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. 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. Oh, 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, 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 out 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, 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 logical, 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 like 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.

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.

He's 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 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, okay? 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, okay? 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. So, 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 it was 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 Olyphant, Dr.

Scott Olyphant 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.

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 them, whether you like his apologetics, whether you, 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. And all right,

Sky Apologetics asks, favorite books right now or recently? Okay, 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, when 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, 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, 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, cause 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. I, 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. Someone could probably find 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, tend to be more kind of intellectually driven.

So I wanna 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, a tentative cessationist. So I'm not saying that the idea that the gifts are still, 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 wanna 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. 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 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?

However, common ground is that Christians are, Muslims affirm that Christians have a certain degree of revelation.

So we take those portions of revelation that they believe we've been given and we can show a contradiction between what various portions of the scriptures teach and what

Islam teaches, okay? And so you can go about that in various ways. You could also take a more broader approach and kind of attack the theology and the coherency of the

Muslim worldview, kind of like what you would do with an atheist, right? You hypothetically grant the truth of the perspective and then show that it leads to absurdity.

You can do this with the appeals to perhaps certain aspects of Allah's attributes.

So for example, when we talk about the worldview foundations, every worldview has at least three foundations.

We've spoken about this in past episodes, but every worldview has at least the categories of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, okay?

These are foundational, and everyone's worldview is built upon at least those three foundations. People have added more, but at least that, everyone has a metaphysical picture of the world, theory of knowledge and so forth.

And, pardon, and when we want to, say for example, poke holes in an epistemology, so if we're gonna have a worldview claims to be able to provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge, and Islam would definitely make that claim, you could explore the idea of Allah being able to lie and deceive.

Allah is called the greatest of deceivers, right? He is the greatest of schemers. And so you can attach yourself to that doctrine and explore that a little bit, because if God can lie, then that does throw a monkey wrench into your epistemology, because, so for example, someone says, well,

Allah can lie, but he only does it as judgment upon the wicked. Well, how do you know that's not one of the lies? See, once you let that monkey out of the bag, right, you have issues.

And so you could explore objections to Islam that way by poking holes and seeing where the discussion goes in terms of their broader theology to test it for consistency, okay?

So there are multiple ways you can do that, all right? And if you haven't already, I mean, check out Dr. James White's debates with Muslims.

They're excellent. Gives you a lot of information there too that's useful in that regard. Let's see here,

D. Otero says, are you familiar at all with the Unification Church and its book, The Divine Principle? I am not, unfortunately.

I really have nothing to say about that. I do apologize. Don't know, yeah.

Caesar says, do you have any plans on hosting any debates in the future? One I have in mind is Guillaume Bignon and Tim Stratton.

By the way, it's pronounced vigil, like a candlelight. Oh, okay, vigil, okay. And Ruiz, like Ru -ease, okay?

Vigil, Cesar Vigil Ruiz, okay? Thank you, thank you for that. No, there are no plans.

I know this sounds really mean, but Guillaume is a really sharp guy.

And to be perfectly honest, he doesn't take very seriously Tim Stratton's arguments.

And if you've seen, I've had Guillaume on multiple times, but there are two videos that I have on my channel.

They're two hours a piece where I think he utterly obliterates Tim Stratton's arguments.

And I think his arguments fail, even if Calvinism is false.

I just think that Tim needs to do a little more in terms of firming up his arguments and his philosophical precision.

And I say that with love. I respect Tim, he's a good friend, but I don't think he is at the standard of someone like Guillaume Bignon, okay?

Now, I would say that even if Calvinism was false, I think Guillaume is just a sharp analytic thinker.

And I don't think a debate between him and Tim would be very pretty.

But I mean, I wish it would happen because I do think that more people should address

Molinism and things like that. But there you go, it's not gonna happen. And I don't intend to bother

Guillaume anymore. He's given me two hours, two videos, two hours a piece. That's four hours. He's given me four hours of his time.

Also, Guillaume Bignon wrote a withering critique of Tim Stratton's book.

So this is Tim Stratton's book. It is called, Human Freedom, Divine Knowledge, and Mere Molinism, A Biblical, Historical, Theological, and Philosophical Analysis.

Now, he's coming out with another edition. But I remember when

I found out this book was coming out and I had asked Guillaume to maybe to review it.

And he's like, no, I'm not gonna review it. And then he ends up reviewing it. And as he's reading it, his little review turns into like an 80 -page review or critique.

And that can be found on Guillaume Bignon's blog. Highly recommend. If anyone's interested in the

Molinism stuff and especially the Mere Molinism of Tim Stratton, things like that, totally find

Guillaume Bignon's blog and read his critique of the book.

Now, Tim has, or he is coming out with another edition. And so I would assume he tries to address various issues, but I haven't read the new edition.

And so I can't speak to that. But there you go. All right. Let's see here.

Okay, Christopher Coleman says, I've heard some evidentialists say that direct acquaintance refutes that all reasoning is circular.

What does that mean? And how could you respond to that claim? Man, I have on my channel.

Let's see here. Let's see if I can put this up here. Revealed apologetics.

Direct acquaintance. There's a video I have. And let me see if I can share the link.

I'm gonna share it. Boom, boom, boom, click. And I'm going to put it in the comments.

I'm gonna paste it. I'm gonna share it. There is a five, let me see. It is, how long is this thing?

It's five minutes and 35 seconds. It's called Presup and Direct Acquaintance. And someone far more qualified than me, that's

Dr. Brant Bosterman, he addresses that very question. So you can check out that link.

The video is literally five minutes. And there you go. I think that'll be very useful to you. Okay. Let's see here.

Frank Oden, not certain what you're saying. Molinism, molinism, molinism,

M -O -L -I -N -I -S -M, molinism. M -O -L -I -N -I -S -M.

Molinism is a particular view of God's omniscience in terms of which God has three aspects of his knowledge.

God has what molinists would call natural knowledge, his knowledge of all that could happen, his middle knowledge,

God's counterfactual knowledge of what would be the case, and his free knowledge, his knowledge of what will be the case.

Now, what's interesting here is what makes molinism kind of stand out. It's in its affirmation of middle knowledge.

Middle knowledge is one of the key ingredients to a molinist perspective, and it is God's knowledge of counterfactuals that exist logically prior to the divine decree, okay?

Now, there is a video out there floating on YouTube where I explain what molinism is in detail, and if I find it,

I will share it in the link. But molinism, big topic, but two key foundations you want to understand molinism.

God has middle knowledge, and libertarian free will is a thing, okay? And it is an attempt to reconcile a very strong sense of divine sovereignty and human freedom defined within the context of libertarian free will, okay?

And so it is a form of what we call incompatibilism, and it denies any form of determinism.

Oh, I wouldn't say that, maybe with qualification. I'll just leave it there before I shoot myself in the foot. I hope that's helpful. Kamen says, do you believe that spiritual gifts ceased after the apostolic age?

Have you seen Remnant Radio's argument against the cessationist position? No, I haven't seen the cessationist documentary.

No, I haven't watched Remnant Radio's arguments against the cessationist position. Do I believe that they've ceased?

I tend to lean in that direction, but I'm open and flexible, and I have various sensitivities to that as I was raised in a

Spanish Pentecostal church. So I'm open to hearing more arguments, but again, not an area that I've spent too much time in.

But I do have experience in that that was the context in which I was raised. But yeah,

I would say I'm a cessationist, but a cautious one and a flexible one, if that makes sense. Let's see here.

Where do you stand on, yeah, there we go. So where do I stand on UFOs and aliens?

Are they malevolent beings? Well, let me answer the second question. I don't know if they're malevolent beings, and I don't know if they exist.

Okay, there you go. I don't think that the existence of aliens is necessarily incompatible with a

Christian worldview, although it would, if aliens were known to exist, it would raise interesting theological questions, right?

What is the, so the sin of Adam and sin has affected creation. And so in what sense does the sin of Adam affect that aspect of creation in which aliens would exist?

I wouldn't know how to answer that. It would raise interesting questions, but I don't think there's anything incompatible with the

Christian worldview. I mean, God would have created them as well. And for whatever reason, we're not privy to their existence until we hypothetically discover them in accordance with your question, right?

I do believe in UFOs in this sense, that if UFO is an unidentified flying object,

I do believe that there are objects that are flying and we don't identify them. Whether they're alien or not, I have no clue.

Okay, that's my position. Wilder Adventures says, when are you coming to South Africa?

I am going to South Africa when someone invites me to South Africa. I'd love to go to South Africa.

Again, I'm a traveling speaker. I've traveled the country. I haven't left the country on a speaking engagement, but if someone were to invite me, that is totally a thing.

So if you're interested in having me out to your event, you can reach out to me at revealedapologetics .org and we could set something up.

So I would totally love that. Nicholas Perez says, did you take the

COVID vaccine? No, I did not. And I've been perfectly fine. Okay, there you go. Let's see here.

I need more deep breath. Three questions.

Oh, let me see. Frank Odom says, I have four deep breath. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saint missionaries

I speak with on the go. Adore these folks. Contention is of the devil. Three questions.

And then he ran out of space. So I don't know. Questions. Let me see here.

It continues. Whoops, ran out of space. Three questions. I could ask them in love, of course, to make them think.

Three questions to ask Mormons. That is a difficult question.

I would challenge, again, it would be similar to the

Muslim, right? I wanna find a point of contact, okay? And as I said before,

I think people are gonna make a distinction between common ground and neutral ground, right? So there's no neutrality between the

Christian and the Mormon, but there is common ground. Mormons affirm the scriptures. And so I would go to the scriptures and try to create a tension between the teaching of scripture and the teachings of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter -day Saints, right? You wanna know that there's a tension within the theology. And then you're gonna have to look up, you're gonna have to study a little bit of what

Mormons believe. But just if you're interested, if you're interested, again, if I'm not an expert in something,

I will refer you, let's see, Revealed Apologetics, James White, Mormonism.

I'm gonna share a video. Dr. James White came on my channel a while back and did a thing on Mormonism.

It is called Engaging and Refuting Mormons. He puts up a chart, super helpful, that explains what they believe and shows you how to engage them.

I'm gonna put that in the comments here and I'll just leave that there. I highly recommend, give that a listen.

I think that'll be super helpful. Okay, let's see here. Jesse Garner, hey, Eli, I love your channel.

You're my favorite source to learn precepts. Well, thank you so much, Jesse Garner. That means a lot to me. Thank you so much. Let's see here.

Do you have a dog? Evolution false. Is this really

Darth Dawkins? Is this really Darth Dawkins? Do I have a dog named Darth? I don't have a dog because if I had a dog, my kids would be happy, but I would end up having to take care of it and then

I wouldn't be able to do YouTube. Okay, let's see here.

Who is smarter, you or Darth Dawkins? Ooh, that is a very difficult question.

I'll tell you one thing. Darth Dawkins has been a great resource for me in terms of providing me with books.

He's been so kind to share with me countless PDFs of books and that helped me in my personal studies.

So there you go. Who's smarter? I don't know. That's a good question. That's a good question.

Okay, will you be honest and admit Darth taught you everything I know? Oh, I don't know.

I don't know about everything, but he's been super helpful. Oh boy,

I wonder if that's really him. Maybe it is, I'm not sure. Let's see here. I'm going to, let's see.

Granted that nobody lives as if existence is absurd. I know that's not a question. So much peace about asking

God, God give us a bounty of evidence, manuscripts also, but no evidence and only a manuscript. Nobody ever saw that.

I'm not sure what that says. Okay, let's see here. Does the

Calvinist position reject that God is the author of evil? It depends what you mean by the author of evil.

This phrase has been thrown around so often. Let me see if I have, let me see if I search for this.

Let's see, I have information on this. Let's see here. Is it this?

Let me see, bear with me, bear with me. If you're enjoying this live stream, please click the like button.

This is my radio, my commercial. Please click the like button or the notification bell or whatever the

YouTubers tend to say. Let's see here. No, okay, that wasn't what

I was looking for. Let's see here. Doctrines of Grace.

I have a really good quote from Jonathan Edwards, but if I can't find it, this'll, oh,

I found it. There we go. Lucky you. Okay, I'm just gonna read you what

I have here. I think it's super helpful. Let me see here. So the author of evil. Let's go down here.

I got a huge document where, there we go. All right, so let's see here.

The reformed position, it's a common objection. Let me see here. First, I've got a song,

Dane's Burden of Proof. Do, do, do, do, do. Let's see.

Bear with me. Okay, I'm not sure if this is, is this

Jonathan Edwards? Is that a Jonathan Edwards quote? Geez Louie, Jonathan Edwards. There we go, found it.

Sorry about that. So this is Jonathan Edwards on the issue of God being the author of sin, and I am in full agreement with him and I'm in full agreement with Westminster Confession of Faith, which speaks to this, okay?

Here's a nice quote from, let me see here. This is a nice quote from Jonathan Edwards here.

So he said, they who object, okay, that this doctrine makes God the author of sin ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that phrase, the author of sin.

I know the phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very ill. If by the author of sin be meant the sinner, the agent, or the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing, so it would be a reproach and a blasphemy to suppose

God to be the author of sin. In this sense, I utterly deny God to be the author of sin in that sense, rejecting such an imputation on the most high as what is infinitely to be a board and deny any such thing to be the consequence of what

I've laid down. But if by the author of sin is meant the permitter or not a hinderer of sin, and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events in such a manner for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow,

I say, if this be all that is meant by being the author of sin, though I dislike and reject the phrase as that which by use and custom is apt to carry another sense, it is not reproach for the most high to be thus the author of sin.

So when we speak of is God the author of sin on Calvinism, it depends what you mean, what most critics mean by the author of sin,

I reject in the sense that Edward says, but if by author of sin, it's meant the permitter or not a hinderer of sin, and at the same time, a disposer of the state of events in such a manner for wise, holy, and most excellent ends and purposes, that sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow.

If that's what you mean by the author of sin, then sure. But if what you mean is that he is acting sinfully, he is the sinner, he's sinning, he's the agent, the actor of sin, or the doer of a wicked thing, no, he's not the author of sin in that sense.

So there you go. I would make the delineation that Jonathan Edwards makes at that point, okay? Good question, hope that answers, okay?

Let's see here. Mark Ratemaker says,

Hebrews 1 .12 says, in these last days, do you think, in Hebrews 1 .2, it says, in these last days,

God has revealed himself through his son, right? If you guys know that, Hebrews 1 .2 and 3. Do you think this has to do with the last days of the old covenant?

Yes, yes, I do. It's not the last days of like end times. I think you see this sense of urgency, this language of urgency, last days, on us upon whom the ends of the ages have come.

Some of those that are standing here will not taste death. Revelation 1, in the early verses, it says, these things are happening soon and near.

I think these words of urgency, these time texts, as they're called, are referring to the last days of the old covenant.

And I think that fits well within, as I expressed in earlier portion of this video, the partial preterist perspective, okay?

Paul Miller asks, have you had any interaction with, or have you done any investigations into the Hebrew roots movement?

I fear this is the fastest growing threat to biblical Christianity. Unfortunately, Paul, I have not, so I really can't speak to that, okay?

Let's see here. Annihilated, like, here we go. Thanks for dropping the link. Yeah, okay, so that seems to be the questions that I see that's in the comments.

I have some other questions I want to address as well that I think might be useful for folks. There are some leftover questions that were asked in my last live stream.

I had some friends to help me answer. And there were some questions that weren't answered. So I want to take some time to answer that question here, these questions here.

So there are a few of them. So hopefully folks will find this useful. So here's a question.

This is taken from Facebook. It was asked by, pardon, by a gentleman by the name of Sam Cotty.

And he asks, it's actually kind of a little paragraph where he says, but I'll share my thoughts here.

So he says, it seems like some of the lower level precepts here, think that the atheist cannot know anything with absolute certainty.

I don't think that is true at all. I cannot know something if I do not believe something. To know something for this example, at least simply means to have a justified true belief.

So there is no knowledge without three parts. You must have P, have a justification for belief in P and P must be true.

If one of those criteria is not true, then you cannot know P. And a P standing for some proposition or truth claim.

I know with absolute certainty says that the proposition P, which he takes to be the proposition,

I know that I am omniscient is false. So he's claiming to know the proposition that he is not omniscient.

I know with absolute certainty that the proposition, I know I am fluent in 15 languages is false.

I know with absolute certainty that the proposition, I know I am seven feet tall is false.

I know with absolute certainty that the proposition, I know that two plus two equals five is true.

So I guess the point of this is to say, look, I'm an unbeliever. I am an atheist and I could know things with certainty.

And one of the things that I could know among many is that I know I'm not omniscient. One of the things that I could know is that I know

I'm not seven feet tall. Another thing that I can know with certainty that two plus two equals five is not true.

Okay, well, good. I'm glad you know that because two plus two, everyone knows is four. Okay, that's,

I pat myself on the back. Math is not my strong point, but I can do the simple stuff. So, okay, so this question or this kind of this statement is trying to demonstrate that you could have absolute certainty, be an atheist, you don't need the

Christian God, so on and so forth. Okay, well, I think these statements and the question implied here, in other words, what do you think?

I can imagine him saying, what do you think of this? I mean, in light of this, I can know things for certain. I don't need your God. Well, I don't think this deals with the presuppositional nature and transcendental challenge offered by the presuppositionalist.

I don't think it's getting to enough at the foundational level. Okay, remember that we're arguing when we're talking about presuppositional apologetics and worldview interaction, we're arguing for paradigms.

We're arguing for worldviews, not isolated data points within a paradigm, within a worldview. So for instance, when he says, for example,

I can know that I am not omniscient. Okay, I could know that with absolute certainty.

I'm absolutely certain that I'm not omniscient. Okay, so when he says, I can know that I am not omniscient,

I think we can press the more logically prior question, what does he mean by I? What is the

I? How does the unbeliever's worldview provide a sufficient justification for something like personal identity throughout time?

This isn't a trick question. He's not going to the fundamental level. He's trying, he's addressing, or rather making the assertions that he's making and thinking that we're going to grant the coherence of personal identity.

You see, when we're dealing with worldview issues, I wanna know what is the worldview context that makes sense out of existence, logic, science, right?

There are no free passes, right? Well, I wanna know if your worldview can account for the things you just took for granted in the statement,

I can know that I'm not omniscient. It's not a word game. It's asking a fundamental question, right?

If I'm saying as a presuppositionalist that you can't have meaning and coherent and cogency within your worldview, and then you're saying, well, yes,

I can, then you need to answer the difficult philosophical questions. How do you account for personal identity through time?

That's a fair question. It's a question that has occupied the minds of thinkers throughout the history of philosophy, okay?

There's a sense in which the I can be understood as what we would call a localized transcendental category, okay?

For example, his existence as a personal enduring entity is like when the

I is a necessary precondition to even be able to reason, right? But based upon this person, it seems that he's an atheist or an agnostic of some sort.

I would bring up this issue, this paradigm issue, right? Because of the nature of our disagreement, it's at that fundamental worldview level.

There are no free passes here, right? I do not grant a neutral localized transcendental like the

I. I wanna ask the question, how do you make cogent and coherent sense of personal identity given his worldview?

I would ask that question, right? We're talking about localized transcendentals. We're talking about personal identity, things like logic, things like spatio -temporal relations and things like that.

These are transcendental categories, but they're localized transcendental categories. When we talk about the transcendental argument within the context of presuppositional apologetics, what

Van Til was talking about was an ultimate transcendental context that gives meaning and relation to the localized transcendental categories that are necessary preconditions for intelligible experience and knowledge acquisition, right?

So I would ask these fundamental questions. What is the ultimate transcendental category that unifies and gives meaning to his localized transcendental categories like the personal self?

See, for Christians, the triune God, who's revealed himself both in natural and special revelation is the final point of reference and unity within our worldview.

Christians have an account for personal identity and being image bearers of God and things like that. What is his account?

Does he want me to simply grant? Well, that's a dumb question, Eli, right? How do I account for the

I? I exist and I think, therefore I am. Okay, you can say that, but you're not dealing with the fundamental question, right?

Does this person, for example, does this person take a Humean position, David Hume, okay? David Hume took the position that everything is loose and disjointed, right?

Is this person an empiricist along the lines of Hume in his epistemology? How does he know he's an enduring self, right?

If he's an empiricist and knowledge is gained through observation and experience, has he observed his enduring self throughout time?

See, these are the paradigmatic questions that we ask when we're dealing with worldview and ultimate context out of which we make sense of what we take to be facts, okay?

We don't just, when presuppositionalists ask these questions about the nature of reality, it's not a word game.

Now, I apologize if some people have asked it in that spirit, like they're playing word games. I would imagine some people do that, but it really is the issue that if you're going to reject the

Christian God and you think you could have meaning and cogency without him, then we're going to ask those questions.

Build me a coherent worldview without God. Do so without borrowing from the Christian perspective.

And of course, many people think they can do that and I'm willing to hear the argument, right? But these aren't word games.

This isn't word salad. I'm asking genuinely, how do you make sense out of reality without God?

And that includes all of the metaphysical elements within your worldview, which includes personal identity through time.

I'm not going to just grant that, right? If you want to give an account of reality without God, then give an account of reality, which includes a coherent concept of personal identity, a coherent concept of logic itself.

Do so without having contradiction within your worldview, okay? Provide an adequate justification for those categories without recourse to the triune

God. That is why we're asking the question because it's the nature of the disagreement is at that fundamental level.

It is not simply to play a word game or to pull a quick one over someone, although unfortunately that does happen, okay?

So when we ask these questions, we want to remember something. It's not a word game and don't let the unbeliever ridicule you if you're a presuppositionalist and you're listening for asking those hard philosophical questions, right?

Well, how do you account for the eye? Oh, that's a dumb question, right? How do you make sense out of reality? Oh, that's a silly question.

Remember, waving your hand and saying something's a silly question doesn't make it a silly question, right? The complaining from the other side usually comes because the unbeliever doesn't like to engage the issues at that fundamental level, right?

As the history of philosophy has shown, there are insurmountable philosophical problems when you are dealing with those fundamental paradigmatic issues.

And I think that is completely fair game in a debate or an interaction between people who have completely different worldview perspectives, okay?

So to assert, I know that I am not omniscient, therefore I can know things without recourse to your

God is really to begin in the middle of the road, so to speak, right? But my question is, how is it possible that you even got in the car to drive on the road in the first place, right?

This person's starting in the middle of the road and we're not granting that. We're saying, how did you get on the road? We're asking that more fundamental worldview question, okay?

All right, got some more, we're on a roll here. Let's see if I could take another question here.

Dearly beloved says, if God created everything in existence, then wouldn't that include evil as well? Is it fair to say God created evil?

Well, you have to be very careful when you speak of evil, what is evil metaphysically? Evil is not a thing that you could hold, right?

I would say that evil is really a deprivation of the good.

Evil is something that is not in accord with a standard of goodness that is reflected by the very nature of God.

And so God does not create a thing called evil, but he most definitely creates a world in which evil comes about because he created agents who have the capacity to disobey his standards.

And in that, yes, God created a world in which he knew with certainty, evil would come into existence.

And that is why evil has a purpose, okay? Evil is not a random thing outside of God's control.

God decrees that evil should be, and it serves the function that God has assigned it given his divine decree.

Does that make God the author of evil? Again, I would make recourse to my quote from Jonathan Edwards a little bit earlier to show you how

I would understand that. But God is completely and utterly sovereign over evil. And that is why evil has a purpose because God decrees everything that comes to pass.

That means every evil action has a specific role that it plays within God's plan, but God is ultimately in control.

I don't remember who said this, but it was a very profound quote that really helped put things into perspective with respect to this topic.

And it was about death. I don't know who said this, but the quote went something like this.

Man is a slave to death, but death is a slave to God.

Man is a slave to death, but death is a slave to God. God is sovereign over death.

Death serves God's purposes. And when the purposes for which God has assigned death fulfills its purpose, then

God in his right timing will destroy it completely and utterly. And he's given us a down payment of that destruction in raising

Jesus from the dead, right? So I'd be very careful to say that God created evil.

I would say that God created beings that have the capacity to do that which is not consistent with his nature.

He knew it, he decreed it, and he has a purpose in creating a world in which that potentiality became a reality, okay?

All right, let's see here. Can you explain the position of Gordon Clark one more time?

Well, it depends with respect to what? If you're talking about his kind of presuppositionalism, Clark had no problem referring to himself or being referred to as a fideist, okay?

He believed, he was a rationalist, okay? He believed that we start with axioms, which are these kind of ultimate starting points, and that we build from those axioms, we can logically deduce various propositions, we can logically deduce and create and construct an entire worldview perspective, okay?

Clark did not believe that you can justify your axiom because by definition, an axiom is your ultimate starting point.

How are you going to justify, demonstrate the truth of an axiom? Well, you can't appeal to something more fundamental than your axiom, because if you appeal to something more fundamental to your axiom, then your axiom isn't your axiom, the thing that you appeal to is your axiom, right?

So he thought that you start with an axiom and you build a worldview from there, and he believed that the

Christian axiom, the Bible is the word of God written, and there's some variation as to how he worded it, you can logically deduce an entire worldview from that proposition, from that axiom.

And he believed that it is the best axiom to start with because you can build a worldview through logical deduction that answers all of the difficult philosophical questions.

So he believed that the Christian worldview answered the tough questions the best, okay? Now, Van Til, on the other hand, would take the starting point, he wouldn't refer to them as axioms per se,

I like to call a Van Tilian starting point an ultimate presupposition. And Van Til believed that you could actually demonstrate the truth of an ultimate presupposition or an ultimate starting point, but you don't do it by an appeal to something external to itself for the same reason

I explained for the axiom. You justify a presupposition, an ultimate presupposition transcendentally.

You appeal to its transcendental necessity and you argue that if you reject the ultimate presupposition, not only do you have to presuppose its truth, okay, to deny it, when you deny the presupposition of the truth of the

Christian worldview, the position is reduced to absurdity. Now, how did he do that? Well, again, that deals with worldview analysis and worldview critique and so forth, but that's how

I would make the distinction between someone like Clark and someone like Van Til. That's a quick and sloppy version of it, although I'm sure more can be said about it and someone can come along with more precision to iron that out.

Let's see here. Let's see, do I have any? Okay. Do you have any recommendations about metaphysics from the precept perspective?

I mean, if you want to get into the philosophical aspect, I mean, you can't do better than Van Til. I mean, as difficult as he can be to read,

I mean, he talks a lot about metaphysics, epistemology, the relationship between the two. I would highly recommend

Van Til's Defense of the Faith. Christian theory of knowledge is more an epistemology,

I guess. His Introduction to Systematic Theology, which is not an introduction to systematic theology, but he speaks of metaphysics there and his little book on Christian apologetics, it's called

Christian Apologetics. There's a whole section there on metaphysics and epistemology and so forth. So that would be my advice there.

Brian Norum, do you think R .C. Sproul rejecting presuppositionalism strange at all? Yes, I do,

I do. Given, when I, I mean, I love R .C. Sproul. In my opinion, he was one of the best teachers of theology in our time.

And that's true even if you disagree with his reformed theology or you don't agree with his apologetic. As a teacher and as a communicator, he was one of the best, in my opinion.

He's such a good way, such a clear way of explaining the perspectives that he would lay out.

So I greatly respect R .C., but I always thought it was interesting to, as I see a conflict between his reformed convictions and his apologetic.

And so, yeah, I do think that that's strange, yeah. Let's see here.

Do you find any of the works of the proponents of intelligent design compatible with presuppositionalism? Well, it depends what you mean by intelligent design.

Intelligent design is compatible with theistic evolution, things like that. So I don't know how broad you're thinking.

I don't see, for example, like young earth creationism as a necessary aspect of a presuppositional approach.

I think some might disagree with me there. That's fine. I think maybe Jason Lyle would take a position where there is a connection there, but I don't see it.

I don't agree with some like old earth perspectives. I am a young earth creationist, but if someone was an old earth creationist and a proponent of intelligent design, it would depend what flavor or perspective they're holding, and then we'd have to examine that in light of scripture.

So yeah, yeah, I'm not sure about that. Let's see here.

When is classical apologetics an advantage in discussion with family and friends, or does presupp always reign supreme in your opinion?

Yeah, so this is a good question by BJC6496. I feel like I'm talking to a droid from Star Wars or something like that.

It sounds like a droid model. Sorry, my nerdiness is coming out. Yeah, so I do not believe that a

Christian who is sensitive to the fact that apologetic methodology is important, okay?

I don't think that a Christian can use two different kinds of methodology.

For example, to use classical apologetics, I think that is inconsistent with an application of a consistent presuppositional approach.

Same thing with evidentialism. Now, we have to make a distinction here, BJC6496, okay? There is a difference between the utilization of evidence and the utilization of evidentialism as a methodology, okay?

There's a difference. That's an important difference. The presuppositionalist is free to use evidences and rational argumentation, but he does so within a consistent context of presuppositional thinking in which the lordship of Jesus Christ and non -neutrality and the non -assumption of autonomy, we're not assuming autonomous categories, right?

We can talk about rational argumentation and be very similar to a classical kind of argumentation, but we do not allow for the categories of autonomy and neutrality, and I think that's where the classical apologetic methodology and the evidentialist apologetic methodology kind of falters.

They presuppose categories that I think are unbiblical, and the Christian apologist is a

Christian apologist. He's defending the Christian worldview, and I think once the inconsistency there, those embedded poisons of autonomy and neutrality are exposed in the methodology,

I think a consistent Christian is gonna wanna conform his apologetic methodology with scripture, right?

Remember, Cornelius Van Til, in his opening pages of his book, Christian Apologetics, defines Christian apologetics as the vindication of the

Christian philosophy of life over against the various forms of the non -Christian philosophy of life, and that's a very important definition because the philosophy of life is just another way of talking about the

Christian worldview. So if we're vindicating the Christian worldview, the system of thought of Christianity, the manner in which we defend it must be consistent with the very worldview that we're defending, and if the biblical worldview recoils at the idea of neutrality and autonomy with respect to the mind of man, then we should too, right?

The problem is people have different theologies. They have different understandings of those categories, and so some people have no problem with neutrality and autonomy, or some people have a problem with autonomy and neutrality, but they don't think that it's something that has snuck into their perspective, and we would argue, you know, with respect to classicalism and evidentialism, it has, okay?

Hope that makes sense. Let's see here.

Okay, you're an advocate of presuppositional apologetics. How about how it's worked for you in the real world?

Okay, so a word of caution here. Let me take a drink of water real quick. A word of caution here.

I'm not a presuppositionalist because it works, okay? To hold to a view because it works is a form of pragmatism, okay?

It is pragmatic. Because I'm a presuppositionalist, I'm able to engage at a certain level with people that I think is very useful, but that's not the reason why

I'm a presuppositionalist. I'm a presuppositionalist because I believe it is a apologetic methodology that is rooted in scripture, okay?

But to answer your question, how it has worked for me in the real world, it has worked for me in effectively sharing my faith with people.

It has effectively helped me bring the issue of worldview into focus, helping other people realize that they have a worldview.

This is super helpful because many people don't, I mean, when we're in a Christian apologetics, we talk about worldview all the time, but the average person doesn't typically think in those categories.

And I think I'm having conversations and discussions with people in which we're able to highlight the importance of worldview context and how that impacts how we interpret evidence and data.

I think it's hugely important. It allows people to be, as Cornelius Van Til has suggested, it allows us to bring to people's focus the importance of being epistemologically self -conscious.

It's making people aware of the role of their own worldview and how it impacts the way they're understanding the nature of the discourse and disagreement between the

Christian and the non -Christian. It has also helped me personally to see the interconnectedness of the

Christian faith and every aspect of my life. And that has worked for me, right?

I'm not a pragmatist, but it has been very useful to see the interconnectedness of say, apologetics with evangelism or theology with marriage or theology with raising kids, interpersonal relationships, things like that.

It allowed me to see the world as an interconnected system rooted in scripture and has helped me see the world with much clarity.

So it has been very useful to me in that respect. Who is my

Mount Rushmore of presuppositionalist? Well, Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bonson.

I love Jason Lyle. I'm probably forgetting someone that someone's gonna be like, dude, you're an idiot, you forgot this person.

And I don't remember off the top of my head. James White. I mean, I said to James White, I love James White. And I'd have to think about it.

Think about it. Top five apologists to destroy unbelief. Kind of mentioned that already.

All right, let me return to some more questions that I have here prepared. Here's another one.

So this is from Facebook here. The presuppers say, our senses are generally not reliable.

And this is somehow a problem for our epistemology. What presuppers are say our senses are generally not reliable?

I've never heard a presupper say that. I think our senses are generally reliable. They're not infallible. They're generally reliable, that's odd.

So the presupper says our senses are generally not reliable and this is somehow a problem for our epistemology.

This is an atheist talking. But are they forgetting that God has no senses, no eyes, no ears, no sensory organs?

He's made of nothing. God is made of nothing, according to this person here. How does a disembodied mind made of nothing know anything other than their own internal self -knowledge?

This disembodied mind with no senses knows all true propositions. How? He just does.

This is the mocking part of it. He just does, by definition, blah, blah, blah. It's ridiculous. Okay. So, let's respond to this.

God is made of nothing. Let's take a look at this. This is a good reminder, folks, of the importance of knowing theology, okay?

As Dr. White often said, theology matters, and it does. God is made of nothing. Of course, this is based on a misunderstanding of the metaphysical nature of God.

It's true that God is not made of anything material. I would say that God isn't made, also in the sense that he himself is not a created being.

However, I think it's important to point out that nothing has no attributes, right?

Nothing is literally not anything. And this, of course, implicitly begs the question in that if something is not material, therefore, it is by definition nothing.

And this is clearly not the Christian theistic position. God is something, okay? I would say God is something because he has specific attributes.

Nothing has no attributes, okay? God as a spirit is not material, but again, it's not helpful to simply assume that only material things can be rationally thought of as something and that everything immaterial is simply not anything, okay?

So to answer his question directly, how does God know things if he doesn't have any organs?

Well, first, that assumes that having organs is the only means of having knowledge.

And of course, Christians would reject this. As a matter of fact, I believe that when I die and I go in the presence of the

Lord, I will be disembodied. This is the Christian conception of death. There's a separation between body and soul, and I will know things because knowledge is not only gained through sensory experience, okay?

That's an assumption on his part that I think we should reject. This is important. So things function in accordance with their nature, and it is

God's nature that he has the attributes that he has. So God does not create his attributes.

They are that which makes God, God. Now, the person who's asking this question can ridicule that idea that God knowing everything is just the way he is, you know, as he said, kind of blah, blah, blah.

He just has these characteristics, but what's the alternative, okay? Think about this. Let's suppose

God learns, okay? God is not omniscient. Well, if that's the case, then he ceases to be

God. We're not talking about the God of the Bible now, are we? It seems that the questioner only wants an answer that will, by definition, make

God less than what he is and not ultimate, okay? A God who is limited and does not have omniscience is not an ultimate

God. And if he's not ultimate, he cannot be the ultimate foundation for intelligible experience, for knowledge, and so forth.

And hence, the unbeliever, it seems, would be free to posit something other than God as an ultimate and hence give himself an escape hatch from confronting the

God that he cannot rationally deny, okay? We're not going to grant him that, okay? You can ridicule that God is omniscient or how does he know this or how does he come to knowledge that that's just the way he is.

You can ridicule that, but remember, ridicule is not an argument, right? It's not an argument.

So we need to understand the importance of the nature of God and how that relates to answering questions like this. It does nothing to complain about it, right?

Such a notion that, you know, that God is this way, he's an ultimate necessary being, has the feature.

This is common parlance in theology and philosophy, right? Things can exist. Let's say God exists in this way, right?

God exists as omniscient, okay? That is the nature of God. Now, when

I say that, right, it's important to understand that things can exist in one of two ways.

First, something can exist because it's dependent upon something else for its existence and therefore it exists what we would call contingently or something can exist out of a necessity of its own nature.

It exists because it's its nature to exist. And so God, the biblical God, as God exists out of a necessity of his own nature from everlasting to everlasting, you are

God. He is the I am. You don't have to believe in that, but that's what the conception of God that we're dealing with here.

God exists in the way that he exists along with his attributes out of a necessity of his own nature. So the questioner here seems to be complaining because he doesn't like the idea that God and his attributes are not contingent, right?

Well, he just knows that that's ridiculous. Okay. Then he doesn't know it. Then he's contingent.

And then now you have your escape hatch so that you don't have to, you know, confront God. Yeah. That's a very interesting way of approaching the issue.

Right. We're not we're basically, you know, sorry, but the biblical

God is just not a contingent God. Right. Not liking that fact, again, is not a logical argument.

We're going to have to need some we need something more than simply I don't like the idea that God has the features that he does.

So. So, again, I think that this question is based on a misunderstanding and I think a proper theology of God and understanding the nature of his attributes,

I think, is super helpful in answering these sorts of questions. There's another question.

When you read the Bible, do you presuppose that it's true or did you reason to that conclusion?

Hmm. That's an interesting question. I don't think the question is is clear. So I, as a Christian, presuppose the truth of the

Bible, even as I read the Bible. And that's the Christian position. Right. When we engage the

Bible, we're engaging God's word. But if the question is being asked from the perspective of an unbeliever, then there are things in the

Bible that are true even before the unbeliever reads the Bible. Right. So, for example, it is true that the unbeliever knows that the

God of the Bible exists and is suppressing the truth about him even before he reads, say, Romans one. And it's true that the unbeliever is without excuse for rejecting the

God that he knows exists even before reading that verse in the Bible. So the unbeliever is not aware of all the propositional truth stated in scripture prior to reading the scriptures.

Right. But it is true that the unbeliever implicitly presupposes things that are explicitly or implicitly taught in the

Bible and which make him culpable before his maker, I think. So I hope I understood that question correctly.

Let's see here. Let's go back to some of the comments here. We're on an hour and 30 minutes.

I thought I'd be tired by now, but I'm actually doing OK. Let's see. Let's see. Yeah, I like Poitras.

I've had Poitras on the show before. Oliphant's been on. Let's see here.

OK, so are Boas or Boas? It seems to me that being dogmatic about one view or another places too much emphasis on our role in evangelism.

How do you balance the methodology and God's sovereign, God's sovereignty? I'm not sure I understand the question.

It seems to me that being dogmatic about one view. What do you mean by one view? My dogmatic about the truth of Christianity?

Well, yes, but dogmatism is not a feature. And I hope I'm understanding the question.

Dogmatism is not a feature simply of the Christian worldview. The point that the presuppositionalist is trying to make is that everyone's a dogmatist.

Everyone has an ultimate authority that they just take for granted. And that's their starting point. The point that presuppositionalism focuses on is identifying and exposing the ultimate foundation that is being dogmatically asserted implicitly and showing that our dogmatic assertion is demonstrable, whereas the dogmatic assertion or position of the unbeliever is not and actually reduces to absurdity.

Again, that's the claim that's going to have to be worked out in discussion. But so, yes, I'm not sure exactly.

So how do you balance the methodology with God's? Well, the methodology of presuppositionalism, of course, takes into account the idea that God is sovereign.

Greg Bonson said it wonderfully. So the job of the apologist is not to.

Necessarily persuade the unbeliever, we want to try to persuade, but but ultimately it's going to be the spirit of God that persuades our job is to close the unbelievers mouth, right?

We give an answer for the hope that's within us in such a way that there's nothing else that the person can say.

Right. And of course, the the issue of conversion is going to be a work of the spirit, because we believe that when we are defending the faith,

God is sovereign. And that's that's the that's the side of the ledger that God is responsible for, the transformation of the heart.

So it's because the belief in divine sovereignty that we can. Defend the faith presuppositionally, declare the truth of scripture unashamedly, knowing that ultimately

God is in control of salvation. So you go pardon.

Let's see here. What do you think of frames try perspectivalism?

OK, I'm going to is embarrassing. So I'm the pre supper guy. So I'm supposed to know this stuff. I'm not I'm not really familiar with frames tries, tries, tries.

OK, this is hard. Let's say this again. Look, gifts are for today. I'm speaking tongues. Try perspectivalism.

I'm not very familiar with it. I'm more of a Bonsonian, Vantillian guy. I love frame and I have his books and I've read many of his books, but I haven't focused in on his try perspectivalism, so sorry about that.

Alberto Martinez, what do you think about the fact that I'm a homosexual? Well, I don't know you personally,

Alberto, and I don't know. What that means in the sense of your active living out in the lifestyle and things like that, but I would say to you, if if it's something you are living out and you are.

Engaging in the type of behavior that expresses a rebellion against what God has commanded in scripture,

I would like I would with anyone else who needs to hear the gospel, I would call you to repentance lovingly and.

Point out your need for Jesus, and that's what I would think about it, I would see you as an object of evangelism, if this is something that you are struggling with and you're saying, hey,

I want to honor God, but I feel these attract. That's a conversation to have, right? I think that's important that we should come alongside people who are struggling with these sorts of things.

But if this is something you fully embrace as your lifestyle, your identity, these sorts of things, I would I would call you to repentance that you're not living in a way that is honoring to God and we will be held accountable before a righteous and holy

God. And so I would call you to repentance if that was the situation. But again, this is a very simple question the way it's asked, but there are obviously more details to be fleshed out there.

I don't know who you are, don't know the context, the situation and all these sorts of things. So those are my quick and quick thoughts on that,

Alberto. OK, but you're welcome here, Alberto. And, you know, all of us need the gospel, every single one of us, whether you are a homosexual living a homosexual lifestyle, an atheist, even

Christians need the gospel. We need to be reminded of what Christ has done on our behalf. And while we were yet sinners,

Christ came and died and that we could have we can be reconciled with God, right, by faith alone, by grace alone.

And one of the profound Bible verses that helped me a lot when I struggled with my standing before God was Romans 4, 5, which says, but to the one who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.

That is a great encouragement to me. It is not an issue of my performance and my ability to obey

God. It is by his grace. But we call people to repentance. We proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ.

And I know that God has the power to deliver people with all sorts of inclinations and sinful lifestyles and whatnot.

And so nothing is too hard for God. So that's what I would share there, Alberto. And I hope you understand the heart with which

I with which I say that. So thank you for that. Let's see here.

Dearly beloved, any Bible study tips? Huh. I know this is going to sound weird, but read slowly when you're reading the

Bible. I don't know if you if you struggle with this, but sometimes we tend to kind of try to get through.

Sections of scripture, take your time and smell the roses, ask questions of the text that you're reading, right, take notes.

There's a difference between reading your Bible and studying your Bible. Don't simply read your Bible, take notes, actively engage the text.

Also, what has helped me is I'm an audio learner, so it is very difficult for me to sit down and read.

So I often listen, audio Bible, things like that until it becomes the background music of my mind and it begins to I begin to remember scripture throughout my day and has been very helpful in comprehension and memorization.

So I'm also repetitiveness. I think John MacArthur suggested in one of his books and his study notes that he takes a month or he suggests that you take a month reading through just one book.

You read, for example, first John and read it over and over again for an entire month. If you do that with each of the books of the

New Testament, you'll finish the New Testament by a certain time and it will take longer than if you just read through the

New Testament. But with that kind of pattern of repetition, you will be more familiar with the New Testament than if someone did kind of a read the

Bible in a year method. OK, so there you go. Let's see here.

Have you ever had a dialogue and a great response? Yeah. Yes. Praying for Alberto, pray for Alberto.

Absolutely. Absolutely. And I hope Alberto doesn't see that my comments as kind of condescending.

I do not look down on you or anything like that. Those are that would just be my honest response. I'd call you to repentance and I would present to you a

Jesus who can save a Jesus who can do what the world deems impossible.

All right. So so there you go. Christopher Coleman, have you ever had a dialogue? Would you be interested in having a dialogue with David Pullman?

I saw that you were planning to respond to his recent video. Yeah. Dialogue is kind of a soft word for debate.

I don't know. I am, as I said before, I see myself more as a teacher, not so much as a debater.

Maybe, maybe, maybe one day I'd have to think about it. So, yeah. All right.

I'm going to take a couple more questions here. On my Facebook list here, I got a couple and then we'll wrap things up, as I did not expect to go this this long.

OK, well, hopefully folks are enjoying it and my answers are not completely useless to you.

I hope I hope it's somewhat clear. So let's take a look here. All right, someone says the impossibility of the contrary can easily be disproven.

I mean, how do you how do you respond to that? So if he means this within the context of like the transcendental argument for the existence of God, then then, yeah,

I would say go for it. If you think you can disprove the transcendental argument for God's existence, you know, that's literally what we're asking for.

When the when the presuppositionalist uses the transcendental argument and argues along the lines of that, the triune God who's revealed himself in natural and special revelation, right, as a necessary precondition for knowledge and so forth.

Someone says, well, I think that's ridiculous. I can disprove that. Yeah, go for it. Right. We want you to lay out your counter worldview.

This is what the unbeliever never does. Right. They will never lay out their worldview.

I'd be careful. I wouldn't say never. There are people who attempt to give an answer to this, but for the most part, kind of in popular discussions, at least in my experience, the unbeliever just doesn't lay out their position.

I remember I debated on modern day debates, a gentleman. We had a great discussion.

I find this person to be very respectful. We had a great conversation. But I debated a guy who called himself the negation of P.

And it was a presuppositional situation. And.

He grilled me for a long time. And then eventually, when I asked him to give me his worldview, it was very interesting, right, people begin to get a little skittish, like, well, you know, you know, this is the issue.

If you think you could refute the argument, part of refuting the argument is actually providing a perspective that gives the necessary precondition for intelligibility in a coherent way.

Right. That's what we want. That's not what the presupposition is not hiding from that. We want you to try and engage.

That's part of engaging in the debate. Right. So show the non -Christian position can provide the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.

If it's so easy to refute, then give us more than bare assertion. Right. And Christians do more than merely asserting the

Christian position. Right. So if he means this book, but in the more general sense, like you have to understand that transcendental arguments are a family of arguments.

Right. If something is necessarily true, for example, is the contrary to that necessary truth possible?

If so, then how? If not, then the concept of the impossibility of the contrary is perfectly rational.

And the particular claim to the impossibility of the contrary needs to be examined, which the presuppositionalist welcomes.

Right. We welcome we welcome that. So. All right. Let's see here. Let's see here.

Real apologetic. Someone told me that the transcendental argument is just begging the question, what should

I tell them? OK, well, how does it beg the question? In what sense? Right. So I typically give the transcendental argument in the form of a deductive argument.

So, for example, I'm just throwing this out there. If knowledge is possible, the Christian worldview is true.

Knowledge is possible. Therefore, the Christian worldview is true. Where is the begging the question?

Notice that the argument is valid. You could argue for the soundness of the premises. And there might be some clarification required there.

But we need to make a distinction between the the premise of an argument and the presupposition of an argument.

I presuppose the truth of my argument before I even utter the argument. But notice that my conclusion is not stated in one of the premises.

So it is not fallaciously circular. Of course, I'm going to presuppose the truth of the argument. It's it's an I'm arguing for a perspective that I believe in.

Right now, there is a sense in which I presuppose God at the very start. But that's not a fallacy, because when we deal with ultimate foundations, right, when we deal with kind of a self -attesting starting point, then there is going to be a certain level of circularity, contrary to what some foundationalists suggest.

Some foundationalists think that they could start with a non -circular foundation. We'll address that next week.

Right. OK. Or we could begin with certain properly basic beliefs, you know, something along those lines, which we'll discuss.

But there you go. I think when we're I do think it's true, though, when you start at a fundamental level, there's going to be a level of circularity.

But with respect to begging the question in kind of an argument form, yeah, there's nothing in the argument

I just presented in which the conclusion is stated in one of the premises. So I don't think it suffers from that.

That's how I'd answer that. Hope I understood your question correctly. All right. Let's see here.

Someone says it is possible that a universe exists in which human beings who are able to accurately perceive and understand the universe have arisen through processes that did not require the

Christian God. They're done. There you go. So this is the person attempting to see another question here.

There's a person attempting to demonstrate that this possibility refutes the idea that the

Christian God is necessary. Right. So it is possible, they say, that a universe exists in which human beings who are able to accurately perceive and understand the universe has arisen through processes that did not require the

Christian God. They're done. How would you respond? Well, I mean, we must ask, right, how does the questioner know what is possible or impossible?

Kind of opened up a statement. It is possible that a universe exists in which human beings are accurately perceiving without recourse to God.

Right. How does the person know what's possible or impossible? Notions of possibility. Think about this.

Presuppose a whole host of metaphysical assumptions. And that, of course, we're not going to just grant them. Right. And we're dealing with worldview issues.

Right. No cheating. No starting in the middle of the road. I want you to tell me how you got in the car to drive in the middle of the road to begin with.

OK. Secondly, to say that it is possible for there to be human beings who can accurately perceive and understand the universe without the

Christian God is already presupposing the falsity of the Christian position by definition. Right. If one thinks this is possible, then they're going to have to flesh out their metaphysical perspective and their theory of possibility and so forth.

We'll have to test it and analyze it. OK, another question here. How does God account for the things that he knows?

It's a good question, I would say, and I see another question here and I'll see if I could address it.

Let me just this one here. How does God account for the things that he knows? So to understand

God properly within a Christian framework, God is the source and definer of all things.

Right. He's the source of definer of all things that are to be and can be known. OK, so in essence,

God, as omniscient, is aware of his own mind and the contents of his own mind.

And God is the we would call him the original knower. So within the literature, we want to make a distinction between what some have called archetypal knowledge and ectypal knowledge, archetypal knowledge and ectypal knowledge.

Archetypal knowledge is the knowledge of God as the original knower. Ectypal knowledge is the knowledge of the creature.

It's a derived knowledge. So given the metaphysical status of God and his knowledge, man must reconstruct what he knows so as to have it correspond to what

God knows as the original knower. It's kind of this idea of thinking God's thoughts after him. Right. So man must provide an account and the justification for his knowledge claim because he's not omniscient.

God, on the other hand, is omniscient. He doesn't need to provide a justification for what he knows. I am that I am right.

This is what God says. So to ask such a thing, I think, blurs the distinction between creator and creature.

And when God makes an assertion, we believe it because it is God who says it. His word, his knowledge, as he communicates it to his creatures, is self -attesting because of his metaphysical status as ultimate.

It must be since there is no higher standard than God himself that that is used to provide a justification for what

God what God knows. OK, you know, people can complain about that. You know, boo hoo.

God doesn't need to justify his own knowledge. But man does. Yeah, that's right. You can be upset about that. But yeah, there is a difference between the creator and the creature.

OK, this is God we're talking about. OK. And while there are similarities between God and man, the differences are vast because he is

God and we are not. OK. All right, let's see.

Let's do one more from the Facebook and then I'll go to the comments here and finish that up.

Give me a sec. All right.

So got this one from Facebook. If you agree. That I'll make sure my mic is on, that'd be awkward if I went all through the energy to answer the.

There we go. I'm on. OK, let's see here. We get this off and what books did

I ask for? I didn't ask for. I didn't ask for books. Christmas, unfortunately. Maybe I should.

OK, let's take a look here. So here's from Facebook. If you agree that knowledge is taken to be justified, true belief.

OK, this question is for you. The person says. If I have a justification for my belief that Jesus did not rise from the dead and if it is true that Jesus did not rise from the dead and if knowledge is to be taken to be justified, true belief, would

I know that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Your answer will start with one of two words. Yes or no.

Then you could expound on your answer. All other answers are going to be taken as a cop out and an

L on your ledger. A loss, I guess. OK. Well, I would answer it as a simply answer.

Yes. Yes. If knowledge is defined as being a justified, true belief. And if in this scenario you do, in fact, have a belief that is justified and is in fact true, then by definition you would have knowledge.

So in other words, the question is ready. If I have knowledge, would I have knowledge?

Well, yes. If knowledge is justified, true belief and you have a belief, there's a sufficient justification for it.

Right. And it's true that, of course, yes, that's simply saying something that, you know, it's basically saying something that's true by definition.

Right. But here's the thing. Here's what we need to remember. Knowledge, justification, true, justified, true belief, however you define it, and notions of justification, notions of truth and belief don't exist in a worldview vacuum.

Right. The logically prior question is going to be whether the person has the sort of worldview context out of which notions of knowledge, justification, truth, belief and so forth even make sense.

All of these categories, while the purview of epistemology are packed with metaphysical assumptions, aren't they?

And so we as presuppositionalists are simply asking, how does your worldview make sense of something like knowledge and the components which constitute knowledge, justification and so forth?

So in other words, does your worldview provide the necessary preconditions for knowledge? And so we're right back at that square one.

Right. Namely asking worldview paradigmatic questions. So the sorts of questions I would ask this individual would not be,

OK, so what is your justification for the belief that Jesus did not rise from the dead? Rather, my question would be, what is your justification for justification?

You see, the unbeliever wants to start again in the middle of the road. We need to ask those questions. How did he get on the road to begin with?

It's a slate of it's a sleight of hands. The believer, the unbeliever wants you to grant him an inch so that he can first have something to grab onto and then he could move from one thing there to build it to another thing to build his case against the

Christian position. But we need to remind him that every inch belongs to Christ. OK, we do not grant those little things in between.

If you have a justified true belief, you're not dealing with the ultimate worldview question.

Does your worldview make sense out of justification, belief and truth? If so, how?

We need to hear it. What lay out the worldview? The Christians have answers to this. You might not agree with the Christian answer, but we have an answer for it.

OK, what's your answer? OK, all right. Let's see here.

I'm going to take a last few here. And OK, so this is from Jimmy. Hello, Jimmy.

Hi, Eli. If presuppositionalism is reducing is reducible to providing arguments for theism based on facts that are commonly presupposed and accepted the uniformity of nature.

How does this set apart precept from. What someone like John Foster or Richard Swinburne is doing with their natural theology arguments based on natural regularities and induction.

OK, yeah, so there there is a difference. OK, folks that are. Who are from the more evidential camp,

OK, which again is going to also going to going to be informed by their theology.

I don't deny that. Classical apologist or evidential apologist appeal to natural regularity and uniformity, the question is, is the category of the uniformity of nature, can it be understood in a neutral and autonomous fashion?

And I think that is the the twin poison, so to speak, that sneaks into the methodology of a lot of these a lot of these folks.

So, again, a natural theology. OK, we have to make a distinction here between natural revelation is what

God does. He reveals himself. And natural theology is what we do. We theologize and work our way up to conclusions about God.

The question is, the very process of natural theologizing is going to have to be informed by a worldview that scriptural of your

Christian and is going to have to take into account the effects of sin upon the mind and how that influences and impacts one's ability to engage adequately in natural theology.

Right. So all of these categories must be understood within a biblical context if you're a Christian and using these categories.

The question is which version of the use or the understanding of these natural regularities, induction, these sorts of things, which is being more consistent with the

Bible. If your apologetic methodology allows categories of induction, regularity, these sorts of things to be understood in a neutral fashion.

Right. Then there's a problem. And that presuppositionalism will stand distinct from those other methodologies because presuppositionalism does not believe that induction and some of these sorts of things that you mentioned here can be understood in a neutral fashion.

Right. So everything's going to be getting back to consistent worldview application. OK, Mason O.

says, what do you think about praying before a meal at another's house when they're believers? Is it a shame for a man to allow another man to lead prayer in his home?

I felt ashamed when I prayed. I don't think there's a rule to let another man pray at your house.

Yeah, I guess the natural thing is, is my house here, even in my at my table. I mean, I would pray, but there's nothing shameful about letting someone else pray.

I don't see a if it's shameful, if it's wrong. You know, show me the scripture. Show me some scriptural principle that we could apply here.

Yeah. Uh, there's another part of squares are based on necessary truths from people like Aquinas and Leibniz.

Yeah, same same thing. I do not believe in brute facts. Right. These people can appeal to like brute factuality and these kind of these givens.

Right. The myth of the given. Right. I don't I don't believe in brute facts. Mantel creatively said once he said brute facts.

He's kind of necessary truths and self -evident, you know, facts. He said that brute facts are mute facts.

Facts don't speak. All right. We need to impose a worldview categories in order to rationally think about those things.

And so same thing with necessary truths is to understand the very concept of necessary truth. Yes, there are things that are necessarily true, but we understand those within a context.

OK, is that context a coherent one? Is that context a biblical one? These are important questions to ask.

All right, so. The to do. OK, well, that's it. We're at one hour and fifty four minutes.

I, I promise you, I thought I was going to go. I was going to go like an hour, maybe at most.

But here we go. Almost two hours. And I'm on painkillers. I have strep throat. And I have ibuprofen, so that's why

I'm able to talk so much. But once this joint wears off, I'm going to feel it. So I think now is a good time to wrap things up.

I hope that my answers were useful and helpful again.

I do the best I can shooting from the hip based upon my own study. I'm sure that some of my answers were incomplete.

Or I do apologize if I didn't understand a question properly or if I skip the question scrolling through.

Sometimes it's hard to differentiate between the comments and the questions. But thank you so much for listening in. Guys, if you have enjoyed this, please share this like it.

All of those little details of liking and writing. Those are super helpful and they're greatly appreciated. So that will be it for tonight.

Real quick, just a quick reminder. There's a live stream next week. We're going to be interacting with the

David Pullman video and my precept you course, the premium edition in which

I meet with the people who sign up for five zoom sessions, five private zoom sessions over the course of five weeks.

Precept you, of course, introduction to biblical apologetics. And it's more of an it's more than an introduction. We kind of go into some great detail.

But the premium version of that, I meet with the students who sign up and people have signed up already. If you're looking to support revealed apologetics, signing up for that course is one of the most helpful ways you can do it.

And the content is good. And so it's a good way to learn presuppositionalism in a more formal format.

You get five lectures, all of the PowerPoint presentation that you could use on your own. Once you finish the course, you can use that in your own context.

It comes with some outlines and, of course, the private zoom meetings. So if you want to sign up for that, you can click the link in the description.

You can go to revealed apologetics or click on precept you. You can RSVP classes start

January 15. So we'll be meeting through zoom, a private zoom on that date.

So I just wanted to throw that out there for folks who might be interested in signing up and supporting revealed apologetics in that way.

If that's something that is not interesting to you, that's all good. I appreciate you guys just listening in and supporting by your viewership and and just the kind and respectful interactions in the comments.

So thank you so much, guys. Until next week, that's all for tonight. Take care and God bless.