Ask Me Anything LIVESTREAM!

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Iyalla, and today I am all by myself. There is no guest for today. It's just little old me on this Ask Me Anything live stream.

I have no idea who will be watching. I have no idea. I just got a notification here.

I'm in troubles and this may be a show Facebook event. Hmm, okay.

Well, I have no idea who will be watching, but I will try my best to move through some questions. I'm having a technical difficulty here. I think it's having trouble connecting to Facebook,.

Which is odd. Hmm, let's see here. Okay, continue.

Sorry, this is what happens when you go live.

That's just the way it goes.

Let's see here.

Yeah, there seems to be some trouble on Facebook. Oh, well, I guess we're just gonna have to work with what we have. Well, at any rate, welcome to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Iyalla, and I will be taking questions if there are any, okay?

I have a list of questions that I can cover and I will cover if the chat is silent. I already have two questions up and I'll kinda just share some things coming up to give an opportunity for people to come in.

That's usually how it works. I don't wanna start too early with just a few people,.

So we'll see.

But today, we have the Ask Me Anything livestream. Next Monday, which is December 18th, I believe, I'll be having my friend Joshua Pillows and another friend of mine, Matt Yester, to do a response video to a video that has been recently put out by David Pallman, who has been on the show once before.

I moderated a debate between himself and Joshua Pillows on the topic of presuppositionalism versus evidentialism, kind of an apologetics methodology debate, and went very well, in my opinion. But he does have, David Pallman has many criticisms of presuppositionalism, and so I will be responding to a recent video that he put out.

And so I'm looking forward to doing that. Now, I just wanna give a heads up for people who are just coming in. There is a, I guess, an issue with this video connecting to Facebook. So I don't know if anyone is on Facebook.

If you can share this and let people know that it's happening on Facebook, as I have a lot of people, I have a lot of people who watch through Facebook. So I don't know why there's an issue there, but if someone could share it, that'd be great and would really appreciate it.

So, all right, well, let's jump right in here. Oh, ooh, I have to say, so on January 15th, my PresuppU premium course will be beginning. There are folks signing up already. This is a five-week class on presuppositional apologetics where folks sign up through the website,.

Revealedapologetics .org.

And I will be meeting with the students who sign up once a week for five weeks where we go deeper into the content of the recorded lectures and things like that. So if you're interested in doing a more formal walkthrough, kind of a classroom type of setting to learn presuppositional apologetics, you can do that.

I believe there's a link in this video. So, and then a great way to support the ministry as well. All right, well, let's jump right into some of the questions. So again, for folks who are just coming in, this is an Ask Me Anything live stream.

So literally you could ask me anything you want, okay? And I will try my best to answer any question pertaining to theology, presuppositional apologetic methodology, transcendental argumentation, anything along those lines, even eschatology.

I'm, interestingly enough, I got into presuppositional apologetics through eschatology. It was, what book was it? It was a book that really changed my perspective. I think it was Gary DeMar's book, Last Day's Madness, The Obsession of the Modern Church.

And that's what got me hooked to American vision back in the day. And then that exposed me to Greg Bonson. And of course that changed my entire apologetics context. So there you go. That's an interesting relationship there between eschatology and presupp.

But nevertheless, let's see here. Let's get through some of the questions. Now, first one's a doozy. So I'm gonna try my best to answer this efficiently. So let's take a look. Discernible Inferences, I imagine that is his YouTube name.

That would be a weird name if it was someone's actual name. But he says here, this might be long. No need to read it all if it's too much of a ramble. Well, lucky for you, Discernible Inferences, this is an Ask Me Anything livestream.

So I'm totally open to reading someone's rambling. So let's take a look. He says, I assume the impossibility of the contrary is a logical impossibility. Okay, so I'll say that again. He assumes the impossibility of the contrary is a logical impossibility.

Denying Christianity commits me to two logically incompatible statements, like saying I am a married bachelor. Christianity is false, or the Trinity does not exist. Do these assertions commit me to contradictions like I am a married bachelor?

And then he says here, if they don't commit me to a contradiction, what does the impossibility of the contrary even mean? Wow, that's a very interesting question. So let's take a look. Let's say, let's put this one up here.

He says, I assume the impossibility of the contrary is a logical impossibility. Hmm, that's an interesting statement. Well, that sounds problematic as I'm reading it. So the statement, the impossibility of the contrary is logically impossible, appears to me that that's a self-refuting, or at least logically problematic statement.

So yeah, I think that's, yeah, there's a problem there. So this is because it seems that to assert that it is logically impossible for any contrary statement to be logically impossible, right, if we interpret the statement strictly, that does seem to lead to a contradiction.

So the phrase, the impossibility of the contrary is often used to express the idea that a particular proposition or a statement is so well-supported or evident that its opposite is inconceivable or logically impossible.

So when we talk about the impossibility of the contrary, we're typically talking within the context of transcendental arguments, which are anti-skeptical arguments that seek to secure a certain truth, like a proposition, like the Christian worldview is true, or things like when we're appealing to logic, things that are necessary preconditions for the meaningfulness of other things, okay?

So when you apply that statement to itself, if we take the statement to mean that it's logically impossible for any contrary statement to be logically impossible, that seems like a contradiction. So I think the problem is with the question itself.

The question itself, I think, is incoherent. So those would be my thoughts on that. That seems a little interesting. Hmm, yeah, I assume the impossibility of the contrary is a logical impossibility. That seems contradictory to me, you know?

Those are my thoughts there. Again, if the question is ill-formed, then the rest of the question really falls by the wayside. It's really incoherent at the start. So hope that makes sense. Those are my thoughts on there, man.

Okay, Brandon, Germany, asks, who's your favorite living apologist? Oh, man, that's a good question. Now, okay, so I love to listen to debates. And I guess I'd have to say Dr. James White. I mean, he's got some great debates with Muslims.

I love his debates on Calvinism. And he's got so many debates on such a wide variety of topics. I mean, you see, for example, a vast difference between, say, someone like James White and someone like Leighton Flowers, for example.

So Leighton Flowers tends to do a lot of kind of anti-Calvinist content. And James White will respond to some of those things, but he's got a wide range of topics that he covers. And so I see an interesting balance within the ministry of Dr. White, especially with respect to his debates and the topics he covers.

So I've learned a great deal from James. And I might disagree with him on certain things, but a lot of things, we're in a lot of agreement. And I think he does a great job in the area of debate. That's really his expertise.

And so I'd have to say my favorite living apologist would have to be Dr. James White.

And who else?

Then you have the debaters, then you have the writers. I really like James Anderson, Dr. James Anderson, of Reform Theological Seminary, okay? He's got some good articles and his blog, Analogical Thoughts, has been really helpful.

Hmm, yeah, I think that's it.

I'd have to think about that one.

That's a good question.

All my favorite people are dead, which by the way, speaking of, today is December 11th. This is the day that Dr. Greg Bonson passed away back in 1995, I think. So as everyone knows, Greg Bonson is my favorite apologist of all time.

I greatly influenced my own thinking on so many different levels that go beyond apologetics. He's taught me more than anyone to think on a worldview level. It was through listening through to his lectures and his teachings and reading his books that I really came to appreciate worldview thinking.

Instead of just thinking of things in an isolated fashion, he taught me how to see things within a context. And of course, within a thoroughly biblical context. So I would say, again, passed away, but since it is the anniversary of Dr. Bonson's passing, even though he's no longer with us, I'm gonna put him in there anyway.

He's alive technically, right? He's with the Lord, so there you go. He's my favorite apologist. I like Van Til, but this might get people ruffled. While I love Van Til, I'm not very keen on his writing.

He is very difficult to follow. One of my favorite Christian philosophers to read, and I feel a strong sense of clarity in the way that he communicates, although I viciously disagree with him on some key issues, especially with respect to apologetic methodology, is actually Dr. Gordon Clark.

So I'm gonna throw a bone to the Clarkians. I don't agree with Dr. Gordon Clark on some key issues, especially his criticisms of presuppositionalism and his flavor of presuppositionalism. But man, I love the way he writes.

He is a very logical and very clear communicator. And so in that respect, I think with respect to clarity, I think Clark has it over Van Til. But with respect to content, I think Van Til has it over Gordon Clark.

So there you go.

All right, here, Frank Odom says, good evening from West Central Texas. Well, hello, Christ or chaos? I think that's a clubhouse room, or maybe, it is a clubhouse room, but I don't know if they're just saying that because it's kind of a presuppositional catchphrase.

But nevertheless, White Lily, wait, what? I caught an actual live and not listening, not live while cooking dinner.

That's my question.

Wait, what?

And not listening, not while I'm cooking. Okay, I'm not sure what the question is there. All right, Humble Clay asks my, that is a personal question. What is my personal eschatology? Yeah, my personal eschatology, I am a partial preterist and a post-millennialist, okay?

For example, I think that Matthew 24, Luke 21, Mark 13, the Olivet Discourse is referring to events that describe the events leading up to and including the destruction of Jerusalem. I believe that much of Revelation had a specific context to the original audience that many who believe the events of Revelation are in our future.

I do hold to the position that there is a large variety of Revelation that actually was already fulfilled. But of course, I do see the bodily return of Christ and the resurrection and all those sorts of things still in our future.

So I'm a partial preterist, not to be confused with hyper or full preterism. Yep, so that's my position. Again, there's so much more to that. But I'm flexible. I grew up pre-millennial dispensational, but I came to hold to a partial preterist position by the influence of people like Gary DeMar, Ken Gentry, and of course, Dr. Greg Bonson.

Now, I know there's some issues. I haven't been following issues relating to Gary DeMar. There seems to be, looking from afar, not following along, it seems that he may have already or is currently slipping into a full preterist position.

And if so, of course, I would take strong disagreement with him. But be that as it may, his book, back in the day when I first got into these issues, his book, Last Day's Madness, The Obsession of the Modern Church was very, it was a game changer for me in terms of my understanding of eschatological issues.

So there you go.

That's my eschatology in thumbnail sketch. K .S. Mung, greetings to you from India. Well, greetings back to you. That's super cool to know that people all around the world are checking this stuff out.

Let's see here.

Cesar, is it Vigil Ruiz? I'm Puerto Rican, so I should be able to pronounce this, but I apologize. I'm not a really good Puerto Rican. My Spanish is terrible. Are you planning on responding to David Polman's video critique on a precept understanding of circular reasoning in an ultimate sense?

Yeah, absolutely. That's literally the next live stream. That's going to be December 18th. I have two guests on with me. We're going to be playing the video and responding. I'm not going to have this drawn out.

I know that there is, David Polman's a very vocal critic of presuppositionalism. I don't want to make this into like a thing where we go back and forth and stuff like that. We're going to do a response video and hopefully it's useful for people who are interested in issues of apologetic methodology, especially as it is compared to evidentialism and things like that.

Let me just say this. David holds to some interesting philosophical perspectives and theological perspectives. And it's important to realize that the reason why we differ so much is that we are starting from different theological foundations, right?

Our apologetic is directly influenced by the theological soil out of which it comes, okay? So again, he's a Arminian. I'm a Calvinist. I have certain views of epistemology that is going to differ with David's.

But David's, he's a cool guy. I know some people on the Presupp camp might not like him. We've had some back and forths a little bit on Facebook comments and whatnot. But I mean, I have no beef with David.

I think he's a smart guy. I think he's a cool guy. We just have some disagreements and they're important. But there you go. We will be doing a response to that. That is next Monday at 9 p .m. Eastern.

The link is actually already up on the YouTube channel. So folks can check that out and click that little button that lets you get notified when we start. So I'm looking forward to doing that. And I actually wanna do more response videos sort of things.

I tend to do live because no editing is required and I don't have time to edit. So doing things live, I'm gonna have to be doing things rough and ready, but I enjoy it. And hopefully folks will enjoy a presuppositional application to various critiques via kind of a live format.

So there you go. We're definitely gonna be doing that.

Let's see here.

Brandon Germany says, what is the most important subject that apologists should be focusing on right now? Well, I did recently have Emilio Ramos on to talk about artificial intelligence and what he's defined as what he called the new apologetic and where he addresses new issues, current issues that he thinks is going to be important for Christians to engage in today.

So again, not an area that I'm familiar with, but here's the thing. When someone asks the question, what is the most important subject? They'll, you know, fill in the blank. I think what is going to be the most important is gonna depend on the context in which you are in, right?

For example, you know, if my context is speaking with Mormons, the most important thing for me to deal with is to be able to address Mormonism and not necessarily some topic that I'm not really encountering, right?

Now, of course, it's important to know about those things, but we need to, as one person said, I don't, I can't quote the name, but I summed up in this phrase, we should grow where we're planted, okay?

God has placed us in a particular context, and I think we should seek to flourish in those contexts that God has placed us in. Be faithful, preach the gospel, defend the faith, and the manner in which we do that is going to depend on the context.

Of course, the issue of methodology won't change. We're always, as presuppositionalists, we're gonna be committed to the lordship of Jesus Christ, the authority of scripture and whatnot, and so the most important thing that apologists should be engaged in, really, is knowing the Christian worldview and living consistently with it and thinking consistently with it as we seek to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ, even the thoughts of the unbeliever, and that includes the unbelievers, whatever flavor or variety of unbelief that you are engaging in.

So I really think it's important that the Christian is engaged in scripture study, knowing their theology, understanding how everything we believe fits within the context of a Christian worldview, and then consistently applying those truths to the various contexts of unbelief that we're placed in.

This is why one of my favorite definitions of apologetics, the first time I read it, was by Scott Oliphant, Dr. Scott Oliphant at Westminster Theological Seminary. I don't know if this is original to him, but he said something along the lines that apologetics is Christian theology applied to unbelief.

Apologetics is Christian theology applied to unbelief, and I think that's a really, really helpful way to contextualize what the Christian should be focusing on, is knowing Christian truth and applying it to unbelief in a consistent and faithful way.

So there you go. That's how I would answer that question here. Frank Odom says, in my next life, when I have time, I'll learn Greek. That's it, that's right, when you have time. Well, I tried taking Greek in seminary.

I took Greek and Hebrew tools, which was kind of a very, very, very, very soft introduction to Greek.

It's hard.

It's more fun when you are studying Greek and you are not being graded. It is not fun when you are pressed for time, trying to study and doing the assignments before the due date, and then you're also trying to balance life.

It was a very scary time for me when I did that. I could read Greek, the words. I don't know what I'm saying, and I don't remember all the rules. So there you go. Yeah, if you have time, do it. I agree, I'm in full agreement with what Dr. James White has often shared in various talks, in various contexts.

He says that the two most useful topics to study that helped him in doing apologetics is church history and being familiar with the original languages. And that's two areas that I really need to, I mean, I too don't have time to learn Greek, and so unfortunately, but I know people who know Greek, and so there's a lot of good resources out there.

But church history, that's definitely something that I need to beef up on. It is hugely important, especially when you're interacting with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox folks. They tend to be more church history conscious, okay?

And I just, it's not an area that I've spent too much time. I'm sufficiently educated in church history that you can't pull one over me. But in terms of the details of specific quotations and specific thinkers in church history, you know, Reformation, I'm familiar with the Reformation.

Once you start getting into those early church fathers, things do get a little fuzzy for me, and that's an area that I need to beef up on. So yeah, the original languages and church history, I think I agree with Dr. White.

That is a very important thing that many Christians should be engaging in, especially if you're doing apologetics. Let's see, yeah, what about Matt Slick? Well, yeah, yeah, Matt Slick. I'll tell you right now what Matt Slick has taught me.

Matt Slick has taught me, if I can sound like the cowardly lion from the Wizard of Oz, he taught me courage, okay? Now, someone might listen to Matt Slick and be like, man, he seems really rude and obnoxious.

Now, Matt's a good friend of mine, and I don't find him obnoxious, but I hear people when they have,.

He can be difficult in conversation, right,.

Especially when he's talking to atheists and whatnot. But what I learned, an invaluable lesson that I learned from Matt is confidence and sticking to a question, that when a question exposes a weakness in a position, Matt is excellent at relentlessly pursuing that question into the ground, whether you agree with him, whether you like his apologetics, whether you, you know, whatever the case may be.

That is something that I've learned from him by listening to his radio show before I even knew who he was, I personally met him. Those conversations and debates, those informal debates have really, really helped me.

Another thing that I really appreciated about Matt, besides his friendship, I genuinely, I see him as a good friend and he's helped me in so many different ways with personal advice and things like that.

But one thing that I love about Matt is that when I get bogged down in the deep theology and philosophy and all that kind of stuff, which is super important, what I appreciate about Matt is that when I listen to him, he always brings things back to the scriptures.

It was one of the things that I was struck by him when I first listened to him was that he has a great memory in terms of memorizing scripture. Now, whether you agree with his interpretations or all that kind of stuff, you have to give him this, he's memorized a lot of scripture and it is very helpful in various contexts.

And so he reminds me the importance of getting back to the scriptures and not being so lost in some of those abstract philosophical theological discussions, which are super important, but we need to make sure that we're grounded and we always come back to the scripture.

So in that respect, I have greatly appreciated Matt's friendship and his example personally to me and in my interactions with him. So yeah, definitely Matt is awesome.

Let's see here.

Let's see here.

So Derp Jones, that sounds cool. I could hear it in my ears, very pronounced, Derp Jones. Would it make any sense to say that logic and reasoning is the formal cause for why we believe in the gospel and the Holy Spirit is the material cause?

I see what you're trying to do there with the kind of when you think of like the reformation, like the formal cause versus the material cause. The reason why we believe the gospel is because of the work of the spirit, but because God has created us in his image, we are able to rationally apprehend the gospel that God enables us to believe.

So they do work in tandem, right? Because we're made in the image of God, because we are rational agents, God can communicate with us. So when he acts upon us via the grace that he extends, that part of that process is appealing to the mind, okay?

I can't believe a gospel that I don't comprehend rationally. And I won't believe the gospel if I simply comprehend the gospel. There needs to be kind of a grasping on a genuine faith that is itself a gift from God.

So I think they work in tandem. With respect to the categories that you're using there, maybe, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that, but it seems like what you're saying makes sense.

Okay, I hope that helps.

Let's see here.

So that was DERP. All right, Sky Apologetics asks, favorite books right now or recently? So my favorite apologetics book right now is, and it's been this for years, is Greg Monson's Van Til's Apologetic Readings and Analysis.

And that's this guy here. As you can see, it's all, okay.

Now it's been a while since I've used, since I, let me get this on the camera here.

There we go.

It's been a while since I've read the physical book. Now that I have this beauty, let me put this up here. Dr. White typically brags about his remarkable tablet. And if you guys know this, he takes notes.

It's kind of a digital tablet. But what I have here is a Kindle Scribe. A Kindle Scribe, look at that. It is basically a remarkable, but it has a backlight and it has my entire Kindle library. And I can write in my books with this little magic pen here.

I use this more than my iPad. I love it. And I'm never going back. I'm a Kindle guy, but once I got this, I'm like, that's it, I'm set for the rest of my life. I don't need anything else. That's where my entire library is.

And I bring it with me wherever I go. And it's fun to take notes on. Makes me want to listen to something and jot down some notes and things like that.

So there you go.

Sky Apologetic says, can't stay, but much love, brother. Well, thank you so much for your question.

Thank you for your support, man.

I really appreciate it.

God bless you.

Let's see here, okay.

In percentages, how convinced are you of Calvinism?

50%, 60%, oh boy.

If you're talking about, because you have to understand, so Calvinism is not simply, it's not simply a soteriological perspective. Although that is what clinched it for me is the specific Calvinistic understanding of soteriology.

I am well in the 90 that the soteriological aspect of Calvinism is true. And the reason why I say that, and I know that there are people who are like, Eli, how can you say this?

And blah, blah, blah.

Based upon my study and my interactions and listening to people and swaying back and forth throughout the years, I just see it in scripture. For me, I know people are gonna disagree, but when someone explains to me the doctrines of grace and they walk me through the text consistently, that clinches it for me.

Now, again, people are gonna say, well, Calvinism is not consistent because blah, blah, blah. Yes, I'm familiar with all of those issues that people bring up. But for me, as I have been taught and instructed by others and I've opened my Bible and walked through the text and listened to multiple views, I'm convinced that Calvinism is biblical with respect to its soteriology.

And so I would probably say in the 90s, maybe. I mean, it's up there. I'm pretty convinced. Although I was a Molinist for a short time, I don't think I was a Molinist when I had this channel. You would have, someone could probably find like an old video where I'm defending Molinism.

But I used to be a Molinist, yeah, back in the day. And then, you know, I'm a Calvinist now.

So there you go.

Sorry, Molinist.

Let's see here.

Andy Summer says, I heard that you and Cody Liebold were working on a potential debate and it fell through. Oh, that was a while ago. I don't remember what happened. I actually spoke with Cody over the phone once a long time ago, a couple of years ago.

He seemed like a nice guy. I mean, there seemed to be a tone of distrust because I guess there's this precept and the other camps and they tend to be, you know, very like, you know, I didn't have a problem with them.

Of course, I strongly disagree with a lot of his positions that are expressed on Facebook and social media,.

But there you go.

So yeah, nothing's happening. I actually don't do debates, unfortunately, because of a lack of time. And I have done a couple of debates. I have a couple of debates online. There are like maybe four or five of them where I have an interaction with unbelievers.

I've had an interaction with Tom Jump and if you look up his YouTube channel, I think it's T-Jump or something like that. Some years ago, I had a debate with, or informal interaction with Eric Murphy, who used to have a podcast that was associated with Matt Dillahunty's atheist.

I had a debate on Marlon Wilson's show with an atheist who calls himself Sirus the Skeptic. So that's there. But I see myself more as a teacher than a debater, although I'm not totally, you know, against doing a debate at some point.

It really is an issue of time. So we'll see. We'll see. Yeah, I'm not sure.

Let's see here.

The, let's see.

I have a couple of questions that I have here that I think folks might find interesting,.

But we'll see.

People are sharing.

That's good.

Okay.

Let's see. So Kenneth Doyle says, here's a question. How has your faith evolved or developed over the years? Have you made any changes in your theology since where you started? What direction do you think you are going, if any?

Well, that's a very broad question. My faith has evolved. I mean, there are definitely areas that I need to improve on. For example, my prayer life. I need to be more disciplined in that area. I tend to be more kind of intellectually driven.

So I want to study and read the Bible. And when I do that, I feel like I encounter God in that situation. But prayer is definitely something I need to evolve more. I need to do that. And so I would appreciate prayers that the Lord, by his grace, gives me the strength to pray.

It can be very challenging sometimes.

But there you go.

So have I made any changes in my theology? Well, again, since, I mean, I grew up in a Spanish Pentecostal church. I'm no longer Pentecostal in that sense. I am a careful, tentative cessationist. So I'm not saying that the idea that the spiritual gifts are still for today are impossible, but I am skeptical.

I do lean towards a cessationist position, but I'm not completely sold on that either, as I don't find the biblical argumentation against the spiritual gifts being for today. I don't find them clinching, but they are persuasive.

So I'm kind of careful in that area. So I've kind of changed in that respect. And of course, I had a more Arminian kind of theology early on in my years. But of course, when I was exposed to Reformed theology and Calvinism, that kind of swayed me.

I mean, as I mentioned in a previous question, Molinism interested me a while, but I'm a Calvinist. I'm a Calvinist. I'm happily a Calvinist. And what direction am I going? Well, it depends on specific areas of study that I pursue.

Right now, I'm kind of staying in my sweet spot with respect to kind of apologetic methodology issues. But once I start having the time to explore in depth some other issues, we'll see what happens. Yeah, I definitely want to get into the issue of the whole divine simplicity controversy.

So I'm not sure where I stand. I mean, I hold, I affirm to divine simplicity, but there's some other issues involved there that is being debated and discussed in various contexts.

So we'll see.

Yeah.

Let's see here. Good question.

Let's see here.

Greetings, Louis Suku. I think I said that right. Greetings, I am from Ontario, Canada, all of Christ to all of life, amen. Well, thank you for listening in all the way from Canadia, from Canada. I've been to Canada once.

My family, I have a family in Buffalo and we crossed the border and we were like, yay, we're in Canada, and then we came back.

That was as far as I,.

Maybe if someone invites me to Canada, I have to keep saying this because people think because I have a YouTube channel, I don't do these other things. I am a full-time teacher, but when I'm not doing teaching and I'm not on YouTube, I'm a traveling speaker.

So if you want me to come to your church or you have an event or a conference, you could actually book me on my website, revealsapologetics .org. I literally, I mean, I've had a bunch of speak engagements this past couple of months.

I flew out to Kansas. I'm flying out to New York and Long Island. And so, yeah, I've been getting some speak engagements. So if you want me to swing by, I'll get my passport ready. I'll be happy to go to Canada.

If you have something going on there. So there you go.

All right, let's see here.

Let's see.

Oh, well, thank you very much, Humble Clay. Humble Clay says, you're a good teacher. Well, thank you.

I appreciate that.

Appreciate that.

Let's see here.

Are we able to ask via chat or will there be a link? No, it's through chat. I'm very careful. I don't randomly let people come in, because I have, again, I'm a teacher. So I, my students sometimes watch these things.

And so I don't just randomly let people on because you never know. You never know.

So there you go. Let's see here.

How to disprove Islam. I mean, wow, that was a big question. Well, I mean, there are different ways you can do it, right? So you can take the claims of Islam, which include an affirmation of revelation provided to the Christians, okay?

And so you can find common ground between the Muslim and the Christian, right? Now, I don't want you to get confused. There is a distinction between common ground and neutral ground. We are not going to find neutral ground between the Muslim and the Christian, because of course there is no neutrality, right?