Can Presuppositionalists Use Evidence?

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and today we are going to be covering a topic related to presuppositional apologetic methodology, and we're going to be covering a very common misconception about the presuppositional method.

Okay, and that is the role of the utilization of evidence and argument.

Okay, and so what I want to do is I want to talk a little bit about some tidbits from the writings of Cornelius Van Til and Greg Bonson, and I want to point out how oftentimes certain segments of their writing is misrepresented by many critics.

And then I want to put them in context with the purpose of showing you how the use of evidence and argumentation works very well within the presuppositional apologetic framework.

Okay, because here's the thing. When you're engaged in apologetics and you're reading all of the literature out there related to apologetics,

I mean, you're looking at the classical works, evidential works, various philosophical works.

If you're reading up on apologetics, I know that you're reading books by William Lane Craig and other

Christian philosophers, and you might actually resonate very much with some of the arguments that are used in those more traditional apologetic traditions.

And so when someone stumbles across the presuppositional method, which is very different in the way that it works itself out, folks who tend to resonate with that, they'll say something to the effect, well, wait a minute, but if I'm a presuppositionalist, does that mean

I can't use some of these more traditional arguments? Can a presuppositionalist use the

Kalam cosmological argument? Can a presuppositionalist use the teleological argument?

Can the presuppositionalist use the moral argument for God's existence? I mean, what role do evidence and argumentation play within an apologetical perspective that starts with the assumption that the word of God, the

Bible is the word of God, and we assert that dogmatically in a sense, right?

So how does evidence and argumentation work within that paradigm? So we're going to be talking a little bit about that today.

And of course, if folks are listening in, you can send your question in the comments there and I'll try my best to answer them.

If there are no questions, then we'll just wrap up the topic and then close and take from there.

I know that this is a holiday week and some people might be on the road or going to bed early or whatever, but I'm here.

And so if you don't catch this specific live video, which is streaming on YouTube and Facebook, then perhaps folks will be able to catch the audio on the podcast.

Also, with regards to the podcast, I want to say thank you for those who listen to Revealed Apologetics through the podcast.

We have a five star rating with all positive reviews. And so that's great.

Not a lot of reviews, but they're all very positive. And so those who do listen via podcast, I am so, so appreciative of you guys.

And I'm appreciative of those who took the time to write a positive review. If you are blessed by this ministry and you're blessed by the content,

I would greatly appreciate if you go on to iTunes and write a positive review.

And I love to read what people are thinking. And of course, I want to gear my content towards those who really, you know,

I want to gear it specifically to your many needs. All right. I want to be a resource for folks to help them defend the faith.

OK. And again, sometimes we can be a little academic and other times a little bit more, quote, practical.

OK. Here's the thing. Apologetics is a command in Scripture. And when we think of apologetics, we tend to think of, you know, really smart people and, you know, these people who have

YouTube channels and podcasts and things like that. But listen, apologetics is a command in Scripture for all believers to give a reason for the hope that's in them, yet doing so with gentleness and respect.

And so everything that we talk about on this channel should be able to be broken down to the point that it can be used by the average believer.

Now, depending on your context, it's going to kind of affect the shape of your apologetic.

But the method, especially from me being reformed, me being presuppositional in my approach, the method is going to be the same that undergirds the way we communicate with people.

But the way we communicate with people is going to is going to differ and it's going to depend on the context. So hopefully you guys are able to take some of the nuggets and the principles that I've laid down in past episodes and perhaps some of the stuff that we talked about within the context of interviews and things like that.

Hopefully you guys are able to listen to that and use it in a normal day to day interaction.

OK, now we do live in the world of the Internet. OK, and so most people's interactions apologetically are also through, you know, texting back and forth and things like that, which makes apologetics take on a whole new flavor in that regard.

And so at any rate, however, and wherever God has put you to speak out for the truth of the gospel,

I hope that the content here is helpful to that end. All right. Well, with that said, let us jump right in.

And before I do that, I need to do something very, very important. And that very, very important thing is to fuel up on my caffeine.

So if you'll excuse me. All right.

Good. Now I'm all I'm all fired up. I have my my my energy boost. Now, again, you might think you might notice it's a little dark here in the background.

I'm not I'm not very technologically savvy. So I figured I'd try something new.

I got my my lights here and kind of turn the lights off in the rest of the office. You know, if it looks good, you know, give me a thumbs up.

If it doesn't, maybe I'll switch it back. I know some people like to see what's in the background. You know what books I'm reading and stuff like that.

Actually, these books are just for show. They're not even mine. I'm just kidding. They're mine. They're mine. I haven't read all of them.

OK, but I've read a little bit of most of them. OK. And a lot of people always ask me about where am

I over here? These these things here. That's not my movie collection. I graduated from Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary.

Some some people might give me a thumbs up for that. Others might with the current controversies going on there.

Others might say Liberty. Well, be that as it may, I received a good education there.

I did the online program. I received a master of arts and theological studies and a master of divinity with a theological focus.

I really enjoyed my time there. But these are the DVD lectures that I had to listen to for the courses.

So for folks who are interested in that green thing in the background, that's what what those are.

So, well, at any rate, let's jump right into our topic for today.

Can presuppositionalists use evidence? And the answer to that question is, of course, of course we can.

And it's important to recognize that what a lot of people think about the presuppositional method is wrongheaded, because the number one way in which they learn about presuppositionalism is often through the critics of the presuppositional method.

And so you want to be mindful of that. OK, so. So let's talk a little bit about some of the common criticisms of the presuppositional approach.

Now, amongst the many criticisms, one popular criticism is that presuppositional methodology is circular.

And I addressed that in the previous video in which I interacted with Frank Turek, who is a classical apologist and a very good apologist.

But one of his criticisms was that presuppositional apologetics is circular. So we address that today.

We're going to talk a little bit about the nature of the evidence, the use of evidence within a presuppositional framework.

So with that said, here are some quotes that I'm going to pull out from the writings of Van Till, the writings of Greg Monson.

A quote here from a man by the name of Jim Halsey, who is a presuppositionalist. And I want to point out what most critics of presuppositional apologetics usually misinterpret what's going on here.

And so this is why it's important when we're reading someone, we want to make sure we read them in their proper context.

OK, context is key. You don't want to read piecemeal and then draw unwarranted conclusions from just a piecemeal presentation of the other side.

And I see this a lot when I see critiques of the presuppositional approach from someone like a

William Lane Craig or an R .C. Sproul or a Frank Turek or whoever.

Their misunderstandings are shocking to me, given the fact that many of these people are very brilliant and much better apologists than I could hope to be.

But it seems like they're missing clear, clear aspects of the presuppositional approach that they would understand if they just read the specific areas that they're critiquing in their proper context.

OK, now that said, there are people who have read the presuppositional literature and have come out the other side saying, no,

I don't agree with it. And that's that's just the nature of the beast. Right. Not everyone's going to agree. Again, apologetic methodology is also linked with one's undergirding theological perspective.

And so there are issues there as well. Someone might be convinced of a theological perspective. But then the logical outflow of that apologetic methodology is going to be consistent with that theological conviction.

Right. So if you're an Arminian in your theology, you're not going to employ a presuppositional method, at least along Vantillian lines.

Since Cornelius Vantill purposely developed the presuppositional methodology with the with the asserted goal that it was a consistent apologetic methodology with his reformed presuppositions.

OK, so that's an important thing to keep in mind. So at any rate, let me fix my screen here.

There we go. Let's see here. Apologies. Here we go.

We don't want that. Minimize that. Doot, doot, doot. All right. OK, let's see here.

Yeah, yeah. Before I go, I just want to let you guys know, if you have any questions, please feel free to put them in the comments there and I will address them towards the end.

If you're interested in supporting Revealed Apologetics in some financial way, you can send in Super Chats.

Super Chats are greatly appreciated. But it doesn't seem like we have a lot of viewers today.

So we will be able to get to everyone's questions if you do have them. If not, sit back, enjoy. I hope that this is beneficial to you.

OK, so Vantill Cornelius Vantill said in his one of his apologetic syllabi, he had many.

He said, quote, It is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only.

OK, I'm going to read that again. OK, it is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate

Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only. All right.

Now, you would imagine how someone could construe that statement taken on its own. OK, but again, as I said before, we don't take statements on its own.

We want to look at the context of someone's writing and also the context, the broader context of their thought and their philosophy.

Here's a quote by Greg Bonson. The gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny.

That's from Apologetics Foundations of Christian Scholarship, page 209. That's Greg Bonson. I'll read that again.

The gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny.

So you see, so the gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs. You see, so so therefore presuppositionalists don't give factual signs and logical arguments because we don't do that.

Right. We don't want the unbeliever to be in in the place of judgment over God. Right.

So, again, statements like this would be taken and misconstrued in various ways. Jim Halsey says, quote,

The Christian can point to nothing outside the Bible for verification of the Bible because the simple fact is that everything outside the

Bible derives its meaning from the interpretation given it by the Bible. That's a quote from For Such a

Time as This, An Introduction to the Reformed Apologetic of Cornelius Van Till, page 39. Now, again,

I want to highlight this. Taken on its own, there are many quotations, many little sayings and phrases that when taken in isolation do, in fact, support many of the common criticisms.

But in its proper context, these criticisms fall by the wayside once you understand what it is the presuppositionalist is saying and that you make proper distinctions and allow for proper qualifications.

This is very, very important. OK. And by the way, it goes both ways as well. So the presuppositionalist critiquing those who are within the classical school of apologetics, the evidential school, we want to make sure that we are properly representing the other side as well.

And this is just a demand to be consistent and logically cogent when we're speaking with our fellow brothers and sisters.

And they are our fellow brothers and sisters. Those who are not presuppositionalists are not defined outside the

Christian faith. OK. Let me see here. All right.

Just doesn't feel like normal. OK. Sorry. Just reading some of the comments. But be that as it may, we want to be consistent.

We want to properly represent the other side. OK. So now here are some interesting interpretations of Vantillian presuppositional school of thought by various thinkers.

This is a quote from Clark Pinnock. Clark Pinnock was a systematic theologian and he is no longer with us.

I think he passed away like in 2010 or something like that. But he was a noted systematic theologian and a critic of the presuppositional apologetic methodology.

And he had a particular understanding of what he thought Vantill was getting at and what were the implications of a

Vantillian understanding. And here's what Clark Pinnock says. He says, quote, because God transcends the world, nothing in the world of factuality is capable of revealing him of itself.

OK, therefore, Pinnock charges that Vantill quote, believes he can begin with God and Christianity without consulting objective reality.

You see, so this is what the presuppositionalist does. We make assertions about God, but we don't actually consult objective reality.

We don't we don't point to data points. We don't point to data points or evidences to make a case.

You see, because that's what presuppositionalists do. We assert. Right. We just assert it is fideism.

Right. That's another common criticism. Right. R .C. Sproul accused the presuppositional methodology to be a form of fideism, which is something that is not the case.

And as a matter of fact, it is so opposite of fideism that I think that it is presuppositional methodology and argumentation seeks to demonstrate the truth of Christianity in an objective fashion and in a more objective fashion than the classical approaches, the evidentialist approaches and any other, in my opinion, any other apologetic approach.

So it is it is nothing like fideism. But again, this is based on the many misunderstandings.

OK, now that was a Clark Pinnock. This is a quote from John Warwick Montgomery. Again, another noted

Christian thinker. He says Vantill eliminates. Check this out. Vantill eliminates all possibility, all possibility.

He eliminates all possibility of offering a positive demonstration of the truth of the

Christian view. I'm going to read that again. OK, this is a quote from once upon an a priori page 387.

John Warwick Montgomery. He says Vantill eliminates all possibility, all possibility of offering a positive demonstration of the truth of the

Christian view. And another Christian thinker, Gordon Lewis, says Vantill has left the faith defenseless.

He's left the faith defenseless. Given given the presuppositional approach, you cannot engage in apologetical defense because the nature of the methodology leaves it leaves the utilization of evidence and meaningful argumentation out of the picture.

I mean, you you you heard me read from Vantill and Bonson. Bonson says the gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny.

And again, Vantill, as I said before, he says it is impossible and useless. It's useless to seek to vindicate

Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only. And again, the critics of Vantill and Bonson and the presuppositional method have jumped on quotes like this to draw all sorts of implications that I think are are unwarranted.

As a matter of fact, they are so unwarranted that I don't even have to formulate my own responses to to some of these allegations.

When, in fact, actually Bonson and Vantill himself responded to or anticipated these sorts of objections themselves in their own writing.

You take, for example, the accusation that the one of the fallacious aspects of the presuppositional method is that it's circular.

I mean, when Vantill was developing his system, OK, when

Vantill was developing his system, it wasn't as though the accusation of circular reasoning just flew over his head.

And he was just like, well, you know, oh, yeah, maybe someone might might say I'm engaging in. No, of course, this is anticipated.

OK, and it's addressed explicitly, not implicitly. It's addressed explicitly all throughout

Vantill's writing. OK, so so let's let's actually read what Vantill actually believes with regards to evidences and and the use of reason.

OK, this is very important. So here's a quote from my credo. This is Vantill page 21.

If you have that that piece of literature there, he says, quote, and check this out. Quote, this is this is a presuppositionalist par excellence.

This is Cornelius Vantill. OK, the one who says apparently that we cannot demonstrate the truth of Christianity as a historical religion.

You know, doesn't make use, doesn't have a place for evidence and argumentation. Here's what

Vantill actually says. Quote, we present the message and evidence for the

Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the

Christian says he is, that non -Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved.

I'm going to read that again. Vantill says we present the message and evidence for the

Christian position as clearly as possible. And not only do we present the evidence of what he says, knowing that because man is what the

Christian says he is, that the non -Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved.

Now, I have a couple of other quotes here, but I want you to take a look at this. Not only does Vantill repudiate the notion that we do not appeal to evidence.

OK, he also puts forth the idea that not only when we we put forth evidence, the unbeliever is capable of apprehending the evidence, which combats another misconception of presuppositionalism, namely that because we argue that the unbelieving worldview cannot provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience or knowledge, that therefore

Vantill taught the unbeliever doesn't know anything. That's another common misconception, which, again, is not

Vantill's position. It was his position to say that given the truth of unbelieving presuppositions, man couldn't know anything.

But from within the Christian conception, Vantill would argue that all men know that God exists and that all men do not, while professing ignorance of God, while professing their unbelief, they do not always act that way, act in a way that is consistent with that thought, because the knowledge of God, the true genuine knowledge that they do have, that knowledge that they're suppressing is rearing its head.

And so the unbeliever is never consistent in that regard. So Vantill would never say that the unbeliever knows literally nothing.

He would affirm that unbelievers do have knowledge. And with regards to God, it is a knowledge that is suppressed.

OK, so Vantill says we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is what the

Christian says he is, the non -Christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved.

Vantill, agreeing with another noted theologian, B .B. Warfield, says, quote, the

Christian faith. Now, this is this is for those who think that presuppositionalism is fideism, nothing more than fideism.

Vantill says the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but is faith based on evidence.

OK, it's it's a faith based on evidence that that's Cornelius Vantill.

OK, that's Cornelius Vantill. It seems to me that what then what the critics are saying gives it kind of evinces this notion that they haven't even read what

Vantill is. They've just taken quotes and kind of taken them, taken them out of context. I mean, this is simple.

I mean, it literally is a faith based on evidence. OK, so this is not a blind faith.

Presuppositionalism is not fideism or anything like that. We do appeal to evidences.

We can appeal to various direct arguments. I know someone's asking a question with regards to the utilization of using evidences and direct arguments.

I'll address that more specifically later. But a presuppositionalist can do that. OK, and so I want you to keep that in mind.

OK, also agreeing with B .B. Warfield and Charles Hodge, other reform thinkers.

Vantill says, quote, Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason and is not irrational, but is capable of rational defense.

I'll read that again. This is from Common Grace and the Gospel page 184. Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason and is not irrational, but is capable of rational defense.

OK, so Christianity is capable of rational defense. This is not the these are not the words that someone who believes that argument and evidence is kind of, you know, hogwash.

That doesn't his words don't reflect someone who thinks that. But of course, that's what you're led to believe if you read simply the critics, the various criticism.

Now, again, the critics that I'm mentioning here are kind of of an older generation. And so there are probably more modern critics who perhaps clarify.

I mean, I haven't read everything out there. And so as a good friend of mine says, if the shoe doesn't fit, then don't wear it.

If you're a classical apologist and a critic of presuppositionalism and you don't use some of these criticisms, then fine.

That's fine. OK, but good. All right. So, yeah, someone's asking here, can

I cite my sources? Absolutely. Absolutely. So let me let me take those quotes real quick.

I'll read them real quick and give you the. The page is here.

OK, so Vantel says we present the message and evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible, knowing that because man is the man is what the

Christian says he is, the non -Christian will be able to understand it. And in the intellectual sense, that's my credo.

Page twenty one. Vantel agreeing with B .B. Warfield says, quote, the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but is faith based on evidence.

That's from a Christian theory of knowledge. Page two hundred and fifty. OK, and the other quote,

Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason and is not irrational, but is capable of rational defense.

That's common grace in the gospel. Page one hundred and eighty four. Do I have that book here?

I think I might. It might be in my other in my bedroom. I have another set of books, which some of my

Vantelian books are there. But and here and here's the kicker. OK, this is this is the next quote is one of my favorites.

OK, because it really dispels a lot of this mythology with regards to some of these criticisms of the presuppositional approach.

OK, and this was a struggle for me when I when I was studying apologetic methodology. I first came into apologetics through the classical stream.

OK, I was I came through the classical stream.

So I was I was reading, you know, a lot of William Lane Craig. Excuse me,

Josh McDowell, Frank Turek. I don't have enough faith to be an atheist, by the way. All books that I highly recommend.

I do recommend Christians read them, especially for presuppositionalists who tend to be really good at kind of worldview analysis, but not very sharp with regards to some of the specific evidences.

I think there's a good, healthy balance that can be had there. If you're reading, you're reading widely. OK, but I came to apologetics through that more classical stream.

And so when I was introduced to the presuppositional approach and was convinced of its truth, there was kind of this intellectual struggle.

I'm like, well, wait a minute. If I'm a presuppositionalist, does that mean I can't use these other things that I've learned so much from someone like a

Dr. Craig, a Frank Turek, a Gary Habermas or something like that? And I grappled. I tend to I tended to to flip to the side.

And as a presuppositionalist, I only use one form of argumentation. And then when I when

I felt evidential and I flopped to the other side, I would I would use these specific evidences without considering, you know, the presuppositionalism.

OK, there is a healthy balance to be had. OK, and this balance does not come.

And this is important. The balance does not come in jumping in and out of apologetic methodologies.

I just saw a post today in on Facebook and the the the quote said something to the effect of, you know, is it

OK to use presuppositional apologetics, evidential apologetics and classical apologetics?

And of course, people are, you know, writing out their comments and things like that. And and some people were saying, yeah,

I see the value in presuppositionalism, but then sometimes I use evidentialism. And this is completely based on a misunderstanding of what's going on here with regards to these apologetic methodologies.

You cannot use presuppositional methodology while simultaneously using evidentialism as an apologetic methodology.

I'm going to say that again. You can't be a presuppositionalist sometimes and an evidentialist other times.

You just can't do it. OK, it's these are methodologies. OK, and what the what the confusion comes in when when a presuppositionalist appeals to evidence, the fallacious line of reasoning of folks who think you can jump in and out of these methodologies, they think that when the presuppositionalist appeals to evidence, he is then therefore using evidentialism.

And when an evidentialist or a classicalist appeals to the importance of presuppositions and kind of argues in a presuppositional ish kind of way, that therefore they are using presuppositionalism.

This was an issue that came up when I had Dr. Jason Lyle and Dr. Hugh Ross on to talk about the whole young earth, old earth issue.

And in passing, Dr. Ross, who I greatly respect. And I thought that conversation was great.

But he said something, something to the effect that he said he tries to use all of the different methods, you know, given the context.

And you just you just can't do that. OK, when a presuppositionalist uses evidence, that's not the same as engaging in evidentialism as a methodology.

You see, such a misunderstanding presupposes that because the presuppositionalist can't appeal to evidence, that when he does appeal to evidence, he's now engaging in evidentialism.

That's not that's not the case. OK, the theological commitments that undergird a presuppositional methodology are necessary to the method.

So if you're not engaging in a form of argumentation that assumes those theological convictions undergirding the methodology, then you're not engaging in presuppositionalism.

You see what I'm saying? And appealing to presuppositions is not presuppositionalism.

Before, you know, before Van Til came along, there were many people who appeal to presuppositions.

We all have presuppositions. We'll hear, you know, in my criticisms of Frank Turek, when he said the problem with presuppositionalism is that it's circular.

And then he kind of shared why he didn't agree with the position. He then said, but I do agree that we all have presuppositions as though that was kind of a tipping of the hat to the presuppositionalist.

Well, wait a second. Whether you're a classicalist, an evidentialist or a presuppositionalist, we all agree that everyone has presuppositions.

That's not the issue. That's not the essential feature of presuppositional methodology. OK, we all we all recognize presuppositions.

OK, so you can't jump in and out of these methodologies in any consistent fashion.

But at the same time, it's not an either or with regards to using evidence, reason and argumentation.

For the presuppositionalist can use all of those things. So much so that I'm going to share a wonderful quote by Van Til.

And you might want to write this reference down after after I kind of quote it.

I'll quote the previous the previous quote and then I'll quote this one so you can kind of see, you know, what's going on here.

OK, so so Van Til says, quote, Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason and is not irrational, but is capable of rational defense.

It's capable of rational defense. And with regards to the theistic proofs,

OK, this is important. OK, with regards to the theistic proofs, that's the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument.

With regards to theistic proofs, Van Til says, quote, I do not reject theistic proofs.

I'm going to say that again. Van Til said, I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as to not compromise the doctrines of Scripture.

That is defense of the faith. Page one hundred and ninety seven. OK, and Christian theory of knowledge.

Page two ninety two. I believe that quote can be found in both those places. All right. So Van Til said, I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as to not compromise the doctrines of Scripture.

OK, he didn't reject them. All right. Now, you if those of you who are aware of, say,

Greg Bonson's criticisms of some of the theistic proofs, for example, Dr. Bonson was very critical of the cosmological argument.

Now, this is important. The rejection of traditional proofs for God's existence is not an essential feature of the presuppositional methodology.

I'm going to say that again. OK, the rejection of the traditional proofs is not an essential feature of the presuppositional method.

OK, you can be a presupposition list and think that the traditional proofs are completely valid and use them within their proper context.

Or you can be a presupposition list, but think that the traditional proofs, maybe some of them, maybe not all of them.

Some of them are logically incoherent or the conclusion doesn't logically follow. OK, but the rejection of them is not essential to being a presupposition list.

You can be a presupposition list and still, within certain contexts, use a cosmological argument. As I've said in the past episodes, you guys know

I'm a presupposition list. Obviously, I wouldn't doing this episode. I wrote out the cosmological argument on a napkin for someone and talked about, you know, whatever begins to exist has a cause.

The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause as a presupposition list. I can use that. There's nothing wrong with with appealing, appealing to that.

OK, so so so what's going on here is interesting. OK, Vantel says,

I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as to not compromise the doctrines of Scripture.

Now, that last portion is vitally important because that last portion of the quote really qualifies what

Vantel is trying to say. OK, he says, I do not reject theistic proofs, but merely insist on formulating them in such a way as to not compromise the doctrines of Scripture.

What doctrines of Scripture? What what doctrines of Scripture does Vantel not want to violate when he is engaging in the utilization of theistic proofs?

Well, we did talk about in a past video and in other contexts, the twin intellectual sins of autonomy and neutrality.

Any theistic argument that presents itself to the unbeliever in such a fashion that grants neutrality and autonomous reasoning, that is a unbiblical and unwarranted way of presenting theistic proofs.

And so that is what Vantel is talking about here. We want to we want to present proofs, but not in a way that assumes unbiblical conceptions of man's reasoning capacities and autonomous reasoning and neutrality.

OK, also not sacrificing the perspicuity of God's revelation, God's clear revelation.

We do not give arguments with the implicit assumption that God's existence is somehow unclear.

No, God's existence is very clear. OK, and when we give these proofs, they're just further establishment of what is clear.

And we're we're explaining a particular item of human experience as to how God, in fact, the

God that is clear, how he grounds those things. OK, so using theistic proofs are appropriate when they are joined together with Christian presuppositions.

And that's just like that's just the same as saying that the Christian worldview and the presuppositions inherent within the system provide the only the only intelligible or I'm sorry, they provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience is basically what we're saying.

OK, now, so so with all this said, what what gives right?

Can we appeal to evidences or not? OK, well, when we take Vantil's quotes, Bonson's quotes,

Halsey's quotes and we qualify them, I think it's obvious and we have kind of unfolded this already.

OK, now, Vantil saw no use. I want you to I want you to pay very much attention to this.

Vantil saw no use or validity in apologetic discussions of facts only.

If we go back to that quote that I mentioned before, OK, Vantil says this, quote, it is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate

Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only.

OK, that only is a very, very important qualifying term.

OK, the word only is key in understanding what Vantil is saying.

It implies that factual discussions are not absolutely ruled out, but are proper.

They're appropriate when combined with other necessary considerations, namely Christian presuppositions, because Christian presuppositions provide the necessary and cogent context in which our arguments even make sense.

All right. It's just to say that we don't talk about these facts and arguments in a neutral fashion.

These arguments only make sense because the Christian conception of reality is true, because the

Christian conception of reality is that by which meaningfulness can be had with regards to argumentation or anything else for that matter, not just argumentation, anything whatsoever.

OK, which is just the same as saying that Christianity provides the only necessary precondition for intelligible experience.

OK, now, when Bonson made his quote, Bonson didn't run away from the utilization of evidence either.

OK, look, let's read the Bonson quote again. OK, the quote, the gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for evidences and reasons that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny.

Notice the qualifying terms. The gospel does not cater to what rebellious man's demand.

OK, the gospel doesn't cater to rebellious man's demand for evidences.

Why? Because it's the rebellious man that sets up the test to accept a proposition or reject it based upon his own autonomy, which the presuppositionalist will argue is unbiblical and is not real.

Man is not actually autonomous even when he pretends to be. OK, so the gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for evidences and reasons that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny.

OK, when we give our argument and evidence, we give our argument and evidence, but we don't do it in a way that caters to the natural man's rebellion and to the natural man's faulty assumption of autonomous reasoning.

OK, notice the Vantill quote again. Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason.

OK, every legitimate. That means there are demands of reason that are illegitimate. OK, and the illegitimate demands of reasoning would include the presuppositions of autonomy and neutrality.

Those are illegitimate, not because simply because I'm a Christian and that's what Christianity teaches, that these are illegitimate.

But even philosophically speaking, once you actually critique autonomous reasoning, you see the history of philosophy bear this out.

It doesn't work. You cannot ground knowledge and intelligibility and things like that with autonomy.

OK, you are often reduced to various forms of skepticism or logical incoherency and things like that.

And you see this in David Hume. You see this in Immanuel Kant. OK, so so this is important. There are legitimate demands of reason and then there are illegitimate demands of reason.

Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason. OK. All right.

So what Vantill denies is the existence of some sort of autonomous authority, independent of Scripture and independent of the authority of God.

OK, Vantill does not deny verification of God in the Bible. He denies a certain kind of verification, a certain kind.

OK, he doesn't reject evidence. He rejects evidence presented in a certain way.

He doesn't reject argumentation for the Christian faith. He rejects a certain kind of argumentation.

This is clear when you read Colossians, where it speaks about beware of philosophy that is not after Christ, but is after the elementary principles of the world.

OK, the Bible is not rejecting the utilization of philosophy. It's rejecting a particular kind of philosophy, one that is not after Christ, but is after the elementary principles of this world.

OK, you take that concept over to Vantill. Vantill saying we could argue, we could appeal to evidence, but we have to do it in a specific way.

We reject a certain kind of way of presenting those things, the ways in which our appeal to man's autonomy and his neutral approach.

OK, Vantill says, quote, In as much as all things come under the authority of Scripture, nothing is epistemologically or ethically outside the

Bible. For that reason, the Christian can point to things physically or metaphysically outside the

Bible for verification. OK, we can point to things outside the Bible for verification as long as they are understood in accordance with scriptural authority.

OK, so when we say that the Bible, the Christian world provides these necessary preconditions for intelligible experience, that doesn't mean we can't appeal to things outside the

Bible. But when we appeal to things outside the Bible, they are always understood within the context of the authority of God's revelation.

That's very, very important. OK, we do not point to things outside the Bible in a neutral, autonomous way as though we can speak about these things independent of our broader worldview considerations.

Does that make sense? It's very, very important. OK, so Vantill's system, the presuppositional method, was not designed to forbid the discussion of facts, the use of reason, or even offering proof or verification.

All right, that's not what Vantill's methodology here, the presuppositional approach doesn't entail that. It doesn't imply that.

OK, because these tools are misapplied in apologetics, Vantill sought to remedy the misapplication of these, the use of reason, argumentation, and appeals to evidence.

Vantill writes, this is important, OK, Vantill writes, I do not artificially separate induction from deduction or reasoning about the facts of nature from reasoning in a priori analytical fashion about the nature of human consciousness.

On the contrary, I see induction and analytical reasoning as part of one's process of interpretation.

And then Vantill goes on to say, check this out, he goes on to say, I would therefore engage in historical apologetics.

I'm going to say that again. This is Vantill speaking. I would therefore engage in historical apologetics.

I do not personally do a great deal of this because my colleagues in the other departments of the seminary in which

I teach are doing it better. They do it better than I could. Every bit of historical investigation, he says, is bound to confirm the truth claims of the

Christian position. But, and this is a big but, this is important, but I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the nonbeliever's philosophy of facts.

Defense of the Faith, page 199. Okay. So there is a lot going on here.

Okay. That is helpful to understand and to be able to see through many of the faulty criticisms of the presuppositional approach.

Okay. We can use evidence. We can use argument. We use reason. And, and yes,

I have to use reason even before I read my Bible, but that's not inconsistent with having the Bible and God's revelation as my ultimate authority.

Okay. We don't, we don't confuse ontology and epistemology like is commonly said and repeated over and over again.

Okay. So this is very, very important. Again, more can be said. Again, I'm not a philosopher. I'm a theologian at heart.

So if I'm missing some, you know, if someone who is more philosophically astute than I am listens to this and see some maybe words that I've used that are ambiguous,

I do apologize. But all that to say many of the criticisms of the presuppositional approach are unwarranted.

And so hopefully the thoughts that I've been able to share here with the quotations and the, some of the commentary is helpful in clarifying those, those things.

All right. So with that said, now that I got it out of my system. Okay. Let me see if you have any questions.

Maybe, maybe I can hopefully answer your questions. I know we don't have a lot of people viewing right now, but if you can, if you do me a solid, if you think this, this particular episode, this topic was, was useful.

Share it on your pages or share it on wherever you think people will find it useful.

All right. I greatly appreciate that. And as I said before, if you're finding the content helpful,

I would really appreciate if you write a positive review on iTunes. Those definitely are very, very much appreciated.

Okay. All right. So let's take a look here. Let's see here. We're going to scroll down.

Let's see here. Okay. Here we go.

All right. Could you address the presuppositionalist denial of direct arguments? Okay. Well, first, let's make a distinction between direct arguments and indirect arguments.

Okay. An indirect argument is usually associated with the presuppositional form of argumentation because presuppositionalists tend to place great emphasis upon the transcendental argument.

So the transcendental argument for the proof of God's existence is not an appeal to a specific fact like, look over here.

It's not a direct appeal to this fact over here and say, look, therefore, God. Okay. The indirect aspect of the transcendental argument is that here is how

God is established, namely that if you do not begin with God, then you couldn't make sense out of anything at all.

So I'm not pointing to an item and saying, look, it leads to God. I'm saying unless you start where I'm starting, you couldn't even make sense out of the specific items and data that you can point to.

So in that sense, it is indirect. Okay. However, a direct argument would be something like a cosmological argument or something like that.

Now, when you say, could you address the presuppositionalist denial of direct arguments? Not all presuppositionalists deny the utilization of direct argumentation.

It's just the case that when we argue directly, we do not do so in a way that assumes neutrality and autonomy with regards to man's reasoning capacity.

Right. So when I argue for a particular item of human experience that points to God, that only makes sense if we already understand the world as God created it.

And my job within the apologetic encounter when I'm presenting the specific evidences is to present those evidences and explain that within the

Christian paradigm, this makes perfect sense. This direct thing that I've appealed to and I've given an argument for, right, let's say causation, makes complete sense given the

Christian conception of the world. It's kind of like real quick, like people would say something to the effect of like causality, therefore

God, you know, for the presuppositionalist, we can say God, therefore causality. Right. So that God is the necessary precondition for causality.

All right. So we don't necessarily have to deny direct arguments. You can use direct arguments as long as they're undergirded with Christian presuppositions.

Okay. And that's just to say you're going to say, you know, well, you're begging the question. We've already addressed that. But that's just to say that you're arguing consistently when

I appeal to a fact of the universe here and a fact of the universe there. And I construct an argument.

Right. I'm just being consistent as a Christian with my authority, which is God and his revelation.

You see. So when we're talking to the unbeliever, we can point to anything because we believe that everything points to God.

Okay. So I hope that makes a little sense. All right. Let's see here. Let's see.

I think the criticism is using evidences in direct arguments. Well, no, you can use. No, you can use.

That's that's just to say we can appeal to evidences for the truth of various propositions in, say, a deductive argument.

Okay. I can use deductive arguments if I want. But here's the kicker. Given the transcendental argument for the

Christian worldview, we would say that the Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for deductive arguments themselves.

You see, because the Christian context under it allows everything within the context to be intelligible, which would include reasoning capacity, logic, forms of argumentation like induction, deduction and all things like that.

Okay. All right. Let's see here. Let's see here.

Okay. So we have a question from James. Do you think the precept community is ever in danger of presenting tag in an autonomous fashion?

That's an interesting question. Let me see here. So if the argument is that unless you start with God, then you couldn't make sense of anything.

So if I'm start at the argument assumes God. I'm not sure that's a good question.

I'd have to come back to that. I don't think so. Any time in your form of argumentation, if you grant.

The unbelievers assumptions of neutrality and autonomy, then those those things can sneak can sneak in.

But I'd have to I'd actually have to think about that one. That's that's a good that's a good question. Okay. All right.

Slam. Slam are I don't know. I don't know how to pronounce that. I know we've interacted before, but I do apologize.

So here's the question. So are you assuming man's totally in a total inability to reason if it is not biblically based?

So you are assuming man's. So is it so are you assuming man's total inability to reason if it is not biblically based?

No, I'm saying that given the unbelievers presuppositions, reasoning would be impossible, but he does reason.

And the reason why he's able to reason and sometimes better than the Christian is not because his worldview makes reasoning intelligible.

It's because he is borrowing from the Christian worldview. You see, that's like saying that that, you know, are you saying that the unbeliever doesn't know anything?

No, I'm saying if what the unbeliever said about reality is true, he wouldn't know anything, but he does know something.

But what he knows is not because his worldview is true. It's because he's inconsistent with what he says with his mouth.

He says Christianity is false with his mouth. But the way he engages in argumentation and reasoning, he assumes things that only make sense of Christianity is true.

So that's what I mean there. Biblical presuppositions allow for everything else to have meaning and intelligibility.

When the unbeliever denies that, we can show given his denial, these things wouldn't make sense.

But because the unbeliever does in fact reason and reason very well often, we need to show that the reason why he's doing that is not because of the cogency and coherency of his own perspective, but because he needs to rely upon Christian presuppositions that he is suppressing.

And that is part of the apologetic encounter, revealing the knowledge of God that all people have and showing that he's actually relying on God while externally rejecting him.

Okay? All right. I hope that makes sense. All right. Let's see here. Let's see.

Okay. So MJ says,

I think these new presuppers are keen on using direct arguments in a quasi -positive way, but I have a hard time finding

Van Til actually formulating these arguments. Yeah. Yeah, I would agree with that. I think if you look in the writings of Van Til, there are certain things that he doesn't develop as much or discuss at length as much as we would like.

But again, that's why you have Van Til, and then you have others kind of passing the torch.

You have someone like Bonson and Frame, and you have others that are newer presuppers that try to work in ways with what was laid down as a foundation.

So yeah, I would agree with that. All right. Okay. So let's see here.

I guess, well, that seems to be it, unless there are any more questions. Let's see here.

Did I miss any? Ah, okay.

I am missing some. Here we go. Dag, bro. I didn't even see these. They're sneaking around, popping in the middle.

I didn't see that here. You know what I'm saying? I think that, let's see here. Let's see here.

I addressed that question. Ah, okay.

Here we go. All right. So can you expand on Christianity as a faith based on evidence?

How does that square with the Reformed understanding that the unbeliever cannot come to God unless God first saves him? Those are two different issues, okay?

Yes, in order to stop suppressing the truth in the way that the unbeliever does, there needs to be a work of the

Holy Spirit, right? But that doesn't mean that while you're suppressing that you don't have any truth. You do have truth, but you're suppressing it, and that's why it's sinful to do so, okay?

So when I say that Christianity is based on evidence, the evidence… I'll give you an example.

I'm not sure if it was after the debate with Gordon Stein and Greg Bonson, or was it Greg Bonson and Edward Tabash?

It was very funny. I laughed when I heard it. Someone asked the question, doesn't extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?

And Bonson, kind of joking around but semi -serious, says, well, you know what?

I'll take that. He says, extraordinary evidence requires… I'm sorry, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

And here is my extraordinary evidence, that if you deny the claims of the Christian faith, you couldn't make sense out of evidence.

Okay, so the strongest evidence for the truth of the Christian worldview is that if the Christian worldview were not true, the very conception of evidence wouldn't make sense, okay?

And that is a transcendental evidence, okay? It is all -encompassing, and it is inescapable.

And so in that sense, it is evidence. It's not evidence in an autonomous, neutral fashion that we determine is true or false based upon our own independent considerations, okay?

It requires to have a Christian understanding of the world to see it. And if you reject the

Christian understanding of the world, you couldn't make sense out of any evidence for anything, okay? Which is just to say what I often claim, that the

Christian worldview provides the only necessary precondition for intelligible experience, okay?

That's why Van Til often said, and Bonson often said, that the argument here is not that Christianity provides the best foundation for human reasoning and understanding, but it provides the only foundation that can make intelligible rationality, logic, knowledge, or whatever.

Again, it's a bold claim, and I get that. And making such a bold claim coupled with a really rough -around -the -edges personality can make for a very arrogant apologist.

I understand how that works. But again, the claims of Scripture are bold, right?

And we want to stand on the boldness of Scripture, and we want to, with gentleness and respect, argue in that very powerful way that the

Scripture presents itself, with standing on the authority of the Word of God. And we do not bow to the wisdom of the world, right?

Because the Bible says, let God be true, and every man a liar, okay? I want to trust what

God says in His Word, and I want that to be my foundation, as opposed to the shifting sands of human autonomy and neutrality, apparent neutrality and autonomy.

I want to stand on the truth of God's Word, and the truth of God's Word is inescapable. All men know that God exists, and they're without excuse.

When I engage in apologetics, I want to engage in apologetics in a way that does not forsake those biblical realities, okay?

All right, I hope that makes sense. Here we go. Let's minimize that. Let's see here.

Kyperion Burian asked the question, Not sure if this is related, but what camp of presuppositionalism would

I hold to? Vantilian, Framian, or are you exactly in the right spot? Okay, I would say, based on my understanding, again,

I'm not a professional scholar. I haven't read all of the material. A lot of the way in which

I learned presuppositional apologetics, like 90 % of what I've learned, was from Greg Bonson.

His writings, his lectures, his debates, that's kind of the predominant kind of school of thought.

Now, Bonson thought that he was simply parroting and explaining and expanding upon Vantil. So I would say that I'm more

Bonsonian slash Vantilian, but that doesn't mean

I agree with everything in Bonson. So for example, Bonson's criticisms of some of the traditional proofs, I would disagree with.

But again, as I said before, that's not an essential feature of presuppositionalism. So I would lean more on Bonson's side, but somewhere, you know,

I mean, Bonson really didn't focus on direct argumentation and things like that.

So maybe, I mean, a little bit of frame here, a little bit of Bonson, but more on the Bonson side. But again, these are just labels that we have.

People are different. I still have much to read up on to make sure I'm understanding certain distinctions correctly. But I would say

I'm a Bonsonian, Vantilian, and with a sprinkle, a sprinkle of John Frame.

OK. All right. Hopefully that makes sense. Let's see here. No, no, no, no, no.

OK. Next question here. Can you address Vantil's criticisms of brute facts?

Yeah. Vantil said that a brute fact is a mute fact. A brute fact is a fact that is there, can be understood independent of anything else.

It's just there. It's a fact. It's just it's brute. OK. And it's independent of, you know, of a broader interpretive context.

Vantil said that brute facts are mute facts because facts don't speak for themselves. Right. In order to understand a fact, it must be interpreted in light of certain presuppositions.

And so a fact only has meaning as it relates to a broader system of philosophy of fact.

If you don't have a philosophy of fact, how can you tell me what a fact is? You need to have a philosophy of fact that affects the way you interpret the fact such that that fact can have a particular meaning.

OK. So brute facts are mute because they require a worldview to make sense out of.

They don't just speak to us and say, look, this is what I know. Interpretation is required.

OK. And this is where you get into the issue that you have different worldviews. So you have different interpretations. And then we get to the question of which interpretation of the fact is correct.

And that's where you have the worldview apologetical interaction. OK. So, yeah.

So so we would I would reject as a presuppositionalist. Vantil would reject as a presuppositionalist. Bonson would reject this.

The reality of brute facts. OK. Brute facts are indeed mute facts. All right.

So let's see here. What is questions here that I I haven't seen when

I scrolled the first time. Anyway, there seems to be a lot of qualifying going on here in certain contexts, but not only every legitimate demand of reason, a certain kind, as long as they're understood.

Give me a context. Well, I think I first of all, qualifications are necessary.

They're necessary. OK. And in Vantil, his qualifications are important because when you don't consider his qualifications, it leads to misunderstanding of what he's actually trying to say.

OK. So and again, these particular words that I've used are taken from different aspects of Vantil's writing, but they're addressing the same issue.

So when I say in certain contexts, yeah, there are certain senses in which something could be true. If someone says, does the unbeliever know anything?

I can say in a sense, he knows certain things. And in another sense, he would know nothing.

OK. In one sense, he knows nothing that if he was granted his own presuppositions, then knowledge would be impossible.

So in that sense, he would know nothing. But in another sense, he does know something, namely that God exists because all men know that God exists.

So you could there's a sense in which you could know God and a sense in which you don't know God. OK, you could know

God in covenant or you could know God in rebellion. OK, so these words, these qualifying words are important.

OK. Every legitimate demand of reason. Yeah, there are legitimate demands of reason and illegitimate demands of reason.

So that that is an important qualification. OK, every legitimate. I mean, unless we're going to say that they're all, you know, all demands of reason are legitimate.

Well, no, of course there are some illegitimate demands. OK. When when the unbeliever says,

I won't believe in God unless you give me this evidence. And then he give you ask him, well, what would count as evidence?

And he gives you some standard of evidence. There's nothing wrong with pointing out. Oh, wait a minute. That standard is illegitimate.

And here's why. OK, because it assumes that the only kinds of arguments and evidence I can give is maybe

I can only appeal to empirical, you know, empirical means, you know, or only, you know, because if you have the assumption that science is the only means medium by which we can know things.

And then you put forth, you know, the assertion unless you prove it scientifically, then then

I won't accept it. Those are illegitimate. All right. For a good reason. You can show why that's the case.

And that line of thinking is fallacious. OK. All right. Let's see here.

Let's see. I want to skip anything. Yes. OK, I see you got a fresh fade looking spiffy.

When are we going to hit the club? The only time I even got near a club is when

I was out with some friends in Florida. I'm in I'm on Long Island and I had to go into a club to use the bathroom.

It was the only place I think was popular music. That's it. I'm a church boy. I grew up in church, didn't you know, don't know much about the club life.

But yes, you know, I got the fresh fade. You know, I'm liking it. Yeah. So I've had this

I've had this this haircut since seventh grade, seventh grade. So we're keeping it we're keeping it original here.

Let's see here. If I skip the question. There we go.

That's a good one. So so so Angel says man can reason he cannot account for reason without God.

I would agree with that. OK, man does reason man does know things, but he can't account for those things given his rejection of God.

OK, so I would I would agree. I think that's a great a great short way of summarizing it there. All right.

Let's see here. OK, so Plantinga's Bulldog says, what if the atheist or the other nonbeliever who doesn't hold to a revealed religion says they don't think you need special and general revelation in order to be able to possess knowledge?

What would you say? Well, again, this is just an assertion of of autonomy, isn't it?

I don't need God's revelation in any way, shape or form, general or special to come to nothing.

That's just an assertion of his autonomy. And so at that point, we would we would challenge his autonomy.

Right. You know, tell me something, you know, give me your worldview, ground knowledge within your own worldview perspective.

And that's what we want them to do. That's why we when we lay out the transcendental argument, we want the unbeliever to, given his own

God rejecting resources, build knowledge, build a worldview that's cogent, coherent, can ground the provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.

And at that point, when they unpack their worldview perspective and we unpack ours, then we interact.

Right. We interact. Now, let me let me simplify this. OK, when

I say that he is asserting his own autonomy. OK, plant planting his bulldog. This is for you. OK, let's simplify this.

OK. All right. Planting his bulldog asked. This is a good question. OK. The question, as I'm reading it, assumes that this particular atheist is asserting their own autonomy.

Now, when I'm interacting, let's get practical here. When I'm interacting with the unbeliever, I'm not necessarily using words like autonomy, neutrality or anything like that.

OK, you can. But in our day to day conversations, we're not going to talk like that. OK, but it is important for you to acknowledge within the course of the interaction that neutrality and autonomy is being assumed.

So I don't have to mention it. I don't have to use those complicated words. But if I acknowledge. Wait a minute. In my mind, this person is assuming neutrality.

What kind of questions can I ask? What strategic questions can I ask this person to show them that they actually do need general and special revelation of God to possess knowledge?

You see what I'm saying? So so so you have to think of questions to draw out the fact that when he rejects

God's revelation, he can't have knowledge. And so that's going to be a strategy of asking the right questions.

You know, if someone says, well, I don't think you need special or general revelation to gain knowledge. I'd be like, OK, well, well, how how what is knowledge on your view and how is it gained?

That's it. Ask the question and see what they say. Well, see what they say. Well, I think knowledge is gained through sense perception. Right. And so I'd ask,

OK, sense. So so sense. Is all knowledge gained through sense perception? You know, depending on who you're talking to.

Right. Suppose the person says, yeah, you know, all knowledge comes through senses. OK. OK. So now we perform a reductio on that specific that specific response.

OK. Reductio ad absurdum is to reduce the position, the person's position to absurdity. If all knowledge comes through sensation, how did they come to know that?

How did they come to know that proposition, that true claim? All knowledge comes through sensation. Did you learn that through sensation?

Because if you didn't, then you can't know that all knowledge comes through through sensation. You see what I'm saying? So it's literally self -refuting.

So you can say something to that effect. I mean, it's going to be different depending on who you talk to. Someone might you might not be talking to like a bare empiricist who thinks all knowledge comes through sensation.

But I want you to challenge that person to give you a theory of knowledge that does not rely upon the resources of God's revelation.

And I would argue you can't do it. And when he tries to do it, it's not knowledge. You can reduce that person's perspective either to a logical incoherency or to a complete and utter skepticism.

And this was the case with my debate with Seuris the Skeptic, which is one of the first videos on my channel.

If you look down all the way at the bottom, you scroll down. I debated a guy by the name of Seuris the Skeptic. He had an epistemology of pragmatism and given his...

I don't think I mentioned it in the debate. Maybe I did, but I recognized that he was assuming neutrality and autonomy.

And so I just challenged him. I just asked him straight out, on your view, can man attain objective truth about reality?

Can we know truth in a way such that we could actually know it? And I think

Seuris the Skeptic, I forgot his real name, I think it's Christopher something, he knew where I was going with this.

He said, well, I can give you a definition of truth. And I was like, well, that's not what I'm asking.

I'm asking, given your God denying view, you don't need revelation, given your view, can you know objective truth about reality?

And eventually he says, no. He admitted, he's like, I can't.

And with a pragmatist epistemology, he can't get outside himself.

In philosophy, we call this the egocentric predicament. He can't get outside himself. He's going to be reduced to some way, shape or form to a form of skepticism.

OK, so you can go about it in different ways. All right. I think that's hopefully that's helpful in a more simplistic, simplistic way.

OK, it's hard to break it down sometimes, but I hope that helps. Let's see here.

Let's see here. So Angel says, how could an atheist account for the laws of nature? Is it not the case that their only option would be to conclude that bodies in and of themselves intelligently know and conspire to obey, follow laws?

Well, we want to clarify that when you speak about the laws of nature, the laws of nature are descriptions.

They're regular, regulative descriptions of how nature is behaving. And so when nature behaves in a normative fashion and, you know, like when

I when I drop the cup, it always falls down. You have this normativity about it.

Then we call them laws. Right. That's a law. So if I let go, the thing's going to drop.

OK, the problem is not only can you not account for laws of nature, but even as mere descriptions, when you are engaging in this type of reason, you run flat into the issue of the problem of induction.

OK, so the problem of induction is the issue of taking repeatable cases of past regularities and projecting them into future cases.

So we ask the question, how do you know that the future will be like the past? And the answer is, well, it's always been that way in the past.

Yeah. But we're asking, how do you know in the future will be like the past? You see, to answer that question, you have to engage in circular reasoning, in which case you couldn't know that the future is going to be like the past.

OK, if you say the future will be like the past because A, B and C, you're not getting that just from your observations.

You're inserting kind of a philosophical assumption as to what you think about the nature of reality and things like that.

OK. All right. And I would say that given the unbelieving world, you couldn't you couldn't answer the problem of induction.

But the Christian, I think, has a good answer for that. So I apologize. Nate is saying

I missed the question. Let me see. Let me see if I can find it. It's hard to kind of scroll through some of these.

And OK, here we go. OK, I got the question here. Let's see here.

So Nate asks, so is it wrong for a Christian to say they are Christian because of the evidence?

Yes, I would think that that's wrong. OK, when I say the Christian, the truth of the

Christian faith is a faith based on evidence. What I'm saying is that there is evidence for the Christian faith. And because God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of evidence itself.

The greatest evidence is that if you reject the Christian worldview, you couldn't make sense out of evidence. But that's not why

I'm a Christian. OK. And I think there's that important distinction between the work of the spirit and the use of evidences and things like that.

I do believe that the reason why I'm a Christian is because of the work of the spirit.

You see, his spirit bears witness to our spirit, that we are children of God. So the

Bible says it gets in Romans somewhere. OK, so the reason why I'm a Christian is because of the miraculous work of the spirit of God.

So there is a difference between and Dr. Craig, William Lane Craig, often makes this distinction.

He says that there's a difference between how we know Christianity is true and how we show Christianity to be true.

OK, I know Christianity is true because of the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. OK, in that sense, my faith isn't based on the evidence, but the

Christian faith has evidence for it. And it's not just any old evidence that points to the probability of Christianity's truth.

But it's a if you get down to the foundation is a transcendental evidence such that the

Christian worldview is true by the impossibility of the contrary. And of course, we work that out throughout the course of the apologetic encounter.

It's how we show Christianity to be true. We appeal to argument and evidence. The presuppositions will often appeal to the form of argumentation that takes that transcendental twist because it's all encompassing.

Right. But we could, given the proper context, appeal to certain facts. Right. I can I can point to any item of human experience, science, causation, induction, laws of nature, beauty, aesthetics, things like that.

I can point to any one of those and ask what worldview provides a context in which something like that even makes sense.

So I think science, if you have a piece of a piece of paper, OK, you have a notebook, you open up the notebook.

There are two sides of the page. OK, you have the Christian worldview on one side and the non -Christian worldview on the other.

OK. And on the top of the page, you have some item of human experience. You could fill that top part with anything you want.

Science, art and beauty, aesthetics, morality, history, you know, anything.

You can put it right there. And you ask which side of the page provides if we made a list of the items within that worldview, which side of the page provides the necessary preconditions for any item of human experience we might put on top of the page.

And you will find that if you list, say, if you're an atheist, a naturalist, you list these items. You'll find that they won't provide those necessary preconditions, especially when you get when you speak to a naturalist about logic, you know, something like immaterial, universal, conceptual laws.

So that's an interesting and helpful way to excuse me, to see this issue.

Think two sides of a page, a specific item of human experience. OK, which worldview provides the undergirding presuppositions.

OK, so I wouldn't say all that to say to get back to the beginning of the question. I wouldn't say that I'm a Christian because of the evidence, but I would say that Christ saved me through the working power of his spirit.

And not only did he save me to see the truth of of his word, but also it happens to be the case that there is evidence for it.

And not just shabby evidence that points to the probability of it, but it's evidence that is transcendental in nature, such that it is true by the impossibility of the contrary.

OK, hope that makes sense. All right. Let's see here. I'm an

I'm an Andersonian. Yes. James Anderson is an excellent presuppositionalist. We might differ on some aspects here and there, but he's definitely excellent.

Enjoyed him. Enjoyed having him on the show. Let's see. All right.

I think I think that is it. Let's see here. OK, I got one more question.

Let's see here. OK, Manuel says, hi,

Eli, from physics. What are your favorite evidences? I study physics next to my

PhD. OK. Yeah. Now this gets into this gets into the interesting thing with regards to the young earth, old earth perspective.

So do I appeal to like cosmology and like Big Bang cosmology and things like that? Well, with regards to how to understand

Big Bang cosmology, astrophysics and things like that, from the perspectives of, say, like young earth, older, I'm still undecided.

But from a presuppositional perspective, I could appeal to anything in physics because I believe the

Christian worldview provides the necessary preconditions for the intelligibility of anything in physics. So if you know physics enough of the details and they're and the way you interpret the items of physics within a consistent

Christian worldview, then I think there is some flexibility as to how to appeal to this, that or the other thing.

OK, so when you say my favorite evidences from physics, I suppose I suppose the expansion of the universe is is my favorite because expansion, you go backwards and you're kind of, you know, you're kind of contracting.

There we go. I didn't know the word. And so that's a good kind of empirical way to show like, hey, you know, you know what brought the universe into existence.

So I would say that the expansion of the universe, maybe if that's

Big Bang cosmology, I know that with from a young earth perspective, I mean, you could affirm the expansion of the universe while not also holding to like the deep time concept.

So, again, I'm kind of undecided in that area, but I usually do appeal to the expansion of the universe when we when

I'm on that specific topic. OK. All right. Let's see. OK, I said the bodies of which you must know until the end of themselves.

OK, let's see here. OK, so here's a clarification of a question. And this will be my last one.

Yeah. Real quick. So the let's see here.

Let's go to this one here. So, oh, boy, Eli, Jason Lyle's ears just perked up. Expansion doesn't imply expansion from a singularity.

Yeah. This is not my area of expertise. OK, I'm biased because of my introduction to apologetics was through the works of old creationist and, you know,

William Lane Craig defending the second premise of the cosmological argument using his the

Big Bang cosmology model. So my understanding of cosmology in my head is the Big Bang cosmological model.

Now, I came later to the issues of the young earth understanding and there's still some issues that I need to work. So I'm more than happy to have

Dr. Lyle straighten me out on these points. That's not a problem for me. I'm always I'm always open to learning.

But that said, let me go back to Angel's question here. You said I said that bodies, if atheism were true, must know intelligently in and of themselves to conveniently act according to the manner of laws that they conspire to do so repeatedly.

Obviously, when you say bodies, I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you referring to impersonal physical objects or are you talking about people acting in nature with regularity?

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying. So if you can clarify your question, then

I would let's see if you maybe you did. Hold up. This is absurd. This is ultimate.

Let's see. The ultimate cause of atheism is this notion of body. OK, so you said the ultimate cause of atheism is this notion of bodies having, as it were, an ultimate, complete and independent reality in and of themselves.

Yeah, I don't. That's still too ambiguous to me. I'm not sure what you're getting at there.

So. All right. OK, so I don't want to lose my voice, so I'm going to stop here.

I hope this is helpful a little. I know there's a lot of questions there. And again, I'm sorry,

I'm not really a sciencey kind of guy. I'm more of philosophical, theological sort of thinker.

So if I flummoxed some of the cosmological issues and things on physics and stuff like that,

I do apologize. But ultimately speaking, I hope you understand that from a presuppositional perspective, evidence and argumentation is not inconsistent with a presuppositional framework.

And so I hope that much has been made clear. All right. Well, with all that being said, thank you so much for listening once again.

It would be greatly appreciated if you went on iTunes, if you listen to the show, also through podcast to leave a review, preferably a positive one.

OK. And and also stay tuned to hopefully shortly we will be having as Revealed Apologetics.

We having a website up, which I'll also be doing some writing and things like that. And I am in the process of writing the the presupp answer book.

So I have been writing. It's been moving slowly because I've been busy, but I have been adding to it as often as I as I can.

And so, you know, stay tuned for that. And also, if you want to support Revealed Apologetics financially, it would be greatly appreciated as well.

That's what helps pay for tech stuff, lights and additions to the camera to make the quality better.

Here's the thing. I know that there are a lot of presuppositionalists out there, but presuppositionalists tend to get a bad rap.

And what I feel very blessed by this show is that there have been a lot of positive feedback with regards to, you know, what's going on on this show and kind of shows presuppositionalist presuppositionalism from a more positive light.

So I do appreciate folks are recognizing that that is very intentional. I am trying to do that. And so hopefully with the support of those who are listening and others, this show can grow and reach a wider audience with what

I think is biblical truth and helpful resources for people who are seeking to defend the

Christian faith in a way that is consistent with Scripture. So ultimately, I love my classical brothers, my evidential brothers.

We're all in the fight together. But of course, these internal discussions, I think, are still important. And so that's why

I do what I do. So that's all for today. Thank you so much for listening and giving me your questions.