Everything Presup with Eli Ayala & Brian Knapp (Choosing Hats)

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

I am excited to have Brian Knapp on and Brian Knapp was a co -founder of Choosing Hats so if anyone is familiar with presuppositional apologetics back in the day there was this super cool website and actually it's still around where they had some really good presuppositional material that went a little beyond kind of the popular level very surfacy way of using presupp there was some depth there that I really appreciated and some really good writing especially from Chris Bolt who

I had on I think twice in a couple of past episodes and so I'm excited to have

Brian Knapp here who is a co -founder of Choosing Hats and he's a pretty bright guy an awesome guy and he's a become a recent friend of mine and hopefully we can have a great conversation in today's episode but before we do that I just want to make a couple of announcements by way of future guests on the 26th

I do apologize if that's the wrong date don't have it in front of me but I think it's 26 I'll be having Michael Preciado who is the author of the book

A Reformed View of Free Will he's a Calvinist philosopher a very sharp guy we're gonna have him on to talk about free will

I know a lot of people are interested in those sorts of discussions and I also am going to have on a woman who caught my attention by an article she wrote her name is

Scarlett Clay and she wrote an article talking about her experience at Biola University taking an apologetics course there and how how apologetics was taught at Biola University she wrote an article as to how that kind of led her to presuppositional apologetics now if you know anything about Biola Biola is really the the center of gravity for Biola is apologetics from a classical approach an evidential approach and so it's kind of a strange thing to to hear someone say they went to Biola took an apologetics course there and was drawn to presuppositional apologetics so when

I read that article I was like huh you know that would be an awesome thing to get this this woman on and share her story because I think it's very interesting because her story centers on the

God centeredness of presuppositionalism which she found when she learned about it she kind of was drawn to that idea and what appeared to be kind of a drawing away of a

God centered approach to apologetics in the classical approach now granted you know that it also depends on the person to how they present their apologetic you know or what -have -you but I thought her story was really interesting so we'll be having her on in May and of course everyone knows

I like to play fair okay I'm a hardcore presuppositionalist but I do like to get our evidentialist and classical brothers on so on May 3rd

I'll be having dr. Michael Lykona on to talk about evidence for the resurrection which by the way is important for presuppositionalist to know you know you don't get away with simply saying by what standard that is a perfectly valid thing to say a thing to ask but you do need to know the ins and the outs of the

Christian faith too and I think knowing the evidence for the resurrection is very important so hopefully dr. Michael Lykona will be very helpful in that regard as he is highly studied in that specific area okay and again for those hardcore purist presuppositionalist yes you don't have to private message me about the areas in which that you know you disagree with dr.

Lykona yes we don't agree on everything we don't agree on epistemological issues we don't even agree as to how you interpret evidence and things like that but that being said

I do think he has a lot of helpful things to say and so I'm having him on for well so that I could learn and also for your benefit if you're wondering how to gather the facts and make an argument for the resurrection perhaps we can take what an evidentialist or a classicalist well

I would say Michael Lykona is an evidentialist but I don't quote me how can we take the hard work of our evidentialist brothers whom we disagree with and their apologetic methodology how do we take that important information and contextualize it within a consistent presuppositional framework

I think that's fair game if we want to be consistently presuppositional and deal with evidences so it's not an either -or situation so looking forward to having dr.

Michael Lykona on and so I'll let you guys know when I have some other guests I kind of wing it you know

I'll be flipping through Facebook and like I you know I might want to have that person on so I'll keep you guys updated but all that aside just one more thing and then we'll invite

Brian on if you guys are interested in learning presuppositional apologetics I teach an online course called presupp you you can sign up for that course on revealed apologetics .com

and I've been getting a lot of messages from people about the date so like when you click on to sign up for the course it looks like the course is taking place within a certain time span like a date from this date to that date completely ignore that if you want to sign up sign up and it is a work at your own pace and so you could sign up right now and I'll send you all of the the lectures the

PowerPoint slides all the outlines and notes and you can do that and we have already done that with a group a couple of months ago and they they really enjoyed it especially when we had kind of that face -to -face interaction when

I did the when I did that sort of class right now if you sign up you just get the class but I'm gonna be letting folks know when the premium package will be available and that includes kind of a face -to -face with me and the other students in which we can kind of go a little deeper into the content so definitely if you're interested in that revealed apologetics all right all that out of the way all right good that that's kind of filler because I want to wait some people coming in and listening so now we have some listeners so with that said let me introduce

Brian Knapp how's it going Brian it's going good Eli very good

I just want to give you a heads up I say this to everyone I'm looking at you but it doesn't look like I'm looking at you okay so I have my camera in front of me here and then

I have my laptop so when I'm looking at my laptop I'm looking right at you so I don't want you to think I'm playing candy crush while you're going you know when you're going into your responses to my questions all right so as we start why don't you tell people a little bit about you that goes beyond what

I've already shared sure well I'm a software engineer by trade and a contractor and I've been doing that ever since I got out of high school basically but it wasn't until maybe about 20 or so years ago and I'm already dating myself but 20 or so years ago that I got into precept and it was based on being involved on the internet like you know that's a great fertile ground for interacting with people of all different beliefs and I found my way into I think it was called the

MSNBC religion and ethics board and I was all excited and you know but I just walked in completely unprepared and got hit with a couple different arguments that really got me trying to think more critically

I really didn't have any background in critical thinking or philosophy either and so I went to a local

Lifeway bookstore and met a fellow who's a dear friend of mine now and has been for many years and he was just learning about presuppositional apologetics and so we we would get together at his house or my house and and sometimes with the third fellow and listen to Bonson tapes at that point literal cassette tapes yes that we had gotten from Covenant Media and then we would sit around in and discuss them and so the more the more

I learned about presupp the more I realized my theological commitments were were not what they should be as well a lot of people come to presupp as a result of you know a reformed view of Scripture whereas for me it was just the opposite I got into presupp and began to realize the power of it and as I looked and listened to Dr.

Bonson going to Scripture and sharing you know his foundation and Van Til's foundation it became apparent to me that I needed to adjust my theological commitments as well so so at that point you know

I found my way onto into Dr. White's James White's chat channel and met up with a whole bunch of other people

Chris Bolt and other people who have contributed to Choosing Hats and from that point on it's it's mostly been just interacting with different groups online you know teaching classes at my church those types of things so I don't have a full -time ministry by any means doing presupp but I do take the opportunities as God gives them to me to share this particular method.

Very good I'm being told that you perhaps you need to turn your volume up just a little bit I mean it's not like people can't hear you.

Is this any better? Why you got to yell man that's a little too much I'm just kidding you're good that's better okay what

I what interests me about what you said there is that you don't have any formal training in apologetics which I think is for some people that might be a minus and for other people that's actually a plus and I do think there is a sense in which it's a minus and a plus it is a minus in the sense that perhaps without formal training you know we may lack the ability to be as precise as we need to be with our language and our argument form but that's not necessarily true

I mean you could be you don't need formal training to be good at that but typically that's the case if you're not formally trained those things we can run into those sorts of things however the fact that you're not formally trained but you're able to use this apologetic quite effectively

I think speaks a lot to really what first Peter chapter 3 verse 15 is getting at where all of us every

Christian is called to give a reason for the hope that's in them and so have you have you found that in your interactions with people that you kind of are able to stand back and see the effectiveness of this method even when you feel perhaps intellectually and I'm not saying you're not a smart guy but you know what

I mean when we don't have that formal training there there there can be kind of a timidity that goes into like approaching these debates and these arguments have you found the strength of the presuppositional approach an encouragement because you've been able to use it effectively even without that training

I guess that's what I'm trying to ask yeah yeah good great question and the answer is yes definitely you know

I've heard dr. Boston say it before that at the end of the day everybody has to answer the same questions right everybody has a philosophy they have to be able to account for the criticisms or the value judgments that they make and sometimes you're interacting with somebody who is speaking a different language entirely and there's absolutely nothing wrong with saying you know

I I don't know the words I don't understand the words you're using can you dumb them down for me sure the the method itself and this approach to apologetics is so very powerful for that reason that it really addresses the core underlying implicit or explicit beliefs that that somebody holds to regardless of what their field of study is what level of education they have that type of thing so yeah

I've I've definitely come up against individuals with a lot more training and and again that was one of the ways that I I was motivated to be able to go and defend my faith is because I was speaking to atheists

PhDs in philosophy on a daily basis just getting hammered to death so well it's a good point you said that we all have to answer the same questions if you teach people a believer they're taught what questions to ask they can be effective right and knowing your worldview knowing what all worldviews hold in common and the weaknesses of certain worldviews

I think it's important to you know what what I like about the presuppositional approach is that it's a worldview approach and in a sense that makes our job a lot easier and I don't want us

I don't want to substitute that for like hard study because we do want to know the ins and outs of someone's perspective but it's actually quite encouraging to know that the presuppositional approach is effective even if you don't know every detail of another person's worldview when you're doing apologetics and you're maybe you're talking to an atheist or whoever you're talking to since you don't know every single detail of their perspective what are some things you look for as a presuppositionalist what is your presuppositional thinking what are you looking for in what the unbeliever says to kind of give you a foundation to then as we say in popular parlance precept them right right yeah

I mean there's there's a couple things for me at least that go on one is I just I sit there and listen to them and I will try you know positionalist listen to people we do it's not a well -known fact but yes and also asking questions right the

Socratic method is a great a great way to get people to maybe stop and think about what you know things they haven't thought about before but what

I'm generally doing is I want to draw out of them what the issues they have with Christianity right what are your criticisms or what are you skeptical of what do you unsure of or what do you claim that you're unsure of and that you don't know right so for me it's it's just letting them share things with me and honestly the more you do it the more you realize that generally you're going to get the same kind of of criticisms right you're going to get the problem of evil packaged in a lot of different ways you're going to get you know science versus God so talking about you know evolution those types of things and then you you will quite often get much more specific criticisms you know about trying to you know figure out you know how many days which was

Jesus in the ground or how do you how do you put together these two different passages in the Gospels that don't seem to fit the other thing

I'm doing is I'm I'm looking for areas where they either explicitly bring up or it's kind of implied something about Christianity that I don't believe because in my experience one of the biggest challenges with with discussion or debating anybody else is making sure that you know what they believe and that they have a proper representation of what you believe and like you said you know precept works at the at the worldview level which can make it really challenging for other people who don't have familiarity with it and are debating with you sure they don't understand that you want to talk about everything right you can't do it all at once but it's all relevant so you know most criticisms that I've heard of Christianity will pick a couple things here and there and then they will take their own their own presuppositions their own worldview and usher those bits and pieces from Christianity along and come to no surprise a conclusion that doesn't match you know what what is somewhere else in Scripture for instance absolutely now now what

I think is important to keep in mind it made me think about it because you you were you said that you were looking for things that the unbeliever was going to say that you don't believe as a

Christian and I think that kind of just made it flash my mind the importance of knowing systematic theology is actually knowing doctrine so that you could identify things that are aliens of Christianity but the your inter interlocutor thinks that it's an essential feature and in many cases his misconception is a stumbling block to him so when people ask me you know what's the best book to learn presuppositional apologetics now don't get me wrong

I'll point you to Bonson I'll point you to Van Till but sometimes the best books in my opinion maybe you could speak to this the best books on apologetics are not apologetics books there are books on basic Christian doctrine

Bible commentary the Bible itself right you agree with that oh definitely

I mean you know to put it sort of I don't know maybe crass you know if if you have a product you want to sell you got to have product knowledge right and obviously we're not selling it in the same sense but I little known fact

I saw I did sell cars I actually sold you used cars I was a used car salesman no

I did this for eight months and the the biggest challenge for me was learning you know because at that point

I wasn't into cars at all I really didn't have much understanding of the different types of vehicles and so when they would come in to bring in a trade

I really wouldn't know you know I recognized what they were driving but I didn't know enough about it to be able to help you know put a value on it sure so by analogy same same thing with with Christianity or anything else you are trying to defend right that's the thing about an apologetic we think of it in terms of defending

Christianity but the word just means you know a reasoned defense of whatever it is you happen to be defending and you have to know you have to know what it is you're defending from a practical perspective

I mean we're called as Christians to know God's Word for other reasons as well but definitely as an apologist yeah you you've got to know you've got to know scripture it's a never -ending thing that's right now

I wanted to get back to something you said you said something to the effect that you you want to listen to what the unbeliever says now presuppositionalists have a bad reputation online other various context presuppositionalist are perceived to be the sorts of people that listen only for the purpose of responding when you say you're listening why don't you unpack that for us what do you mean listening are you just listening so that you could hop on something are you genuinely listening to what the person has to say see what is the heart behind that so that people cuz

I here's what I hear maybe you've heard this presuppositional ism is a disingenuous apologetic method you ever hear that yes how would you respond to that well

I I think there are probably some examples of individuals who present one of two things either they they don't you know it's a two -step approach which we can we can talk about and they only do one step and that step is primarily trying to tear down the other person and not necessarily in a bad way like you know trying to beat them into the ground but just trying to pick apart you know their particular belief system and yeah saying by what standard you know

I've seen way too many memes and wait way too many gifts and just it's an important thing to say at the right time it shouldn't be the goal of your apologetic encounter to be able to say by what standard haha and that's it right no that you know we're trying to help them understand we're trying you know we're not supposed to quarrel with them we're supposed to have you know a reasonable discussion with them and as Christians we're supposed to be loving but what

I'm what I'm looking for is things that they are saying that lead me to believe they don't understand what

I believe what I actually believe right and that that can come out a couple different ways either it's just buried down in there like they're making all these surface -level claims but in order for those claims to be meaningful or for them to have warrant to hold the the beliefs there there have to be other things underneath them or behind them or whatever terminology you want to use and and so a lot of it is is listening for them to say something that allows me to start to dig deeper and and and it may just be well by what standard like there's a friend of mine who

I I talk with he's not a Christian by any means but he's he's a great guy and we have great discussions about Scripture and he knows what presuppositionalism is because I I laid it out for him and so sure

I'll joke with him when he makes some sort of a value judgment and say by what standard right but but generally speaking that's that's not what

I'm doing I might I might say something like well I agree with you that that particular thing is wrong but can you tell me why you think why you think it's wrong by what standard and and I put it that way because it's going to depend on the person you're interacting with right

I mean some people have some apologists have the ability to read the person they're talking to body language and listen to what they're saying for others that's a skill they are working to develop right now yeah but in either case the the key is to listen to what they're saying look at them and and try and understand you know what is the what is the pain point as it were

I like the way what you just said there and I think that's a lot of people don't talk about this enough in apologetic books and things like that but knowing body language and and tethering your responses your questions your statements to the body language of the individual

I think is a very important apologetic strategy not just a communication apologists are communicators we're communicating the truth and it's not always within the context of a formal debate or online atheism or whatever you know whatever the case may be we're talking to regular people right and I'm going to I'm going to speak to someone who's struggling with you know some kind of traumatic experience

I'm going to speak with them in a different way then I'm going to speak with you know the you know the annoying teenage kid who thinks he you know evolution is the fact and the

Bible is stupid you know we need to learn to read people so that we respond appropriately

I think that's a very important aspect of apologetics instead of just living here we need to kind of identify you know what what's this person all about where are they coming from I think you could you can tell a lot through someone's body language yeah

I'm not I'm not trying well when I'm doing it right I'm not trying to win an argument I'm not looking for for an opportunity to slap them down and and and take away their ability to argue and although that's part of what we try to do presupposition

Lee is take away any you know it's like the the analogy Bonson used where you know if you're in a room with a guy and he's got a gun with bullets in it you can get you can learn to dodge bullets or you can learn to take the gun away and and I think that's what presupp is about is is taking away ultimately their ability to make meaningful arguments yeah but there's a lot of groundwork to be laid in and understanding that person and how much time you're going to have with them and certainly not making them upset to the point where you can't continue the conversation another day right

I mean it's it is sharing the gospel ultimately right it's just it's doing it from it's the other side of the coin it's it's doing it from a defense perspective or addressing criticism but but the goal is the same it's to bring it's to bring glory to God and to and to do whatever we can by sharing

God's Word to see their them get saved that's that's the goal I like what you used there dr.

Bonson was really good at you know creating those mental pictures you know you can learn to dodge bullets or you can learn to take the gun out of the guy's hands

I like where he spoke about the difference between proof and persuasion and he said that when you shoot a bear and the bear keeps coming at you that doesn't mean your gun doesn't work some some bears take more than one shot so just because the person is not persuaded by your argument doesn't mean you did not give a valid and good argument so those are those are fun ways that that help us remember some key aspects of the apologetic interaction so I appreciated that real quick for people in the comments if you have any questions please leave them there

I know Patrick Sue has left a bunch of questions Dylan McPhee has left a bunch of questions and I really appreciate that you prefaced your question with the word question that's definitely super helpful and we already have some really good questions in the in the chat here so keep asking away you can just totally bombard the comments with a bunch of questions and we'll get to as many as possible and yeah so Chris bolts in the chat he says why do you say that Chris bolts let me see what it looks good let's get him up here why do you say that Chris bolt is the greatest living

Christian apologist oh my good that's an example of a particular fallacy which is why he asked it that way the complex question or the loaded question oh man

I didn't say he's the greatest I say he's the most humble you're not helping him let's not let's not encourage him all right so keep those questions coming we'll get to them eventually but definitely preface continue to preface with the word question that's super super helpful okay so let's talk a little bit about some standard of job well let's not jump into objections just yet that that we often can

I can I just add one one thing to what I was saying before you're sure absolutely you know learning systematic theology really important learning some critical thinking skills really important also very important is rhetoric and I hate to say it but not necessarily to use it but to be able to recognize it when somebody says well obviously everybody knows this right or somebody makes a draws a conclusion that doesn't follow up from the premises or whatever it's it's good to be able to separate what tends to be the emotional language which is the more rhetorical stuff or the use of rhetoric versus the actual removed from passion removed from emotion argument it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be passionate or emotional that's that's very important especially dealing with certain topics but it's always critical to be able to separate and sort of just toss away and and and not be rattled by certain statements that you're you know that the person that you're talking with might throw at you and my skin is much thicker now way thicker now than it was 20 some years ago well that I think that's a very important point

I'm a teacher and so for many years I taught apologetics to high middle school high school students and I usually start the class with coming from an atheistic perspective and asking them tough questions and then

I later explained to them and this is a good way to do with like small groups and people who are just getting started apologetics

I like to help people feel or help them know what it feels like to be uncomfortable in hearing objections yep within a

I don't like to use this terminology because it's loaded but within a safe space we don't want to go there but what when we're training people who are just getting into apologetics yeah creating a safe space and helping them know what it feels like to be uncomfortable so that when they actually go out into the world they're not frazzled by you know rhetoric you're able you're able to get past a lot of the word salad that people are throwing out there that sound convincing but really they're not really giving you an argument or anything like that I think that's a huge part in doing apologetics well is being able to not just get hot under the collar every time someone says something that is is filled with emotion and rhetoric

I think that's a very important important thing to keep in mind all right okay so let's talk a little bit about apologetic methodology so we have presuppositional apologetics and then we have the evidential and classical apologetics for people who perhaps don't know the difference do you think you can summarize just real briefly you don't have to go into you know yeah into great detail but what is the difference between a positional approach classical approach and the evidential approach so precept is the biblical approach and the other you're here yeah

I'm gonna I'm gonna upset some people with that but hey we're having fun right I mean for me going back to my experience

I had a really hard time adapting to thinking presuppositionally so the reason

I say that is because I think the evidential or other other approaches that are akin to it are what seem to be you know approaches that make the most sense at first because we are we are used to when somebody's asking us you know is there a box of crackers in the pantry you know there's a particular approach that we take to answer that question but from the perspective of Christianity it is again it's a it's an entire worldview and you can't answer that question the same way so the presupp approach is one that's going to look more at you know what makes something a fact or what makes something an evidence that can be used to draw a conclusion versus just presenting the fact as if we don't need to worry about those things

I think there's a very strong philosophical case for why we should argue presuppositionally and think that way and I think there's a strong biblical case for it as well what you're saying is that facts don't speak for themselves yeah there are no brute facts that's right what advanced it's very helpful what advance

I'll say about brute facts I are I give up Eli I love it help me it helped me a lot when

I remember brute facts are mute facts I have not heard that it's catchy

I like that well that's it was good at those gadgets so brute facts are mute facts right you need a model of interpretation you know worldview context

I when I teach my students I always speak in terms of like words in a sentence so the only way you know what a word means is its context you know the other what are the other words around that word you know you need a context to make sense out of the particular thing so their facts don't just speak to us you know they require an interpretive model so so yeah so and addressing those foundational issues really gets us to the issue of presuppositions but you said what are the foundations there but go ahead why don't you continue with the different methodologies there so I mean a more specific example would be you know a an evidential model is going to be somebody who who says you know we can we have a good reason to believe that that Christ rose from the dead here are the evidences both from the perspective of how the story or the narrative is told in Scripture plus extra biblical evidence those types of things a presupposition list is not going to concentrate so much

I mean it's not that they shouldn't or aren't going to bring the same evidence you know up but it's going to be it's going to be presented always from the perspective that the foundations for thinking the philosophical foundations that make those facts meaningful at all at the end of the day is the

Christian worldview and so to not keep that in mind and not leverage that to me doesn't doesn't really make sense because you're you're giving you're giving the non -christian an excuse essentially and and you know

God tells us they are without excuse everybody you know knows that God exists and I know that's a point of a topic for another discussion perhaps but we we have to we have to understand as Christians that the world is a certain way because God made it that way so we certainly don't want to go about presenting arguments that don't keep that in mind that don't depend or rely on that because our ability to even discuss apologetics depends on the world the universe and us being the way that we are you know being created in such a way that we can even have a meaningful discussion so now what would you say is the key just so someone says okay so I kind of I'm tracking with you but like what's the main difference so you got presuppositional ism and say classical ism for example okay what is the nugget that differentiates them

I think one really important difference is direct versus indirect okay in other words we're

I think an evidential approach is going to be more direct discursive I think is the right word you know saying you know here here are the facts and the result of it is this conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead whereas from a presuppositional standpoint we're going to look at things backwards perhaps that's not a good choice from you know in an indirect manner when

Bonson talks about specifically how do you run a transcendental argument you know the transcendental argument for God he talks about starting with a given in other words find something that the person you're talking with doesn't doubt you don't want to give them the ability to come around later in the conversation and say well

I guess I don't really believe that either find something that they're just really confident of and then go to work explaining how that thing that's a given can only be a given for them or could only be a given if creation and nature were the way it is according to you know the

Christian worldview so it's not it's not lining up a bunch of evidences and then drawing a conclusion it's it's more like reaching out and getting them to give you something to work with and that's that's one of the things

I think that will frustrate a lot of people who are debating a presupposition list is a who's taking that a preceptor who's taking that approach is going to be asking for something and and if the other person doesn't want to give you something well then you really don't have anywhere to go anyway right if they want to if they want to play the the full -on skeptical game okay you can't do that and have a rational discussion sure sure okay all right very good let's talk a little bit about some objections so I we we cover this and I like to cover it all the time because you know people bring it up as though we never thought about it so I usually make a big deal out of it because it's asked all the time we've answered in past episodes but you know what we're gonna answer it here again okay so one of the most common objections to presuppositional ism is that it's circular like you can't you can't assume the thing you're trying to prove like that's that's begging the question right that's the problem with you presupposition list is that you just make assertions you assume you can assume the conclusion from the beginning and that's just you know it's just your assertion any religion can do that you know you guys aren't even giving an argument you know why doesn't that you know when someone says you're begging the question or you're engaging in circular reasoning why doesn't that make you as a presupposition list say oh oh my goodness

I never considered that before right well I mean one of the things at least for me and I think for most people who believe that presupp is the right approach have had to deal with that and probably fairly fairly early into their education right so it doesn't concern me because I'm arguing at the worldview level

I'm arguing at the a person's philosophy level and that you can't get away from you can't step outside of any commitments and argue you know there's no neutrality right you you can't step away from any of these preconditions to make your argument at a minimum you you've got things like you know general reliability of your senses and your memory and and belief that there are other people that exist and communication and logic right so there's all those things that are there holding up your ability to argue in the first place now you know what what is holding your particular argument up what what is making what is giving you warrant for believing those things that you do about your memory and and and your your your rational thinking process those types of things well there's more basic beliefs below that and so if those most basic beliefs are what you're going to defend it's not possible to defend those without holding to them and relying upon them so for me when somebody claims that that it's circular reasoning

I try to get them to see two things number one they're in the same boat which in and of itself is not sufficient right but it's good for them to understand that they have the same issue and you can do that by asking them you know like if I were to say to you why do you think your memory is reliable or why do you think your senses are reliable or why do you believe that the laws of logic have any applicability to the world around you all those types of things

I I try to get them to see that if they were asked to defend that most basic set of beliefs they would be in the same situation sure and at that point it's the the other part of it is to say it's not it's not circular be because it's not this you know the vicious circle that that people are most familiar with the other thing to keep in mind is that and I mentioned it earlier with the crackers in the pantry which comes from Bonson's debate right what we're defending is an entire worldview so you can't you can't assume that you're going to be able to to answer a particular criticism necessarily just by giving one particular fact when that criticism relies upon your answer to that criticism relies upon Christianity actually being true so now you know it usually comes back to the

Bible you you know you you say you believe something and somebody criticizes it and and you talk and then they say why do you believe that and you say well because the

Bible says so why do you believe the Bible is true well because God wrote it well why do you believe God wrote it right so at some point you're going to get back to your most basic belief and there's no way for you to defend that if it is actually a basic belief for you there's no way to defend that without bringing it in without assuming it what about what about people who

I mean there are people out there that believe that foundationalists right you know they aren't

I mean I'm not I'm not a foundationalist in that classical sense but what are they arguing that they you know they're they're saying something to the effect that we could have foundations would they hold to a foundation holding to a foundation in a non -circular fashion

I mean they would say okay so why is that not the case so let's let's address the foundation wait a minute you know you're saying that at the foundation we all have to hold to these foundations self -attestingly and circularly but I'm a foundationalist bro

I don't have to do that and here's why what are they saying and why can't they avoid the circle it's it's interesting because I was scheduled to have a debate with a with a classical foundationalist at least

I believe he is sorry David if you're not but that was that was what I got in my preparation or as far as I got in my preparation

I was supposed to debate David as well yeah and that I'm just so busy but I'm sure you understand but go ahead

I look forward to actually at least having a discussion with him in the future I think that's that's going to happen but actually he's he's got a really cool video on YouTube where he goes through and he lays out the different ways of dealing with and I forget his terminology but it's like the the the infinite chain of justification or whatever it is where a belief is justified by something more basic which is justified by something more basic so on and so forth how do you stop you know some people will say well there is an infinite chain of justification and we don't we don't have to worry about that or you know some people will make it more based on the consensus of a group that you're in and if everybody holds the same basic beliefs well then you can go ahead and talk about knowing things

I believe a classical foundationalist is going to say there are there are basic beliefs that do not need to be justified in the same way that beliefs that depend on them do now

I'm not going to say more than that because I I don't understand it sufficiently to be able to sure something doesn't sound kosher if if you've represented it represented it correctly this is just a bunch that seems wrong with that but uh well we don't want to digress and critique it without proper yeah

I mean to give David credit I think I think he did a really good job explaining why those particular beliefs in question don't need to be justified in the same way so it's not it's not like they are axioms and you're just saying well here's where we're gonna start because it works or it gives us the ability to predict the future or whatever you know they they have an actual robustly thought about in defended perspective that and that was one of the reasons

I was excited to to have a discussion when the opportunity came up and and still hope to do so but obviously

I'm gonna have to learn more about classical foundationalism right well good thing there's a lot of YouTube videos out there that's right definitely but all right so I'm gonna

I'm gonna move into some of the questions there's a lot of questions and I want to make sure I respect your time but also get to all these questions since the title of this is everything presupp so there's a bunch of presuppositional sort of questions and I will be here as well so if you are having difficulty with one we could tag team right you know

I mean presupp all right so let's see here if I take a drink of water that's your key yes let's see questions all right so this is a common one so Dylan McPhee asks our proof as presuppers is the impossibility of the contrary correct have you examined every possible worldview so basically the question is how can we say that our position as Christians is true by the impossibility of the contrary if we have not inductively examined all possible worldview perspectives okay one thing

I would say is that's not presupp so much as it is the transcendental argument so tag which you know is a presuppositional based argument at least from a

Vantillian perspective and a Bonson perspective is an argument that you're making from the impossibility of the contrary the answer is no from the perspective of it's it's not as if we we look at all the non -christian worldviews and and say well you know we've knocked this one down we've knocked that one down we've knocked this one down obviously that doesn't work because we don't know what they all are there might be a new one that comes along later but what one of the more one of the basic parts or initial things that that needs to get laid out if you are going to use tag is that there are at base only two worldviews and the non -christian one is false and one of them at least one of them has to be true or you couldn't be sitting here having a reasonable conversation and so you know if the if the one that's contrary or more accurately the contradictory of Christianity is false and one of those two must be true well then necessarily it must it must be

Christianity that's true now there's a lot behind that and there's a lot of disagreement over that right so and definitely beyond the scope of our discussion but just to summarize that particular

IOC impossibility the contrary is tied more specifically to tag it's not something that is part of in general okay

I got you and what might tickle someone's curiosity is the fact that you said there are only two worldviews and yes we know there are multiple worldviews but in essence there is the

Christian worldview and the non -christian worldview and everything that's not Christianity lumped into the category of not

Christianity right the non -christian worldview and so we would argue at least I would that all of them have the same deficiency so that if you refute the deficiency in one of them you've refuted the deficiency in all of them now if you disagree that some other non -christian worldview has the same deficiency as other ones you could discuss that but I could assure you

I'm quite confident that they all share the same deficiency and I think it's appropriate to break them up into two categories

Christian worldview non Christian worldview also dr. Bonson gave a good explanation we're we're arguing that the

Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience knowledge and all those sorts of things if Christianity is a necessary precondition for intelligibility it does provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience then therefore it must be the only worldview that provides it you can't have multiple worldviews that provide equally the necessary preconditions for intelligibility there's some issues there that's problematic as to why that that can't be the case so if the

Christian worldview is one then it must be the only one since the claim that it's the only one is actually part of the package deal that is

Christianity so if that is an appropriate way to address this question then you can demonstrate the truth of the

Christian worldview without having to inductively examine every single worldview perspective all right so I hope that makes sense a little bit for the person who asked the question

Brian you could expand that or disagree with me or whichever no I do I think you brought in an additional premise that that needed to be brought in and that is there there has to be one and there can only be one right and and that's that second one that you brought in so there are a lot of things that you and the person you're talking to at this more philosophical level which

I rarely do when I'm actually having an apologetic discussion with somebody it's all of those things need to be laid out

I think a lot of times preppers will will run in too quickly and without laying the groundwork so that's one of the important things as far as listening is evaluating what the nature of the conversation is going to be in 10 or 15 minutes like do you think that this person is going to go there that they want to go there and if I sense

I'm going there a lot of times I'll say hey before I you know answer your question how

I know the Bible's true or whatever it may be there's some other things that I have to lay out first and I would love to do that and we can we can argue over them but I'm not just going to come out and say you know

Christianity is true from the impossibility of the contrary and expect anyone to buy into that if they haven't bought into all of the other earlier hidden premises that haven't you know been brought up yet they need to be brought up and be agreed upon or else you can't build upon those right and and I think that's important you pointed that out because everything we're saying here there's more that can be said and there's more that should be said so you know take what

I've said and with Brian what Brian has said with a with a grain of salt and look into the details as to how one might unpack that but I do think in this format it's important to mention that those are some of the ways you could approach the question because that gives you something to think about how is it the case that if Christianity is is a worldview that provides the necessary preconditions that it has to be the only one why is that the case those are good things to think about and mull over in your mind okay but there's definitely more to unpack so we don't just get away with that by simply stating it that way

I hope that makes sense Dylan all right all right Dylan has another one here our proof as preceptor though nope that's a double question nevermind he really wants an answer there you go okay someone wants to wants you to respond to a quote okay so here is

Patrick Su thank you for your question slash statement slash quotation

I have never seen the slightest scientific proof of the religious ideas of heaven and hell a future life for individuals or of a personal

God Thomas Edison how would you respond to Thomas Edison the inventor of the light bulb right well first of all it's not necessarily important to do this because it's a good question but I would

I would determine if Edison actually said that I'm not I'm not saying he didn't

I'm just saying is as part of what I would do in responding to that if I had the ability to do it the first thing

I would do is I just want to know if it was him that said it right because there's just so much out there right now but let's assume it doesn't matter who said it it's it's a question right a person is saying they've never seen the the slightest scientific proof of things like heaven and hell okay well

I really want to say by what standard but I won't I won't say that essentially what you need to talk about is what what do you consider to be scientific proof okay and given the nature of heaven and hell future life and God the way they are described would it would you expect to see scientific evidence or scientific proof for those things it's the cracker in the panther thing all over again you know you have to and it's it's not just a cheat to get out of having to use science to prove

God right anything that you want to any truth claim you want to prove to be true or any anything you want to demonstrate the existence of you have to take into account what is being said about it how is it described you know it doesn't make it doesn't make sense to say on the one hand that that God is a spirit and at the same time

God the Father and at the same time say so why can't I see him well you know you can't see things that don't aren't extended in space that don't have a have an existence that's just the way that we've been made that doesn't mean that he doesn't exist and it doesn't mean you can't prove it it's just you're not going to prove it using the tools that you use to prove crackers in the pantry so in essence the way in which you prove something depends upon the nature of that what you're seeking to prove so I would prove that there are crackers in the pantry differently than if I were to prove to you that the air pressure in a room was some percentage right just just so so look at the question here so it says

I've never seen which within the scientifically minded person that typically involves some sort of empirical demonstration which again as you pointed out it needs to be put in context with the idea of heaven and hell or God or spiritual things

I mean yeah we're not going if we're going to prove God at all if we're able to prove him we're not going to prove him in a way that's inconsistent with the story that he is which is basically which is basically all proof is not look and see there unless you think that look and see empirical methods are the only way to prove things

I mean that that's why I would say that what do you mean by proof and what do you consider evidence

I think are valid questions and as you said they're not you know get out of jail free cards literally when

I ask those questions what I find is that the standard of what is counted as evidence is completely wrong headed and it's important you bring that out because if you're gonna prove something

I need to know what you mean by proof I'm gonna give you evidence for something I need to know what you mean by evidence these aren't just kind of self -evident terms well everyone knows well no they don't but you consider evidence and proof is going to be worldview dependent and so we do need to get to those deeper issues all right

Patrick Sue gives us another quote I think it's a good a good way to do this I think I like quotes because we live in kind of a soundbite generation here and so Christians might encounter this here's another quote by Christopher Hitchens we're assuming it's

Christopher Hitchens since it is obviously inconceivable that all religions can be right the most reasonable conclusion is that they are all wrong okay have fun with that one

Brian yeah I mean I I'm pretty sure I've I've read that before I I would want to ask him why why you know he he was a very bright guy right

I again I don't believe he just he said that without having some reason for saying it and and that's what

I would want to know I just reading it at a cursory level know that that conclusion doesn't follow at all that you know

I I would agree that they can't all be right because they contradict each other well what does that mean well that means I'm using logic and I'm I'm using all these other things and so one of the things that really annoys is when you ask them where they're standing when when they make their argument but that that's one question

I would have asked Christopher is you know and it's kind of tied to the by what standard it's like you know you're coming to me as a professing atheist saying that your worldview is

XYZ if that were the case you know that's where you're standing that's the ground you're standing on philosophically when you're making your argument so I would

I would want to press with him like anybody else the the foundations that he's arguing from but just in general there's not that argument is not robust enough or or doesn't have enough information in it to draw the conclusion that he's drawing sure there has to be more there just like earlier when we said proving

God exists from the impossibility of the contrary we know what that means we know all of the hidden priests the hidden assumptions or premises that we haven't brought up yet but the person who hears us just say that soundbite doesn't know what those things are right right so I don't

I don't find that that are that you know it's an antiquity it doesn't it doesn't follow it's not the most reasonable conclusion right and when you're speaking of reason we're assuming logical categories so if we're going to be reasonable then we're also going to be logical and if we're going to be logical then his conclusion doesn't logically follow right plus the fact that you know he's he's putting religions against non -religions when you know the term religion is a word that describes people who hold to fervent beliefs there's quite often you know revelation involved etc etc but at the end of the day from a priest up perspective there's a worldview that I'm defending here and so you could recast this and say since it's obviously inconceivable that all worldviews are true the most reasonable is that they're all wrong no that doesn't follow at all there's there's good reason to believe is at least one that's that's correct that's right all right here's another question

Patrick strikes again he's got a bunch of them but it's all good can you describe real -life encounters with unbelievers where you use the presuppositional method how did it go let me start at the end of that question how did it go because I think there's a there's an implication there or a question to be answered of what is a successful apologetic encounter good point and and I think the

I don't know I'm not gonna put words in Patrick's mouth but to answer your question yeah

I've had I've had these kind of discussions with people who are atheists with people who hold two different religions and in general the ones that are the most successful I would say are the ones where I have the time to talk with them and and and really get them to question and understand why

I'm arguing the way I'm arguing why I'm not just bringing evidence up for instance like the one friend

I mentioned earlier I think he has a pretty good understanding of what presuppose and why I argue the way

I do now and so I think it's successful to some degree and that he understands

I think even biblically why I argue that way and so I think that anytime that we talk about the truth of Scripture and we properly represent

God and who he is then that's success because I think ultimately that's what we're after is to glorify

God yes of course we want people to come to a saving knowledge of Christ but the more or most important thing is

God being glorified hmm I guess I'll share my story as well because a lot of I hear a lot of people say well presuppositional apologetics is just impractical it never it never works right you know but I actually

I've had a lot of encounters with people and I found I agree with Brian that time is definitely and it is definitely an important issue to consider my conversations with people have definitely been more effective when

I've had the time to unpack things and have conversations you know within the context of relationship there was a guy that I worked with for some years

I used to do child care so we would basically watch kids would parents would drop off their kids two and a half hours before school started so we'd be with them help with them homework play games with them and then send them off to class and then from three to six we'd watch them until their parents pick them up from work so I we used to have counselors right no not counselors where we sit down with the kids and be like tell me your life you know you know

I can't counselors counselors right right and so I had this friend his name was Will and after we the kids went off to school we would grab grab egg sandwiches breakfast sandwiches and we'd sit in my car and he was an atheist and he would ask a bunch of different questions and this was when

I was listening to a lot of bonds and so I was using a lot of the presuppositional sort of stuff and we we had great conversations and I made various points that were an application of the presuppositional approach where my friend was unable to give a reasoned response and we had conversations that the course of the years he invited me to his house he he had this documentary that he found online that he thought disproved

Christianity and invited all his atheist friends there and invited me over and we watched this movie and I was able to respond all from a presuppositional approach now get out of the way

I no longer work there he doesn't work there I don't see him for like five years okay now my mother was diagnosed with cancer she still is so she's undergoing some chemo and things like that nothing too severe so it's not you know no one has to private message being like I'm so sorry

I mean that she's doing okay you know there's little issues here and there but she was diagnosed with cancer and she was in the hospital and so I went to go visit her in the hospital and as I parked my car and got out of my car someone grabbed me from behind a bear hug

I literally thought I was going to get mugged I was like oh snap it's on you know no

I am black belt in karate movies so they're endangering themselves by attacking me at any rate the person grabbed me from behind and and you know instead of saying hi or hey it's me the person just grabbed me and said

Eli and I was like I recognize his voice I'm like that's well I'm like well and he's like he didn't say hi he didn't say how's it going he didn't say why

I'm here he says the first thing I haven't spoken in five years he says thank you and I was like what are you talking about dude he's like I just want to thank you those conversations we had all those years ago they impacted me so much and I never forgot them and he told me he's like I'm going to seminary

I'm going to be a youth pastor and he I live on long I lived on Long Island New York now

I live in North Carolina Long Island's a little fishy looking island right off the next to New York the state of New York there and there's a border island called

Fire Island and he was invited to give his first sermon at a church on Fire Island and he paid for my family to take a ferry and go to Fire Island and listen to his first sermon and he shared how our conversations impacted him and led to played a very important role in his conversion so all that to say when people say presuppositional apologetics is not practical it doesn't work listen whether using classical evidential presuppositional they're going to be moments where we feel like quote it's not working but in this case this was an empirical evidence that it did affect him in such a way that God used it for his glory and brought this person to to faith so just a kind of a tangible example as to the effectiveness of this approach at least in my experience you know

I think Bonson actually said that that's how he came to Christ was through a presuppositional presentation yep okay well

I didn't know that all right let's let's get to how are you doing are you are you okay to take some more questions yeah yeah

I've probably got another 10 or 15 minutes okay if you feel like you need to bounce a little early then that's fine and I'll take the rest of the questions myself but that's totally up to you

I want to respect your time thanks okay so Dylan asked the question how do you respond to someone saying that we are just making assertions and not actually providing proof evidence argumentation for our position is there a difference between proof and evidence okay so two questions there yeah there is a difference

I'll take the second one again yeah there is a difference between proof and evidence evidence is what you offer up to support a claim that you're making the the result of that hopefully is that you prove something now that the word proof can be used in in less technical ways so that so that it could be seen you know in the same sentence it could be used either as proof or evidence so I'm technically speaking yeah there is a difference between them but at the end of the day if you if you're trying to prove offer up evidences for why

Christianity is true then the first question is relevant at that point and which is what do we say to people who say we're just making assertions well the question is when you've done the presentation is that all you've done maybe you just made assertions and and if that's the case then they're right okay but presupp as a process as an approach to apologetics you know you have to make claims first before you can defend them and you you have to make sure that you're not going to make a claim that you can't at some point come around to and defend or you're going to get this kind of response and that is

I hear you making all of these assertions but you're not showing me any any evidence again the question of what what do you mean by evidence what do you mean by proof is your particular view of evidence here appropriate to the to the kind of thing that I'm trying to prove to you based on the nature of that thing you know kind of what we were talking about before yeah and I also think that when we say for example it's using the in kind of the popular terminology so the proof for the truth of the

Christian worldview is that if it were not true you couldn't prove anything at all let's take that kind of informal way of presenting it so that's just an assertion wait a second there's an argument in there and part of the demonstration is the invitation of the unbeliever to provide a basis for knowledge because part of our argument is if you don't adopt the

Christian worldview you can't have a foundation for those things so part of our demonstration is your inability not to provide those foundations as the unbeliever that's part of it so there is an argument there and we're presenting partial evidence it's indirect but I think it is in a sense an evidence of what we're getting at but of course as you said we there's a lot more to unpack we don't just get away with say for example you know

I do not prove the truth of the Christian worldview transcendentally merely by showing the unbelievers inability to ground knowledge logic or whatever it's not that you know to show that someone else's view is false doesn't automatically make my view true there does need to be more unpacking there and I think presuppositionalist need to do a better job in providing that that part of the cake so to speak right okay all right let's move quickly here okay there's okay here's another quote

Patrick gives us another quote I think I know where this quote came from you don't need religion to have morals if you can't determine right from wrong then you lack empathy not religion well that in in one sense of course you don't need religion to have morals but you know if by morals you mean the the common understanding of this is my set of things that I think ought to be a certain way and if it's not that way or if somebody does something that's not consistent with that ought then they're being immoral the the argument that that we as Christians should be making is not that you've got to have

God to have morals you need to be more specific with what you're saying all right the fact that there are lots and lots of different standards of morality out there subjective ones culturally based doesn't mean there isn't a universal absolute type of moral code that a lawgiver has given the existence of all the the copycats or whatever does not mean there is not an original or there is not an actual absolute one so it's important to distinguish between when you say

I you know I have morality well what are you talking about you talking about you have your own personal moral code or you're abiding by the moral code of the society that you live in well yeah you don't need religion to have that but what you what you specifically need

Christianity for is to have any reason to hold to that or to try and convince somebody else that they ought to be following in other words it the oughtness of morality is is the key to that discussion not just the existence of multiple moral codes right very good here's another another one from Patrick science adjusts its views based on what's observed faith is a denial of observation so that belief can be preserved by Tim mentioned yeah

Bonson would use this phrase where he would say that's more autobiographical than anything else in other words it's an opinion

I'm not disputing that science as as a methodology

I'm not going to disagree I mean if it's properly practiced then it does you know it refines you know your conclusion is refined by the more instances of supporting data that you have the more experiments that you run that seem to demonstrate that your theory your theory is correct you have more warrant from a scientific perspective to believe that it doesn't mean it's true it just means that according to the scientific method there is good reason to believe it's true okay oh your camera turned off my camera died okay let's

I may just this may be the end I mean I'll keep talking to you can you hear me okay still yeah you're fine but but by the way it's not a big deal when

I had Scott Oliphant on the entire interview was just my face and this little circle so you're good okay okay

I'll flip it back on just in case and see if it comes back but otherwise I'll just yeah if the audio is important that's all yeah faith is that is the denial of observation no

I I don't believe that's an appropriate way to cast that especially when we're talking about faith in God I would argue at the end of the day every person's belief system or worldview is accepted on faith and and and the same thing with Christians you know ultimately we are accepting the content of the

Christian worldview on the authority of God who revealed it to us that doesn't mean that we can't then come back around and make this argument the transcendental argument for instance that then demonstrates that those faith commitments we started with are in fact correct it just you know you have to you have to clarify what you mean by faith you have to clarify what you mean by belief those types of things so I understand

I think that's important you're pointing out the clarification of terms because I think a lot of Christians are quick to respond to these little snippets and we're responding to statements that are not that they don't have clearly defined terms right we want to be very careful

I used to you said that multiple times about well what depends what he means by that I think that's such an important qualifier

I think we need to learn to not be so quick to jump on these comments when the comments or quotes are not sufficiently defining their terms in the first place yeah that's why these conversations take a long time if they're done right you know properly you know presenting the gospel doesn't have to take a long time but if you're going to get into the apologetic aspect of it then you know it's gonna take time absolutely all right thank you um

Nate Werner asked the question what was the best way to get better at priest what was the best way what is the best way

I think what is the best way and what was the best way they're both the same so yeah so what was the best way to get better at using pre sub obviously it's going to take practice but can you role play with more experienced apologists well

I would say that's not necessarily always going to work because a person can be a very good apologist for their beliefs but not necessarily be good at playing devil's advocate yes that it

I think it's I think it's good to be able to do that I think there's it's a great exercise to try and defend somebody else's beliefs sometimes but yeah certainly finding somebody who's willing to role play with you and is actually good at it and doesn't just throw out silly you know responses or whatever that is one approach to it for me the way

I learned the most was just hard knocks was was was going in and making bold claims and getting knocked down and going back and thinking about and then coming back and just really sticking with it that's great because because a lot of people skip over this he says what is the best way to get better at using pre sub obviously it's gonna take practice yes can you do this other thing well wait a minute let's go back that going to take practice is the biggest part how do you get better at using pre sub is using pre sub and falling flat on your face and getting up and using it again and I'm getting better at it when

I had my discussion a while back with the atheist Tom jump I had some a friend of mine

Braxton Hunter over at Trinity radio who is not a Calvinist and not a presuppositional list he's a classicalist but he's a good is a good apologist very logical guy and he helped role play with me so role playing is actually a helpful tool if you can get the right person for it so I'm the good thing about role -playing with Braxton is that he wasn't a presuppositionalist so he wasn't he wasn't already open to my the way that I argue so I was able to get kind of you know good questions that someone who doesn't agree with me would ask and so I think that helped me in the discussion and I thought my opinion discussion with Tom jump went very well

I got a lot of positive feedback from it and a majority of the way I prepared for that was just role -playing so that is definitely a good way to to get a little bit of practice okay all right good question here

Dylan McPhee asked does RC Sproul have a distinct classical apologetic since he believes in total depravity he even said the point of apologetics is to shut the mouth of the obstreperous or the obstreper and Vantill agrees right

I think

Dylan is asking if because RC and Vantill said the same thing and had the same goal is there really a difference in their apologetic method yeah

I think that's what he's asking yeah and the answer is yes a really good resource is the discussion between Bonson and Sproul about apologetic methodology if you listen to that you'll hear the issues that Sproul took with with Bonson on on precept and the impossibility of the contrary and those types of things so yeah

I think I think we can share beliefs and end goals and even the intermediate goals of shutting the mouth of that word

I've never heard before by the way I'm sure I guess it refers to someone who's obstreperous so even though our goal is the same it doesn't mean the approach that we take is the same approach even if there are things that we will do in common like we're both going to quote scripture hopefully right right they may did have different I mean as Calvinist obviously they were in agreement but I guess

Bonson would probably argue that his classical approach is inconsistent with his Calvinistic convictions exactly right and by the way that discussion between dr.

Bonson and RC sprawled is available for free on sermon audio so if you go on sermon audio you download the app there is the

Bonson project you could type in Bonson project and Covenant Media has sold the rights to all of dr.

Bonson's lectures and they're all made available for free on sermon audio so that debate is available and it is very very good you could see the differences laid out there wonderfully all right team taco slick asks what do you suggest as a curriculum to teach high school or high school junior high or high school kids well obviously the

Bible taco I mean yes it's a good that's a really good question

I'm sure they're out there I can't give you the names of any of them though yeah neither neither

I'm a teacher and I teach middle school high school and a lot of the curriculum comes from a classical and evidentialist approach so because I have background in apologetic and theological studies

I kind of just wing it and teach it teach the content putting it within a presuppositional context so I don't know of any particular curriculum but as I said before at the beginning that I was gonna have dr.

Michael Lacona on there's nothing wrong with taking what evidentialist and classicalists have written and just cater it to your consistently presuppositional approach there's unless you're gonna write a curriculum yourself you know get a firm grasp on presuppositionalism and contextualize

I think that's a good way that's what I've got what I've done when I taught middle school and high school students all right okay so let's see here we're moving along quickly there we go the sire asks what do you think about non

Calvinist being presuppositionalist do you think that reform theology is necessary to the method or as a commitment now

I don't know if you're aware but there are some non reformed presuppositionalist one comes to mind Jay Dyer who is

I think he's Eastern Orthodox and he is known for using presuppositional approach transcendental argumentation what are you what's your view on that I think you can reason and argue presuppositionally regardless of whether you're a

Calvinist or not the question is are you going to be a successful we talked about that before in in using that approach you know thinking presupposition

Lee indirectly trying to figure out what the presuppositions are that make this thing intelligible that's that's a way of reasoning in a way of thinking that works with with anything essentially but I think the consistent presuppositionalist from a

Christian presupposition presuppositionalist perspective I think reform theology there's a reason it came out of that camp right are you saying if you want to be an inconsistent presupposition or sure

I have added you don't have to be reforms but if you want to be consistent you need to be reformed is that what you're saying yeah that's exactly what

I'm saying and that doesn't mean you won't be successful not being a reformed preceptor but the question is why would you not want to right well

Vantil most certainly thought you needed to be reformed because part of this project was to derive an apologetic methodology that flows out of a consistent reformed perspective so I would say

I would say yes and I would agree with Brian that if you're gonna be a little inconsistent you could still make headway and as we always are apt to say

God can strike a blow with a broken stick right we're not always consistent but God can still use you know use our our can

I say this he can use broken people there we go okay so did it this is a good one when should a presuppositionalist shake the dust from their feet you know when when did we call it quits and be like I've had enough of you you know yeah

I think that's whenever you think it's time I mean seriously it's it's gonna be different for every person and every conversation that you're having

I think there are some there are you know what would be to me a fairly good indicator is that you're hearing the same thing from them over and over even though you've addressed it and whether you know if they're if they're being if they're being dense on purpose you know if they're not being genuine in their discussion with you then

I would call that out and if it doesn't change then yeah I it's like why why do

I you know I'll pray for you I can't it doesn't it doesn't make sense there's you know

I can sit here and read scripture to you and would love to do that but they're probably not gonna stick around for that so so it depends

I hate to say it that way but it really depends like in five minutes if he if he you know at five minutes and 42 seconds if he doesn't accept your argument then shake the dust over there's no really one set answer for that right yeah okay

Dylan McPhee says in what way do preceptors utilize evidences are we assuming the non -believer can understand the reasons we are giving them even though it's not in the context of climbing up to God all right let me think

I make sure I'm getting this um yeah I believe it's acceptable to assume that non -believers can understand our reasoning and our evidences but that's because they live in the world that God has created right and so that's how we as a preceptor would use evidence we're not just gonna lay the evidence out there and not talk about the nature of evidence and why we can do the scientific method in the first place again it comes down to each individual person you're talking with and how much time you have and what they're willing to listen to but that's going to be the main difference between a preceptor in fact

I just picked up a copy or just found an older copy of a Vantill book about evidences presuppositionalism and evidences

I don't I don't remember the exact title but you know both Bonson and Vantill give great examples in their writing of how you go about doing that all right this was a fun one

David Julius asked when are you becoming a Catholic who's that directed to is that directed to you

I would assume is it you're the guest I mean I'm never becoming a Catholic I'm fully convinced that Catholicism is not is not correct so I'm a

I'm a bloodthirsty Protestant so I don't know if the reason for that question is because they know that I'm currently meeting on a regular basis talking with a

Catholic friend of mine or maybe it's because they know a lot of people who are apologists who become

Catholic I I'm in the same boat as you I don't see foresee that happening ever you know

Dennis McCullin there we go how much did

Gene Cook's narrow mind podcast you I'm not saying that it's not a good podcast it's just it didn't influence me because I just I didn't happen to listen to it so much maybe what happened to listen to him later on like like last year and it was really good but I mean when

I got started I didn't even know who who Gene Cook was yeah all right um we're almost almost through you're doing excellent job by the way here is a question from our local atheist agnostic however

Doug would like to refer to himself as but Doug otherwise known as Pine Creek asks about Thomas Edison to do oh no is that wait a minute okay

I saw him before I wonder if I got the right one here so Brian F says I want to know if it was him who said it do you ask the question of Jesus and the things he said in the gospel of John well

I think he's saying what I asked the same question that I asked about Edison what

I asked that same question about Jesus did Jesus actually say that right no and and that's because it's it's in Scripture and I believe

God's Word is infallible and if it if the Bible says that Jesus is talking then

I accept that on the authority of God's Word also an important point is that when

I said I really be curious if Edison said that it wasn't a red herring or you know

I wasn't trying to get out of answering the question I'm pretty sure I went ahead and answered it after that it was just speaking more to the to the time that we live in where all sorts of different quotes show up on the web ascribed to people who never said those things all right it was more of a curiosity for me

I just wonder if he actually said that all right thank you for that let's see here a couple of funny ones

I'll avoid posting those here okay here's a question this is the last one

I think okay good I think that's the last one I didn't skip anything let me see here that's a good question

Scott I I'm I'm no longer involved with using cats I think Chris might be still or have the ability to contribute but there are there are other areas that I'm I'm involved in that I'm spending my time in so I hate to say it but I don't think

I've looked at choosing hats for quite a while yeah Chris Chris bolts series where he kind of summarizes all the main points of presuppositionalism

I think are excellent so even though they might not be posting new stuff the old stuff that's on there is is really good so you should definitely check out choosing hats that was the last question

I do apologize I think my comment stream kind of zoomed up and I might have skipped a bunch but I don't want to waste a bunch of you know airtime scrolling through again so I do apologize if we didn't get to your question but Brian I think we did an excellent job and oh someone says

I didn't know what I'm trying to look here I'm so sorry if I missed a question oh my goodness

I'm so sorry if I missed this it's definitely difficult to follow the the comments here let's see here if I can just get the last one

I said no I can't find this just too much okay well here's a nice one you might you might like here oh well this is very nice thank you

Scott Scott says the pop precept community desperately needs leaders like Eli and the old choosing hat site

I'm telling you choosing hats really cool man I wish I wish there you guys were making stuff but uh unfortunately it is what it is right and team taco slick says great guest

Eli I agree Brian you did a good job and Pine Creek one last little jab I always miss questions unintentionally yeah it's true

I the I'm using stream yard and so sometimes the new questions will come up and when

I'm scrolling down it'll like jump all the way to the bottom and so I don't want to waste time just going through so I do apologize you guys do know

I spend a lot of time answering questions I do try to get through all of them so I do apologize if I missed it here let me see here so okay there's one last question here let's take this last one here because I think this person slam

RN posted a question and I missed it so I'll throw a bone here okay so question for Brian do you find that the hardest thing about using precept is getting the other person to accept your premises would you even call them premises when we give kind of a transcendental sort of argument yes that is the hardest part

I would change it a little bit by saying I the hardest thing about using it is getting them to understand why

I'm approaching this question the way I am and so whether it's whether it's the way

I'm presenting my premises or just the way I'm arguing in the first place is very different for people

I think generally and so I spend a lot of time explaining why based on the nature of what it is you're asking me to do and and the questions you want me to answer here's the way

I'm going to approach it and here's why I want to make sure that they understand why

I'm approaching it the way I am because if they don't ever buy into that then it doesn't matter how good a job

I do with my presentation if they haven't bought into the approach I'm going to use if they're not going to at least hear me out for the sake of argument then yeah and there have been people who don't want anything to do with that particular approach and so I've not been successful with them yeah but but you also mentioned before you see the nature of the transcendental argumentation is that you can take something that you both agree upon so you can take for you know any

X right Phil X can be any truth that that is just a given for you know both you so you can take any item of human experience right and then just ask what are the necessary preconditions for those experience and then lay out the worldview perspectives right so you think so that's what a transcendental argument basically you know says you know

X is the case or I'm sorry let me see I'm gonna put this out well not everybody's gonna let you get away with that I guess is what

I would say to say to that right you can ask that question but there will be those people who are like look

I asked you simple question why do you believe the Bible's true why are you asking me about what I believe right yeah so but you're you're you're right that would be how

I would proceed with a transcendental argument is give me that given and then in order for that given to be what it is

Christianity must be true yeah you must presuppose it in order to consistently call that a given or call it whatever it is that's that's the key maybe another time we can talk more about the consistency part of it yeah all right very good this is this is

I mean got a couple more here these are fun ones I am pie and I know we're gonna end but not that one let me see here how has nap studied precept for so long without losing any hair that's true

I mean look at James White James White lost hair I mean I was just watching an old video or die yeah but this is this is a good one and maybe we can make this happen it'd be fun

Eli have you ever thought about having choosing hat the choosing hats guys for a roundtable I'd love to get you

Chris and some of the old gang together for a nice little super duper it's up episode maybe we can we can we can make that happen

I know Chris love you up for it yeah awesome all right well cool well we'll try to make that happen here let's see here roundtable

Chris says that sounds circular ha ha ha very good so what you did there but it did it did it bring on Michael Butler I wish he's missing in action we have no idea where he is okay interesting no when

I I did take some classes through bonds and theological seminary BTS and Michael was my

I know what they call it mentor or whatever you know you're you're listening to tapes and reading material and then you go meet with your teacher not teacher and I and I you know he was

I'm up at the Alexandria Virginia area he was in Lynchburg at the time which is you know only for four hours away so I drove down and a friend of mine actually like the fellow who got me into precept and I drove down yeah and we went over and met with him

I wonder why he doesn't do any apology I mean I mean it's not I haven't I've lost track of him as well yeah well everyone has which

I think is interesting but at any rate Brian this was a great discussion I really appreciated what you had to say and I'd love to get you

Chris and and everyone else who used to contribute to choosing hats and do kind of I don't know how many people how many people in all contributed

Oh total there were probably five or six but there were maybe three constant you know the three that probably actually only two constant ones

Chris and razors kiss is okay yeah maybe we can get you guys on we'll have a fun discussion we'll pick like a specific topic to address related and I think that'd be a lot of fun but are there any last things you'd like to say

I really do appreciate you coming on this is a lot of fun yeah just just thank you for the opportunity it was it was very laid -back this is you know

I I've been approached to do debates and and I really wanted to do the one with with David and and I just found

I didn't have the time to prepare yeah obviously I don't know enough about classical foundationalism for instance to feel comfortable going into a debate on that but yeah

I really enjoyed this kind of interactive relaxed just discussion and totally up for it again so nice awesome

I'd love to have you back on again yeah it doesn't not doesn't have the stress of debates I would like to do more debates myself it's just again

I have three kids got a job got a family debates a lot of prep and stuff like this like all my shows

I don't prep at all for I just I have enough background where I can interview and ask questions and things like that so I'm sticking with this format for now but hopefully when my schedule opens up a bit

I'll start doing some more debates because I know a lot of people want to see the presuppositional apologetic methodology actually used so they can kind of see

I for me I learned through debates a lot more yeah discussions I'd like to see how these ideas kind of interact right like in the in the heat of the moment so so hopefully that will happen in the future and if you do have your your discussion with with David I'd love to see that as well

I'm sure it'd be a great joy to see you guys interact so all right well that's it for today thank you so much

Brian for coming on and we will definitely have him back on hopefully we can get the old gang together from choosing hats but until then stay tuned for our upcoming video or interview with Michael Preciado and scarlet clay

I think her name is totally bad I don't have anything in front of me but those should be some interesting discussions coming up and I appreciate everyone who is listening who has supported revealed apologetics with just being present and throwing questions in here and they're greatly greatly appreciate it guys well that's it for this live

I can't even look at it there's no