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 and now we're back.

So I 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 had a great time over

there.

I'm hanging out with Isaac and Carmen and I got to see Jeff for a couple of minutes not 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 like 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 had a really good 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

I 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 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 that it's not my last time.

So hopefully be back there to do some more work with with Apologia.

Now I was supposed to as April Fool's today, right I was supposed to have a

Guest Jason mullet to talk about the the question of why the Christian worldview and

Jason mullet is a Christian apologist.

He is a presupposition list 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 you know 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 gonna waste too much time.

We're gonna 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 comment section of my of my youtube channel.

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

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 the audience

For example increases and there's a lot of chatter in the comments, then I will lose your

question.

Okay, unless 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 To keep my coffee warm, so 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 study student and still don't understand what presuppositional ism is.

Would you be able to break it down for a five -year -old asking for a friend?

Okay.

So Samuel Lee Presuppositional ism is super simple.

Unfortunately Presuppositional ism sounds really complicated.

So 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 exists.

It's the most reasonable position to affirm that he exists anything along those lines the presuppositional apologetic

Methodology will start with God in 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 unbelievers 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 there.

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 sentence is coming out of my mouth to be meaningful.

So one of the presupposition 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 a couple in the idea.

That's 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 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 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 use some words there that went over your head.

But but hey, if you don't understand, here's the magic of asking questions.

Continued you can rephrase your question for clarification or you could ask it again and I'll

try.

I'll try it again.

So so hopefully that helps a little bit.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you for that question Samuel.

Okay, so This question comes from and 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 how do we apply precept to indigenous native belief systems that are intricately weaved in the

actual culture.

Loved your episode on fit 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 gonna is gonna stay the same so so for example how to apply precept to

indigenous native belief system, 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 the 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 some you know in the deepest darkest jungle somewhere.

Okay.

What the Bible says about the natural man is still true and what the Bible says about the natural man is still gonna have to Inform

how we interact with the specific individual.

Okay, so let's just jump right into kind of I'm gonna put that up on the screen there a Romans chapter 1

verses 18 through 21.

Let's read it here.

Okay and this is still true right if you're gonna 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.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness.

Of men who suppress the truth and unrighteousness because that which is known about God is evident within them.

Check this out for God made it evident to them.

I'm gonna return to that section in just a moment.

But let's continue on verse 20 for since the creation of the world his invisible Attributes his eternal power and divine

nature have been clearly seen being understood through what has been made.

So that they're without excuse for even though they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks.

But they became futile in their speculations and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible

man and of birds and of four -footed animals and Crawling creatures.

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're presupposing these categories even when we're talking to an indigenous people group.

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

Okay, and this is gonna 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 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 and 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 is eternal power and

divine nature have been clearly seen being understood through what Has been made so that they are what

unapologetous without Excuse for even though they knew God that phrase knew God.

Okay, the Greek behind there is non test on day on that 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 pre suppositional 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're 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 evolve 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 gonna have

to you know.

Again, it's gonna depend who you're talking to.

We're gonna 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 gonna have to do a little bit learning.

About what people believe in 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, right?

I mean there's gonna 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.

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?

Ah.

The flowers debate and John six, right so.

Yeah.

Okay.

So in my if I was not a Calvinist, I am I am a Calvinist and so obviously I'm gonna side with with

dr. White in in his theological position and his interpretation of John six and Unconditional election and these

sorts of things.

But if I wasn't a Calvinist, I would still say It was a phrase this way if I

wasn't a Calvinist and I was a provisionist I Would still say that dr.

Dr. White won the debate as I as I saw it.

Okay.

Now when I use the word win in the sense that dr. White I think at.

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 you're you're gonna 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, they're gonna be people who disagree with me.

They're gonna 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 so I think dr. Flowers was all over the place I don't think that dr. White he actually looked

tired, but I wouldn't blame him.

I mean, he was just came off a bunch of different debates and then debated.

Dr. Flowers.

Maybe he was a little tired, but He didn't look a hundred percent to me, but but overall I think

He 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 gonna 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 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 that's my opinion kind of in a thumbnail thumbnail sketch.

All right coffee break.

I have to be careful with the cup is is like metal.

So if the the metal is super hot, so I'll be talking and then I'll take my quick break.

I'm glad I burned my lip.

That'd be embarrassing.

I wouldn't want that to happen here.

So let's see here.

Hmm.

Ah.

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 aged 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 for Couldn't read.

I couldn't read well at all as a as in it when I was in elementary school.

The 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 the 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 you know, 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 are raised on the King James from childhood.

And so that 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 elementary age, I

would try to stay away from the Paraphrased Bibles where they take lots of Liberty

with 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, I don't know.

Why am I forgetting this?

There's okay.

So the NIV ESV then there is the the message.

Okay, I stay away from the message the message Bible.

Oh, but that's just me.

But anyway, those are my thoughts there hope that 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 the position

Makes the position false.

I'm gonna ask you to Rephrase that question.

I don't not sure what you're asking.

I'm gonna 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 we 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 gonna bake a cake a truth cake one of the key ingredients to a truth cake

is Consistency, right?

You cannot have inconsistency in truth If 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 that's how it looks so I do apologize.

Let's see here.

A reformed disciple.

Thank you so much for your $5 super.

Oh, 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 Munchhausen trilemma regarding the virtuous? circle

of revelatory Epistemology.

Okay.

So the significance of month.

Let me see what you're asking that before I get into this.

What is the significance of the Munchhausen tries a trilemma? regarding the virtuous circle.

Yes, so.

If you have the Munchhausen 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 make sure I'm getting this correct and then I'll share my thoughts with respect.

Not Munchhausen syndrome.

Much much.

Housing dilemma.

All right.

Let's see here.

Did it did it did it?

Okay much of the lemma.

Okay, okay,

so let's see here.

Oh my goodness, I don't.

Okay.

Let me let me try to answer this question without giving so the Munchhausen trilemma.

You either are going to affirm something dogmatically.

You're going to affirm something would 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.

I said it marked down in a book I was reading so I do apologize and 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 is 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.

We're just talking about logic that we do go behind logic in the sense metaphysically.

We think that God is that logic is a reflection of God's thinking but just bear with me is we think think of logic kind of 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 what the transcendental argument is when we appeal for

example to revelatory epistemology the the idea that knowledge comes through revelation and

that that is 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.

It was a little wordy there munchausen trilemma.

I was reading about it and for some reason I can't think of the trilemma itself.

I'd have to look it up just to 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 super chat reform disciple.

Hope that was somewhat helpful.

Reform disciple comes swooping in going down in order for another one.

We often say the Bible is self -authenticating.

It is is this important to precept and how is it self -authenticating any resource for this topic?

Yeah.

Okay, so we often say the Bible else is Self -authenticating and the reason why the Bible is self 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.

Okay, 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.

Okay, and so When we say the Bible is self -authenticating Because of the nature

of the authority of God and and in fact because his the Bible is his word.

Okay, it comes with its own intrinsic Authority.

Okay, 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.

Okay, is this important to precept?

Yes.

It is fundamental to precept 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 apologetic stated and defended.

Yes 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 you're gonna there's gonna be mention of the self -authenticating nature of

Scripture, right?

So Scripture is self -authenticating because God is self -authenticating we do not test the Word of God by

appealing to something more fundamental and Because of the nature of who he is right notice that when God swore

a promise to Abraham The Bible says he swore by himself because there was none nothing greater than him,

right?

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 right 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 the 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

apology apologia apologia apologia 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.

Did it to do?

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.

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 presupposition list is making 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 worldviews 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 a 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 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 Reformed disciple.

Have you heard anything about Gentry's?

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 was a Eschatology is a study of last things end times.

When you talk about the end times the different views pre trip post trip No -trip a mill pre mill post mill 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 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 because it was my my introduction to

Gary DeMar's book last days madness the obsession of the modern church that I learned about American vision and by

extension learned about Greg Bonson.

Because a lot of his material was sold on there and that kind of got me into to priest up in an indirect way.

So so yeah, I plan on getting it.

I very much respect the work of Kenneth Gentry and I am

personally a Tentative post mill if that makes sense, so I am post

millennial but tentatively I eschatology is a very difficult topic and so I'm a post

millennialist.

But I like to hear what other people have to say if that makes sense.

Okay.

Let's see here.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, so I'll call you Henry.

I'm so sorry.

All right.

Well, 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 words 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 being young on your podcast to discuss the foundation of compatibilism?

It would be a great discussion.

Um, 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 been young.

Dr. Flowers.

I don't think it would end.

Well, I think this Guillaume been young Guillaume been young is

Let's just say It wouldn't.

I think the other side would probably do better with someone else Other than flowers going

and going up against being young 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.

Four hours worth of content content where dr. Guillaume is interacting with dr.

Braxton Hunter dr Tim Stratton and dr. Layton flowers, and I think I think that's an excellent and we talked about compatibilism all

these sorts of things.

So I think that's an excellent resource.

So go on my channel.

It's got it's in the backlog.

You got to search it but search revealed Guillaume been young Tim Stratton you

put those names in the search on a revealed apologetics and you're gonna find it and it's an excellent actually one of My favorite set of

episodes.

So so there you go.

I don't know if I can get being young to do that.

Yeah, but 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

You know, even if you come away disagreeing with Guillaume and the Calvinist perspective you're still gonna

benefit from The discussion anyway, so I highly recommend folks check that 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 precept if I feel like it's easy to grasp?

It's basically justify our worldview your epistemology or 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 we think we could justify this one of the ways we justified is through transcendental reasoning

transcendental argumentation.

So yeah, I mean that that's fair.

I mean there's more to it for sure.

I think there's there's a biblical foundation, right?

To why we do this so you can understand precept from a biblical perspective you could understand precept

from a Theological perspective because there's some theological emphases within there within the method as well

and you could understand precept 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 materialist

expect for the external reality to justify the basic presuppositions?

Needed to justify a 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 okay when you so reality to justify the basic presupposition needed to

justify reason.

Right.

So if the myth, 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 Christians willing to do it.

Even if you disagree with the Christian at least the Christians gonna 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 gonna ask though.

I'm gonna 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 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 like let me try to say something to it.

So if I didn't answer your question, I'm totally sorry.

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

And then I just have to I 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 correct as I'm trying to get to as many questions

as possible so.

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

six To seven thousand.

So we will say six to ten thousand years from Genesis one till 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 gonna 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 gonna take for example.

What seems to be what the basic straightforward reading of Genesis?

I'm gonna lean towards a more young earth Interpretation, but I do that carefully because I know that

every view has.

Their issues that need to need to have more nuance in terms of how they are approached.

So that's all I'm gonna say to that.

I.

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 but there you go.

All right.

Thank you for that question.

Alright, 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 gonna 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 gonna 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.

Right.

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 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 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

everyone anyone?

This is what we hear right?

You got to remember a judicial hardening confirms someone in their unbelief Causing them to

continue in 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 that's a good question.

I think those two things need to be Distinct they are related but they are not the same.

Okay.

Thank you for that question.

Alexander Medeiros.

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.

Say we 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.

Caesar pipe.

Ava, what do you think of Ryan?

Hemel are 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 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 pride in other words, the Bible is the Word of God what it teaches is true regardless if

someone hasn't read it yet.

So it 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 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 the I have like 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 works that 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 the words that have been preserved in the manuscript

tradition and the Bible translations we have today I think are a good representation of

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

Okay.

Now when you say how does a preceptor 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 as 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 in it 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 worldviews 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 Reform disciple $2 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 gonna ask a bunch

of questions.

So these are really good questions.

So that 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 asked 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 presupposition list could easily and Bonson would it 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 is 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 Calvinist and non Calvinist 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.

Calvinist and non Calvinist 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 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, I'm you know, if you're a believer in Christ right and you're you're a Christian I'm gonna see you in heaven and we're gonna find out you know.

One of us was right what 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 Calvinist Calvinist who believe it that the miraculous gifts are still for today.

And then you have some non Calvinist that believe that so there are a lot of things that you could have.

In common 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 revealed apologetics 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 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 eye?

Can you know what an eye is?

What is into what is individuation?

What is personal identity?

Okay, given the materialist atheistic perspective Does it even make sense to say that one

has in 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 eye?

Okay within your worldview?

Okay, because there are presuppositions Entailed in that very statement itself.

And so I'm gonna 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 meaningful the meaningfulness of the statement.

I know I'm not your God.

So I would challenge the person to Describe the I right.

This is what 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 gonna we're gonna go at the rock bottom when someone makes a statement.

And I'm gonna 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 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.

Um, 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 gonna 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 gonna be like, all right, 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.

Baby foot 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 they were 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, I 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.

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, I really appreciate that.

Now you guys are so nice.

Let me see here speaking of nice.

I'm so happy that 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 the discussions 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 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 Vantillian's 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 I.

I.

Will try my best.

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.

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.

Wow.

This is uh, I am humbled you guys have been super supportive.

I really appreciate that.

I.

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, so two dollars fifty dollars.

It is appreciated either way.

I really I really do appreciate it guys.

Thank you.

All right.

Let's see here.

Let's see.

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?

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 could know how he does it.

All I could appeal to is his power if God is omnipotent and he's created all

things surely He can do what he desires with what he's created.

And I think that answer is sufficient right if an unbeliever were to ask me how that's really

irrelevant as to the important more important question of 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?

Well, I'm just gonna appeal to the power of God, right?

So there you go.

And if he's an unbeliever, I mean, this is not a got you kind of question there.

You know, there are many things we don't know how God does it?

It's irrelevant as to whether God exists, right?

We're gonna be dealing with whether God exists or whether we have good reasons to believe that he has in fact reveal himself

and Perform the miracles that the Bible records that he's performed.

Let's see here brother.

I Don't know how to pronounce that last name.

What is Zechariah 8 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 but I do take notes of these questions.

So I don't like to say I don't know twice.

So I will 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 Zechariah chapter 8 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 ten 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 8 verse

20 through 23 and Brother, you've given me homework.

So I'm gonna 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.

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 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.

But that not that is not always the case when you think 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 presupposition list don't like 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 presupposition list 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, so we could say they don't need to justify it.

That doesn't make it so right and that's important to keep in mind.

Let's see here.

Thank you for that.

Let's see here.

Yes people can presuppose anything they want.

That's true.

Can you justify what you presuppose if you don't need to justify what you presuppose and it's arbitrary.

Okay.

Reformed disciple 1689.

What do you think about inspiring philosophy saying precept is a joke and a waste of time?

Well again, Michael Jones is a friend of mine and I really appreciate him.

He's been a Good friend and put puts out a lot of good content.

Obviously, it's I'm not gonna 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 precept being a joke again, that's a statement.

That is not an argument.

Right if precept 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 precept is 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 precept 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.

Okay.

Let's see 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 all.

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,

right?

Apologize if I skip any.

There is a lot here.

And.

Dylan thank you so much for your five dollars 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.

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 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 calm 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 and 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 I really appreciate you until next time.

Take care.

God bless.

Bye.

Bye.