these sorts of things So yeah, people can say it's joke doesn't mean it's that it is a joke

I'd like to hear a good argument against it and I just haven't heard Anything that has caused me to shake in my boots

All right, I'm as just there and I say that all with love and respect to Michael Jones again

I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but there are a lot of things he's doing that I think are great and That they've been helpful and useful and him as a person.

I've greatly appreciated his his friendship. So thank you for that All right.

Let's see here Mm -hmm. Let's see here

Peter W a Presupposition is something that is assumed true prior to considering the truth of a proposition, right?

So then how do you if you assumed it's true? Then why do you assume it's true? How do you know it's true and if the thing that is being presupposed isn't true

Then how is it going to get you correct conclusions with respect to the other proposition that you're arguing whether it's true or not?

Okay is a presupposition arbitrary. Is it just an arbitrary starting point? That's just an axiom. I'm just gonna pick it

There's no way for me to know if it's true or not I'm just gonna take it to be true and then kind of run off with it, right? So yeah, so yeah,

I would ask someone to justify their presupposition because it can be done if you if you okay

Argue transcendentally here MJ Jackson.

Thank you so much for $15 super chat. I appreciate it Regarding your answer above did you attempt to justify the truth of the

Bible by appealing to the transcendental argument? Therefore is the transcendental argument your ultimate presupposition? No, my ultimate presupposition is

God and his revelation the way I Justify my ultimate presupposition is through transcendental argument

Okay, so the triune God and his revelation are the necessary preconditions for the meaningfulness of a transcendental argument but a transcendental argument is the philosophical way

I try to justify the truth of my metaphysic and metaphysical and presuppositional epistemological

Precommitments, okay. So so now the transcendental argument is not my oh, you don't I don't ultimately

Presuppose an argument. I use an argument to justify my ultimate presupposition if that makes sense

All right. Thank you for that MJ. I appreciate it. Let's see here

All right Apologize if I skip any there is a lot here

And Dylan, thank you so much for your $5 super chat, I appreciate it

Dylan asked what's the difference between presupp and tag? So presuppositional apologetic methodology presuppositional

Apologetics is a method of apologetics. It's a method of defending the faith Whereas the transcendental argument is a specific argument that is often done under the broader umbrella of a presuppositional approach

Okay, broadly speaking presuppositional apologetics is a way of defending the faith which tries to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ on the side of the

Christian and then within the context of defending the faith to try to bring Every thought that raises itself up against the knowledge of God to bring that into captivity to the obedience of Christ by showing that unless you think in terms of Christ and his revelation your position is reduced to absurdity, right?

So for a presuppositional apologetics for me is a method of defense where we start with God and argue from him transcendental argument is the specific

Argument right that we could that we give okay. So one is a methodology one is a specific argument

I don't hope that makes sense Let's see here. Okay I'm just looking for the word question

Otherwise, I'm skipping because there's a lot. Let's see here. All right.

So Emilio Beltran Hey Eli, have you heard of the channel faith because of reasons he critiques the presuppositional apologetics of Greg Bonson wanted to know your

Take on his critique. Yeah, that's David Pullman's channel. David is an acquaintance of mine

I would even say he's a friend not like we hung out but I think we're on I Hope to think we're on good terms.

I just called him the other day. I had a question about Armenian theology My class the class that I teach we're doing a debate and they're doing in -house theological debates and one of the debates

Surrounds the issue of whether salvation can be lost and I know that David Pullman is

I think he's an Armenian or at least familiar with Armenian theology And so I wanted to pick his brain about a few things.

And so yeah, I felt free to give him a call and and You know, there's no animosity towards Towards each other.

We just obviously disagree in our theology and our apologetics So, but yeah,

I have watched his Video, I think I think

I had dr. Chris bolt come on the show to respond to the video So I think I might we might actually have a response to that video

But if we do I think it was a while back so you're gonna have to look Through the old episodes.

Yeah All right. Yes, I have heard of that. Okay, let's see here. Yeah, I think

I had two responses. Yeah Yeah, someone said thank you for your explanation.

I think one can have a long time Yeah, so a lot of these questions. I'm just kind of sharing my answer. Obviously, there's so much more

I can't answer all of You know, there's so much detail to many of the questions that are being asked

So I hope my short answers are helpful, but they're obviously just starting points if they help you

Hopefully they help you move forward and into digging a little bit deeper. Yeah Let's see here.

I'm just looking for questions question question question okay, so Sparrow ski second time.

Oh, maybe I skipped the question does post mill believe we are past the Millennium and if so When did it happen?

And is Satan let loose for his short while? Sparrow ski,

I don't know if I could answer that question here. That's a big that's a big question.

Okay post mill Deals with the really is related to the idea that Christ will come after The Millennium and of course the post millennial position does not take the

Millennium to be literal 1 ,000 years. Okay, and there's a lot of details in terms of How they explain?

you know the different time periods and when certain events occur and so that's gonna be something

I'd have to sit down and And work through to give a kind of more specific answer to that question

Okay. Now I have been listening to some lectures to brush up on my eschatology And so hopefully when

I'm finished with studying that topic a little more I can give a more structured and specific response to your question.

So thank you for that question. I do apologize I'm unable to go deeper than than that. Sorry about that Let's see here

Eli when we have a revealed Apologetics, what's a IRL?

I don't know what that means. I RL conference in real

I Don't know what that means Don't tell me what IRL means am

I I feel dumb I feel like I should know what that means Okay, sorry, oh in real life, oh, yeah,

I would love to do that Um, if someone were to have me, I mean, I don't have the resources to set that up myself

But I don't know if you guys know this and I've said this in past episodes. I I have the YouTube channel You see me here, but I am also a traveling speaker.

So I'm speaking in Florida in May. I spoke in Kansas a while back in Pennsylvania.

I travel the country So if you want to have me as a speaker and someone would be interested in setting up kind of like an event

That can totally happen. That's part of what I do when I am NOT teaching in the classroom, and I'm not doing

YouTube I'm a traveling speaker and I teach apologetics and theology. So That can happen if you go to revealed apologetics comm the kind of the home page there.

There's a little section where You can fill out the information and then

I'll get back to you if you're interested in and seeing something like that, okay Let's see real apology.

Apology. I must do in a yeah Hey, if apology I did a conference and they wanted me to come down.

I totally I totally would do that. Yeah, absolutely All right. Okay, so we are at the 1 hour and 20 minute mark

My family is on spring break, but I'm not on spring break my spring break was two weeks ago

Okay So unfortunately, I have to go to work tomorrow

Okay, and so that is going to have to be it for this episode

But guys I had a whole thing set up of questions. I wanted to address but you guys came through with awesome questions and Really really generous super chats.

I really do appreciate that So you've given me a lot to think about to some of the questions that I was unable to answer in some depth

I'd like to go back and kind of look into those things because I don't like to say I don't know twice and I want To respect these questions.

I want to make sure that You know, I'll be able to answer them next time. So I appreciate that and you've allowed me to save my content for Another episode.

So there you go. Let's let's work for me. I'll do another Q &A thing Maybe another Eli versus the the internet and we could

We could respond to something like that. Some of them are good ones. Let's see here I Was gonna respond to this one.

This one was fun. Okay. I won't do it now because Oh Yes, okay.

Okay. So here's a good question. All right. I thank you for reminding me Scott Scott says Eli Are we still getting commentary on Ben Watkins tomorrow?

Yes. Yes you are. So there's a show We're gonna be going live tomorrow as well and I'm gonna have my friend

Joshua pillows on and we're going to be promoting the The new book by Greg Bonson on transcendental arguments and we're going to be interacting with a video that been atheist

Ben Watkins put out on objective idealism and presuppositional apologetics and so That's going to be tomorrow at 9 p .m.

Eastern Okay, so please don't miss that Joshua pillows is a great guy and you're gonna want to hear about this new book that came out

On transcendental arguments. It's super awesome. I'm halfway through it and I highly highly recommend it So we'll talk about that tomorrow

But but I was gonna read something here. These are the these are the sort of things So one so one I guess atheist said something about a video that I put out

Says two hours of vacuous tap -dancing. You can't just argue sky wizard into existence

You see those those are the fun the fun juicy comments there. So yeah, they were a little cover some of those in another episode

But until then it should be fun But there you go. All right. Well guys, thank you so much. Once again.

Thank you for the super chats Thank you for your support. Thank you for watching. Thank you for asking questions and thank you for just supporting the channel in whatever way that you do even if it's simply by you know watching

I highly recommend that you share these videos if you think that they are useful and I have to update my podcast

The audio version of this video usually goes up on iTunes, but I've been so busy

I have not been able to update it But I'm gonna try to update it this week if you can write a positive review on the podcast

That is super helpful as well and so one of the ways that if you can't support financially or your

You know, you're just kind of watching the videos. You really like the content. You're like me How can I support writing a review is super super helpful as well doesn't have to be

Long just a sentence or two and you know You like you like the podcast for such -and -such a reason or whatever you can keep it short

But those things are super super helpful. So, all right. Well, that's it for this episode guys