Is Presup Biblical? A Friendly Response to Mike Winger

Opening Announcements and Upcoming Projects

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and it has been a hot minute. If you guys are wondering, there was actually someone who reached out to me and and was asking, hey man, are you okay?

Like I haven't I haven't done a live stream in a while. So I think they were kind of concerned. Maybe something happened to me. Maybe it became an atheist over over the past couple of weeks or something like that.

No, no, no. I have not apostasized as is very popular in in the throughout the interwebs. I've just been busy as you guys know. I am a full-time middle school teacher and last week was kind of our last last week of the quarter.

And so I was having to get things sorted out there a little busy. And so I'm happy to be back on today. All right. Well just real quick just by way of announcements. I am super excited. I was invited by Apologia Studios to fly out to Arizona and record a six part 23 minute each lecture series on presuppositional apologetics.

And so I'm super excited about that opportunity. And that is what I will be working on throughout this week. And then I think I'll be flying out there next Tuesday. So that that those recordings are going to be put on the Apologia Studios website where I they have that Academy thing where if you kind of like sign up and and subscribe to their you know special features sort of thing.

You'll have access to those. And so I'm very much looking forward to to doing that. Other than that, I will be working on a new podcast called Revealed Apologetics Simplified and it's basically presuppositional apologetics, biblical apologetics at the bottom shelf level.

I know some people are complaining. Well, you know, we need more sophisticated stuff. Yes, I get it. But I have to I have to work within my sphere. The higher shelf stuff requires a lot more prep. I don't have that much time.

I don't do this full time. And so the lower shelf stuff is something that I'm able to do without as much prep. And there is a lot of people within my own circles that are really interested in learning this apologetic methodology.

But they don't really have a lot of background in apologetics in general and presuppositional apologetics more specifically. So I know folks are looking for me to go deeper, but that's what this channel is for.

You guys know that we've gone very, very deeply into various aspects of presuppositional apologetic methodology and things relating to that. So I just want to throw that out there and and there you go.

Introducing Jeff Waddington and the Topic of Presuppositionalism

So let's jump right in. I'm going to introduce my guest and my friend Jeffrey Waddington.

Jeff Waddington, how are you doing, brother? I'm doing fine. How are you, Eli?

I'm doing very well. When I first had you on, it was actually my last live stream, we had you and Joshua Shooping where we talked about Eastern Orthodoxy's use of presuppositionalism. When I had shared on my social media that you were going to come on, someone was like, ooh, a rare Jeffrey Waddington interview.

Apparently people knew who you are, but they were like, I haven't really seen him kind of do stuff in a while. So I'm so happy to be connected to you through Lane Tipton and and now you text your bitmojis every morning to say good morning.

I do. I'm sure you said, was it really a good thing to get to know Jeff how he sends me his bitmojis?

I love it. I'm curious as to which one you're going to send me. They're so funny.

There's a whole, as you know, you've seen them, there's a whole bunch. And you can also search by topic and I guess there might be some that don't show up in the menu.

There's no presuppositionalist bitmojis.

I thought about it. Yeah, I know. We'll have to work on that. So why don't you tell folks a little bit about yourself? Yeah, well, my name is Jeff Waddington. Some of you may be familiar with me through the Reformed Forum.

I've done a few interviews or have interacted with Chris Arnzen on Iron Sharpens Iron. So some may be familiar with me through that. And you may be thinking, yes, Jeff, you have the face for radio. And Iron Sharpens Iron is a benefit in that regard.

There's no video part of it. I'm a minister in the Cambodian Presbyterian Church and I teach. I'm a professor at the school that's connected with that denomination in Phnom Penh in Cambodia. I teach at this point by live stream or by way of Zoom.

And I'm also teaching as an instructor, adjunct instructor in religion at Penn State. I think they have 20 or so. I'm teaching at the Abington, which is north of where Westminster is located in Glenside.

I went to Westminster, got my master's of divinity and my Ph .D. in apologetics from Westminster.

Excellent. Very good. And you are a big Van Til guy. So I am super happy to have you on. When Lane Tipton, who is a big Van Til guy, suggests having you on, I was like, well, OK, well, if he suggested you, then I know you know your stuff because Lane is an expert in this area of presuppositionalism.

And I kind of trusted him in suggesting you. And I was not disappointed after having spoken with you on the phone about some things relating to this. So very much appreciative of your friendship and your mind.

And hopefully we'll be able to get into some of the weeds of presuppositionalism and this video that we're going to be taking a look at. Now, I just want to let people know we're going to be sharing the screen here and we're going to be covering a topic that is entitled, Is Presupp Biblical?

And this is a critique of presuppositionalism from Mike Winger. If you guys know the Bible Thinker YouTube channel, Mike Winger has a very large following and he is an awesome guy and I highly recommend his channel even though we have some theological and apologetical differences.

I've benefited greatly both from his friendship and from his content. So I've spoken to him personally over these topics and I've always seen Mike as someone who really tries hard to understand the other side, so to speak.

And of course, we're going to disagree at the end of the day. But I respect his spirit, the spirit with which he engages these issues. And even in the video that we're going to be taking a look at now, I think he does a great job being respectful, trying to be careful in his understanding of presuppositionalism at least as he sees it.

But of course, we are going to take some issue with some of the things that he says or a lot of the things, I suppose. And hopefully, as we interact with this video, this will be a great opportunity to teach and hopefully folks who are listening in will find this beneficial.

So I know, Jeff, you've watched this video. Here, we're going to put it up on the screen here. You've watched it already and I have as well and I've taken some notes and hopefully we can kind of just dive right in and squeeze this lemon for all the juice that it has.

Let's do it, brother. It'll be very, very useful. So I'm going to jump right in. I'm just going to play the video and then we'll take it from there. I will stop when I think we should stop. Very good.

And if you think we should stop, we'll stop. And you say, hey, just stop right there. I have some comments there. So you ready to go? Yep. All right, let's do this. Before we start, if Mike Winger ever watches this, I love you, man.

And it's been a while since we've spoken, so hopefully we can connect soon over the phone and catch up. So love you, man. All right, let's get started. Let's get going.

What are we doing here today? Here's the questions I'd like to tackle. One, is it true that God doesn't believe in atheists? Is that a true phrase, that God does not believe in atheists? I mean, that's how we hear it phrased sometimes.

But the idea is that nobody's really an atheist, that people, deep down, they know the truth and when they say they're atheists, they're not being honest. They're lying to you and they know it. Is that true?

Number two, is it morally wrong to give people evidence for Christianity? I'm not saying it's like the gravest sin in the world. I'm just saying, is it wrong? Is there something inherently incorrect or wrong about just giving people evidence for the Christian faith?

Is that somehow incorrect? And then three, is presuppositional apologetics biblical? And that's the question. I'm not here attacking this from a philosophical standpoint. I'm not talking about it from that angle at all, actually.

I'm interested in the Bible. I love the word of God. I believe it is God's word to us. So it is an authority over what I'm going to think about things. And it's silly to think it would be somehow the Bible's God's word, but it doesn't have the authority to tell me what to think.

So we believe the Bible. The question is, is this form of presuppositional apologetics, is it biblical? Now, you may not be familiar with presuppositional apologetics, but if you're watching the replay, chances are you are clicking the video because you're interested in this question.

And so hopefully it will respond to that exact need, and you're going to get just what you need, I hope, out of this content.

Now I'm going to stop right there, Jeff, just to create some context. The specific flavor of presuppositionalism that he is interacting with is Saiten Bruggenkate, which he's a friend of mine, awesome brother.

I've learned a lot from him over the years and have benefited from his friendship. But he's often seen as kind of the representative of presuppositionalism. And, of course, as much as we agree on so much, I wouldn't say that that's necessarily the case, right?

We want to be careful. Mike himself makes a distinction between, say, Saiten Bruggenkate and people who follow his flavor of presuppositionalism and other presuppositionalists who may or may not use the same kind of forms of argumentation.

Can you share with us, Jeff, just a little bit about the spectrum of presuppositionalists? Are all Vantillians treated equally or what?

Well, now, if you're familiar with the work of Dr. Gregg, the late great Dr. Gregg Bonson, you'll know that he himself in his book, Presuppositionalism, yeah, I forget the subtitle, explain. Stated and Defended?

Yes, it's the yellow cover book.

Presuppositionalism, Stated and Defended.

He, in that book, distinguishes between Dr. Vantill, Gordon Clark, E .J. or Edward John Carnell, and Francis Schaeffer. It's representing four different types, get four fingers there, four different types of presuppositionalism.

Dr. Vantill representing what he calls and what others have called revelational presuppositionalism, say, is over against the other three types, which have a modicum of rationalism in there. And then, of course, you have, I was thinking there was another division.

Oh, yes, sorry, a little slow on the uptake there. So you've got those distinctions, and I think are legitimate distinctions of Dr. Bonson makes. In fact, they're different enough that I'm not sure, like Carnell, I don't know how he gets in there as a presuppositionalist, other than he was a student of Clark and Vantill back in the 40s.

Carnell, by the way, if you're not familiar with that.

PASTOR JEFFREY... Jeff, if I could interrupt real quick. Your voice is coming in and out. I don't know if there's a bad connection or something like that. PASTOR BARRY... I saw that.

PASTOR JEFFREY... Can you hear me okay? Your sound's coming in and out. PASTOR BARRY... Yeah, I can hear you. You're fine.

PASTOR JEFFREY... You sound better there. Go ahead. PASTOR BARRY... Yeah, okay.

So E .J. Carnell was better known probably in the 40s to the late 60s. He died under mysterious circumstances. We don't know if he overdosed on medications or if he took his own life. He also served as president of Fuller Seminary for a time.

But why he's labeled as a presuppositionalist is another matter. But within the Vantillian camp, if I can use that language, I would say that you have John Frame and Verne Poitras on the one hand with their multi-perspectivalism or tri-perspectivalism.

But not everybody agrees with that particular way of slicing and dicing our theology. Then you have someone like Scott Oliphant with covenantal attributes teaching. Then you've got Lane Tipton. And I would see myself as more in Lane Tipton's camp, I would say.

We're friends, so I guess you might expect that.

They all wouldn't hash out presuppositionalism.

No, the difference, say, with Lane Tipton says that represents the camp I'm in. And I would also, William Dennison is a precursor. That's right. We try to highlight the redemptive historical or Vosian biblical theological basis for Vantill's more philosophically framed apologetic.

It's the show that, and Greg Bonson, we would look to Greg Bonson as well, especially. But we would say that Dr. Bonson, the one short, if we could offer a critique of Dr. Bonson, it would be the histionomy tends to flatten any influence of Vos in the redemptive historical school.

I'm sure that now I've unloaded a bunch of distinctions that has confused everyone.

Well, all this to say, Jeff, I think when you take someone like Greg Bonson, Vantill, Edward Carnell, Gordon Clark, Francis Schaeffer, and all these guys, they're very different than, say, a Si Ten Bruggencate.

They would say many different things, right? Si has his particular favor, and that's fine. We all do, probably. Right, and I would caution folks who are looking into presuppositional apologetics of seeing one person be representative of the entire camp.

That's not necessarily the case. Myself and Si might have little disagreements here and there, or even some big disagreements on how presuppositionalism looks in real conversation. So I want to let people be aware that there is variation within that.

And Mike says as much.

Right, I was going to say, he notes very winsomely, as you've already noted, Eli, that he recognizes, one, his limitation or familiarity with the school of apologetics, but two, he's also got enough common sense to know that probably there's variety within the presuppositional camp.

In my conversations with Mike, I've definitely expressed that I disagree, and I don't know if he remembers this as a while back. The questions he's asking here, I mean, I've shared my thoughts on them, and I'm going to get your thoughts in just a moment.

But let us kind of let him get through the introduction part, and then we'll kind of address his first two questions. And then we're going to spend most of our time on his third question, and that's with respect to whether presuppositional apologetics is biblical.

So let's continue on.

Evidence, Presuppositions, and the Charge of Putting God on Trial

Is it biblical? That's the question. So what I don't mean when I say this, I have to give a disclaimer, two disclaimers, actually. So one disclaimer is this. I do not mean that we shouldn't do apologetics that deal with presuppositions.

I don't mean that I shouldn't talk to someone about their assumptions, about what they believe, the foundations of their beliefs, how they know anything at all to start with. That's a great discussion, and it's a wonderful way, I think, to bring the knowledge of God into people's lives.

So what I don't mean is I'm not attacking this sort of using presuppositions in apologetics, but rather there's a specific subcategory called presuppositional apologetics, and within that there's just one group that I'm dealing with, which is a group that says, hey, there's no atheists.

In fact, it's wrong for you to use evidence to give people reasons to believe in God because you're sort of emboldening their rebellion against God and making them a judge of God. And so is that a biblical view or not?

That's the question I have because I want to follow the Lord in these issues. So second disclaimer. I'm here analyzing, or at least trying to analyze, a very specific presuppositional apologist to have an example of the content I'm dealing with.

And it's a gentleman, a believer, and a brother named Cy Tenbruggenkate. Now, I've actually been in contact with Cy, and he tells me he thinks that I might misunderstand his views. So here's my disclaimer.

I'm going to try my best to get his views across as carefully and thoughtfully as I can. And if I get it wrong, that's not his fault. That would be my fault. And I'm going to have him on, hopefully this week, to have a back and forth discussion with me live on YouTube where he's going to be able to offer correction or clarity, and we can discuss it as brothers.

So that's the plan. Now, let me give you an example of what it is I'm talking about here. And I'll have to put on my ridiculous headphones so I can hear this as well.

And now he's going to address his first question. So the first question is, is it true that God doesn't believe in atheists? So folks have often heard presuppositionalists say that all men know that God exists.

And if that's true in one sense, then do atheists exist? Someone who doesn't believe in God or lacks belief in God or however you want to hash out that terminology. So what he's about to do is play a portion of Sy 10 Bruggencate's film, How to Answer the Fool, and he's going to respond to his reading of Romans 1.

So we're going to let him play that clip, and then I'm going to toss it over to you, Jeff, so we can interact with that question. Is it true that God doesn't believe in atheists? That's the question. So let us continue on.

That's what I'm talking about. Out in the world, where do you hear evidence most often? In court. Who do you give evidence to in court? The judge. The judge and the jury. So we go out in the street and the campus with some arrogant, snot-nosed kids like that, and they say, I don't believe in God.

And what's the first thing we do? We give them evidence. And when we give them evidence, who are we saying is the judge? Them. And who is on trial? God. So we go out in the street and we say, you, sir, are the judge.

The Lord of Glory is on trial. What does Scripture say? Do not put the Lord your God to the test. And what are we doing? We're out there saying that God's on trial. And you know what the problem with that is?

You can win that court case. Because God has given us wonderful evidences. Evidences are a wonderful gift from God for Christians to bolster our faith. You can win that court case. And you can acquit God.

But what's the problem? Who's the judge? Okay, so the complaint here is that just by...

Okay, so let's interact with that. Let's just take the question head on. As a Vantillian presuppositionalist, how would you, how would Vantill, how would Bonson answer this question? Is it true that God doesn't believe in atheists?

Would we say God doesn't believe in atheists because everyone has a knowledge of God? Why don't you unpack that for us? Sure.

The question, does God believe in atheists? I think we would say that there are, you know, as we've often said about wartime experiences, there are no atheists in foxholes, right? Going back to World War I.

However, it's one thing to say that, in fact, there are no true atheists because we all possess the knowledge of God that is implanted in us by God Himself. Or do we... So it's one thing to say that. Does God...

Are there real atheists? And the answer to that question, I think, is no. However, there are many people who claim to be atheists and who may, in fact, have persuaded, been successfully persuaded themselves to, that they are real atheists.

And of course, you can include agnostics in there because the dividing line between agnostics and atheists is kind of blurry. So now the Scriptures are very, you know, do address the fool who in his heart has said there is no God.

So it is possible to say, for someone to say internally in this thought process that there is no God. However, that is not to say that there are, in fact, people who are bereft of knowledge of the true God.

That's the... I think we'll get into that a little later in the video to that. Do you want me to address Romans 1 now?

Well, not just yet. Here's the thing, though. If we were to say it's true that God doesn't believe in atheists for the reasons you just gave, then are we saying as presuppositionalists that when an atheist says that he's an atheist, he's just lying?

Is our assertions boiled down to something so simple as, well, you know, I'm an atheist. I'm telling you, I don't believe in God.

Oh, deep down, you're lying, man. We really know you. No, I think it could be they're lying or it could be they're self-deceived. You know, and the self-deception could take, you know, there's very many gradations.

Dr. Van Til made a distinction between epistemological awareness and psychological awareness. Now, I'm not sure, like Mike, I don't know if I can parse or, you know, slice as finely the distinction between psychological and epistemological, except that one is describing the subjective processes of the human mind and heart, and the other is talking about the conceptual content of that human mind and heart.

So I've forgotten what I'm supposed to be responding to. This isn't the first time that's happened to me, and it's not a sign of old age.

So when we say, are atheists just lying? No, no.

And Dr. Monson, as you know, Eli, did his dissertation on self-deception. Right. And there is, by the way, a short form of that. It's available on the web, his dissertation. But there's a short form article in the Westminster Journal, Spring 1995 issue.

That's basically an article-length version of the argument he makes more fully in his dissertation. So self-deception, you know, the human heart, you know, as Jeremiah said, the heart is desperately wicked.

Who can know it, right? So the human heart, and the heart biblically includes the mind and the will and the emotions. It's the seat of the human person. So I would not want to, on the one hand, I would not want to say that a person is lying.

They could be deceived at some level. On the other hand, I do have to say that if it's a choice between God's Word and the self-assessment of an unbeliever, or even of a confused or compromised believer, I have to go with God's Word.

And I believe Romans 1 tells me that all people know God. Now, when we get to discussion, if we do, of Romans 1, I'll have more to say about this. Yeah, we'll unpack that a little later.

So in short, when we say all men know that God exists, but then someone says, well, does that mean atheists are just lying? We're going to say, and Greg Bonson would say, no, that's not necessarily the case.

Someone can be self-deceived, which biblically, I'm sorry, if you're an atheist, you're obviously not going to agree with this. But we're talking from within the context of Christian theological implications of how the Christian theological conception of the unbeliever, we would say that the unbeliever is self-deceived, right?

And so what he says with his mouth, his actions tell us otherwise. He does things that don't make sense, given his professed atheism. So we would not simply say, well, atheists are just lying, because that's not necessarily the case.

But even Mike would willingly admit, and myself as well, some people could be doing that, but that's not necessarily the case. So let us continue here.

Sort of building a case, say I give the evidence for the resurrection, as I've actually done on this channel, that just by giving that evidence, I'm suggesting that God is now the defendant in a case in which the skeptic is the judge.

And they're over God now. In a sense, I'm placing them in authority over God, as though they're deciding whether God exists or not, like it's up to them or something like that. And that's the question.

Is it wrong to give this kind of evidence to skeptics? Does it actually put God on trial? Does it make them the judge? Specifically, is it unbiblical? That's my biggest issue, actually, is I think this is not a biblical thing.

And is it true that they just know already? So let me tell you a couple things I like before I get into all the long...

Well, real quick, I would agree with Mike that it is unbiblical to say that I will not give any evidence to the unbeliever. I would agree. As a Vantillian presuppositionalist myself, I would say I agree that it is unbiblical to say that I will give no evidence.

Correct. I will give evidence. I do give evidence, but I make this qualification. I do not pretend that the very concept of evidence, an argument, could be understood independent of a Christian context.

But I will give it. And I think it's appropriate to do so in various circumstances. I don't think, as that blanket statement stands, I don't think giving evidence makes the unbeliever judge unless we give it in such a way that is contrary to our commitments to the Lordship of Christ and the context of the Christian worldview.

Would you agree with me there, Jeff? Yeah, I would.

I was pondering whether giving evidence or even the use of human reason to ascertain whether something is so. Right. That is sometimes called the judgment. But to talk about having the ability and actually, I would argue in this case, the obligation to judge or to assess or to evaluate, it's not the same thing as to sit in judgment.

Sy Ten Bruggenkade is correct that we ought not to be either ourselves as the apologist or putting our list, you know, our interrogator in the position of being the judge over God. It's actually assessment of the evidence, which he might still have a problem with that.

But my response is, well, then you're trying to bypass the subjective element that God has put into creation.

But that's another, you know. Sorry, Mike, for pausing it in an awkward pose there. I feel bad.

I didn't mean to. It's a long list of things I don't agree with, with Sy on this issue. And like I said, I'll bring him on hopefully this week in a few days or maybe tomorrow, actually. Well, we haven't ironed it out yet.

What I like is this. Sy, along with some of the other guys who are doing this presuppositional method, and you get guys from like, if I'm not mistaken, from the Bible thumping wing nut who are doing this sort of thing.

Here's what I love about them. These guys are confident about the gospel, and they're unashamed about biblical truth and about God and about the fact that there is a real judgment and a real eternal damnation that is coming.

They're not ashamed of this fact. Instead, they want to warn people of it. And there is a disease of shame that a lot of Christians have relating to the gospel of Jesus Christ, as though I'm supposed to be embarrassed about the judgment that we deserve because of our sins.

We're the wicked ones here. God is the righteous judge, and that's a beautiful thing. So they recognize the black and white of Christianity, and they're willing to just go forward with it and hold to it.

And a lot of times, as I listen to Sy's stuff, I hear him, and I congratulate you on this, Sy. You're like, you sort of will ignore the bologna sauce that sometimes comes out of skeptics' mouths. And maybe I need to do that more when I'm interacting with skeptics that sometimes just call out, that's just bologna, man.

Like, you're just saying foolish things. And so I think that that's actually possibly a very good thing. So those are kind of like the bold, unashamed, seeing the black and whites, being able to call people out on their bologna.

I like that. But I think that Scripture gives us a really strong case, as you surveyed through the Bible, of using evidence to convince nonbelievers or people who are in rebellion to God, using evidence to convince them that they should turn to God.

And so I'm going to go through a bunch of Scriptures right now.

Elijah, Deuteronomy, and the Use of Evidence

He's going to go through his biblical case here. So I just want to review this real quick for folks. Number one, is it true that God doesn't believe in atheists? Yes. Does that mean that atheists are lying when they claim to be atheists?

Not necessarily. Number two, is it morally wrong to give people evidence for Christianity? No, it's not morally wrong. And I'm happy to say that as a presuppositionalist. Now, the last question, is presuppositional apologetics biblical?

And what he's going to do now is he's going to make a biblical case for presenting evidence, which...

Do you have a problem with that, Jeff? I don't have a problem with presenting evidence. I've done it every Sunday as a pastor in the pulpit, presenting evidence, seeking to persuade. To present the message of a particular passage of God's Word.

So, you know, in that sense, of course, we would argue that everything is evidence, right? Everything is evidence for God. If you have the time to trace back, you know, the present facts to their bases, if you will, their foundation.

And I'm not trying to be a foundationalist by using the word foundation. Just want to put that out there.

Okay. So, just going to say that again, we're presuppositionalists. We have no problem giving evidence. And I would agree with Mike. The Bible does give examples of giving evidence. I just don't think those examples prove evidentialism or classicalism.

But there's nothing wrong in principle with giving evidence. So, let's take a look at some of the scriptures he uses and then we'll have you interact with those. Okay?

We're going to start in the Old Testament. We're going to go to the New Testament. We'll look at what Jesus says about this stuff as well. And I think you might be surprised, those of you watching, you know, to find out that the Bible actually says a lot, a lot about using evidence to not just for Christians to encourage them, but using evidence to bring nonbelievers into a place of submission to God.

This is a good biblical thing. So, the first passage, and you may want to have your Bible or a Bible app out for you, is 1 Kings 18. And many of you know this passage, but have you really thought through it with this in mind?

Like, have you asked the right questions about it, right? So, 1 Kings 18 20. So, we have this passage here where Elijah goes to Mount Carmel and he's going to bring the prophets of Baal. And there's going to be this sort of spiritual battle that results in a physical battle, which is pretty interesting.

So, 1 Kings 18 20, it says, So, Ahab sent for all the children of Israel and gathered the prophets together on Mount Carmel. And Elijah came to all the people and said, How long will you falter between two opinions?

If the Lord is God, follow him, but if Baal, follow him. But the people answered him not a word. So, the people are gathered together. The people are really apostatized, right? They're pretending to worship Yahweh, but as part of a polytheism that they're part of, and this is not appropriate, right?

So, what I noticed first off is that what Elijah says to them in verse 21 is, If the Lord is God, follow him, but if Baal, follow him. Now, this is not... The word if is not in the presuppositionalist vocabulary, as I understand it, as I've watched this method be used several times.

Is that true?

Are presuppositionalists allowed to use if and contingency language?

Oh, yes. I think what he's responding to is that we are not going to, ourselves, embrace either how we think internally or how we argue apologetically. We're not going to try to pretend that God is not God.

Sure. So, that I think... However, his comments do seem to reveal a lack of familiarity with the standard distinction between the internal and external arguments for the Christian faith. And the reason I mentioned that is because Dr. Van Til, when he talks about those arguments, he doesn't use the internal, external.

I think that's Bonson and others use that language. Dr. Van Til talks about standing on the ground of the unbeliever for argument's sake. Okay, that sounds like a hypothetical, right? If that you're saying is true, Mr. Unbeliever. Right, you're going to use if-then language.

Right. And then when you try to get the unbeliever to stand on the Christian's ground for argument's sake, in that case, you might use the if-then, but when we use that language, we're not suggesting that God is a hypothetical to be tested.

Right. I don't think he would either. From Mike's comments, I don't think he would argue that way either, even if he uses the word if.

Now, when you say if, with respect to the internal critique, if we were to take the hypothetical truth of the unbeliever's perspective, we can say, if what you're saying is true, Mr. Atheist, then such and such will follow.

So we can use that language, but we don't use it in the way that suggests that God is a hypothesis that may or may not be true.

Right, I think it's not necessarily the use of if-then arguments. It's what some apologists say outside of the arguments that make us nervous when they use if-then arguments. Because of what they've said elsewhere, we have strong reasons to think that they really do believe this is a hypothetical situation, that God is a hypothesis that can be tested.

As Dr. Carnell, as whom I mentioned earlier, D .J. Carnell said, bring on your hypotheses and see if they can stand against the law of contradiction. Famous statement that I just butchered that Dr. Carnell issued back in the middle of the 20th century.

So we're not going down that road. But God is not a hypothesis to be verified. He is the basis of all scientific research. Right, right.

All right, let's continue. I don't see this as part of, if you're a precept, you know, like you don't say, if God or if Baal, like, well, if Muhammad is right, then you should follow Islam. Like you don't say that, you assume the truth of Christianity.

You don't reason with a hypothetical like this. So he doesn't say, you know, Yahweh is God, you just know it, follow him. Now, if I said this, I think that Sai, I think that he would correct me or rebuke me on this and say, Mike, you can't say if, if God is, it really is.