Responding to Noah Adam's Criticism of Jeff Durbin (with Jeff in Studio)

Well, greetings and welcome to the dividing line, my name is James White and we have a lot to cover today.

It is just what ten days before Christmas 2015 and So we're sort of got a little little celebration going there.

Chris is such a colorful time I think and and now y 'all have seen this

Coogee before one of the pictures of me Teaching from back in Owensboro back in like 2010 or 2011.

I think it was Is I'm wearing I'm wearing this this one that people have called the the

Coogee of many colors and things like that but most Coogees are like this this one's particular

I couldn't be out Coogee today and but I am I'm joined in studio today by Boy, you have a lot of titles but Pastor elder video game character

Putting those together is rather interesting, but Jeff Durbin, there's there's Jeff. Yes, and you can't miss me today

No, no. Well, you know, I'm a cyclist. It's good to be seen. Yes, that's right

Some people still don't see it because they're texting. Yeah, if I'm ever taken out, that's what's gonna be

You know, it's it's sad, but I see it all the time if you love, you know, all of a sudden back in their lane Anyways, that's neither here nor there

Jeff you Tell us a little about your ministry. What's your what you're up to? Well apology a church is the is the church that I'm a pastor at.

Yeah No, I'm in your studio now at initial lots or so like apology a church is the church

I'm a pastor at and apology a radio and TV or ministry Ministries of apology a church outreach and proclamation arm of apology a church using media and everything to bring the gospel around The globe so that's that's what

I do and you all are very very very involved in in pro -life work

Yes, rescuing the unborn and things like that. Yeah, you hang with some odd people

I'll be honest with you, you know, like me like you and You you hang with a you have a small see

Catholic thing going on, you know, you know Broad broad spectrum.

Yes. I have a lot of I mean like am I a Presbyterian buddies? Yeah Buddies yeah,

I do. Yeah. Yeah, I do have a strange spectrum of friends Yes, definitely friends that wear very interesting clothes and that's right a gift to me with very interesting clothes

This is this is a party. It's a Christmas shirt, and it's also a safety vest

That's Right, you can use it while digging trenches next to the road, so right wouldn't be good to do that. We actually are here

This isn't the most Holiday ish topic. No B. In fact, it's not really holiday ish at all

No, I think about it, but I don't remember who did it If if you were the one

What? Oh Okay, if you were the one who

Sent this to me either on Twitter or Facebook. I don't remember. Sorry. I get so many things

I can't I can't remember who did what? But someone sent me a link to a video on YouTube by Noah Adam It's hard to keep it's hard to know because that's backwards.

It should be Adam Noah chronologically speaking Or biblically timeline a timeline thing.

Yeah But Noah Adam Whom I'll be honest had not seen before or heard of before or anything like that it was new to me, but what

I caught my eye was a Critique and I I just need you to confirm your your presupposition was

I I am home Yeah, it's a little known fact Yeah, I was I was speaking at this church in London once and and I got done preaching and this this lady

Traps me in this hallway, and it's old old church, you know everything in London is old and she she she comes up to me and she says

Someone told I loved your sermon, but but someone told me you you believe in limited atonement

And it's just like that, you know, so it's sort of like like if you say yes, she's gonna break down weeping she's gonna forget everything you just said she's gonna hit you with their purse something along those lines and and but but to Noah Adam Has a problem with you being a

Presuppositionalist. Yeah. Now, why are you causing division by being a presupposition? Well, you know,

I It's interesting because when you know, obviously I'm not jealous for the the the term presuppositional if someone wants to say covenantal or reformed

Apologetic. I honestly think the best way to describe presuppositional apologetics is it's just Christian apologetics and and I know somebody say

Somebody will say But wait a second. We're all Christians. We don't do apologetics what

I mean by it's Christian apologetics. Is that it's consistent? Christian approach to the world to thinking to knowledge to Metaphysics to ethics what it's just it's it's standing consistently as a

Christian That's that's essentially what it is is the Word of God is is the is the reference point?

God himself as the reference point and we're reasoning consistently with what our foundations are

So you're actually saying that we should do apologetics not based upon man's philosophy or starting with man but we should do apologetics based upon the idea that God has

Spoken and has given us the framework in which we are to understand the world around us.

That's right. That's right So it's theology Before quote philosophy although revelation before man's thought that's right

So that would require us to believe first of all that we believe in a creator who communicates that's right a creator has a purpose and intention that he's working out in this world and that mankind is

Is to man he bears the image of God Mm -hmm is able to understand

God's revelation and has some kind of responsibility as the creature of God to live in light of his creators

Revelation and will for him is law his what his purpose is so on and so forth

It sounds like what you're saying is if you start with the biblical God and a truly biblical view of man

This is what follows. That's right, but but the atheist doesn't agree But wait a minute from a

Christian perspective that really wouldn't matter that much because he's still the creature of God.

Yeah, and So what you're saying is we don't we're not inviting the unbeliever to judge

God. That's right That everybody does that. Yeah, you ever and and Christians that do do it are

Acting and consistently with their commitments. Wait a minute evidence demands a verdict Yeah evidence and more evidence demands more more of a verdict.

Yeah, and here's the thing It's important it when someone talks about the the distinctions between presuppositional versus evidentialist

Somebody might initially leap into that conversation and say so what you're saying is that like we don't look at evidences and it's it's it's no

You can't even talk about the world of evidences. You can't talk about science You can't talk about things like induction in a uniform Universe, you can't talk about laws of logic without a coherent foundation

This is the point certain things have to be true about the world in order to make a coherent claim to science or logic or ethics certain things have to be true about the world and What we're saying is as I think thinking consistently as Christians is that if you don't start with God as the reference point you don't get

Those things that are true about the world Now the atheist because he's in God's image because he is a creature

Will live in the world operating like an image bearer of God He has to because the world is what God made it to be and that in that Atheist is what

God made him to be image of God and so it's inescapable You can't help being what God made you to be and so the atheist is going to borrow from God's revelation

Consistently every day of his life because this is God's world God's world. So what you're saying is he can't he can't create a consistent existence around him without having to Snatch its snippets of the reality that he himself is denying.

Yeah, he can't live consistently he's gonna have to bite off pieces of the Christian worldview every day that he lives and He can't do now.

He may develop a very sophisticated system You know, there are people as as as RC Sproul said with bonds in their discussion

There are people with formidable intellects that are unbelievers But there are so much just systems of futility because at every turn they're going to ultimately collapse an unbeliever can't

Operate consistently in the use of science or in in a discussion about ethics Oh, you said no unbeliever can be a scientist.

Well unbelievers. Absolutely can be scientists and they are some people heard you say Yeah, yeah, that's that's not what

I said and unbelievers cannot provide a coherent foundation for science now Why do unbelief why do we say?

Okay, but wait a minute there are atheist scientists of course, there are because they're in the image of God and this is

God's world because it's uniform uniform because it actually Displays constantly

God's governance of it But the unbeliever can't provide any intelligible

Answer justification as to how we can actually pursue science in a meaningful way. So Dawkins is is a brilliant scientist

He's an intellectual man, but if you actually take what he says about the world It doesn't match what he's doing in the world

And that's the point and I won't live consistently and he won't live consistently with and here's the thing It's important people to grasp too is that and and this is a good to start

I think laying down as we discuss this is that presuppositional apologetics is not Well, you know

God exists nanny nanny boo boo. Yes, you do. No, I don't. Yes, you do. No, I don't that's and that's an

Aspect of what we say to the world is that God is so clearly known by everybody that it's that you're without excuse

And you know the God that we're talking about and there's a suppression going on, but that's not the apologetic That's not the sum of it.

That's an aspect of it and so what we're saying ultimately is We have to think consistently as Christians in terms of what

Jesus says about himself in Matthew chapter 7 Jesus gives us the famous Scene that we sing about in church as little kids.

Although I wasn't in church as a little kid. I heard about this You Know Jesus says

I don't know if this is true. Okay there He says there are two people with two foundations and two destinations There's a wise one a foolish one and he says there's a rock and there's ultimately sand

Yeah, so I'm right about that there and he says yes He says that one ends in desolation and one makes it through the storm when the issues of life come and they will come

The one that's built on the rock makes it through the storm Okay now it's interesting to note that when

Jesus says this the immediate response of those who heard him was He speaks as one having authority and They caught it

He didn't ask for any corroboration He didn't ask for anybody to sign his papers to give him a stamp of approval didn't call any rabbis

That's right He didn't actually appealed any rabbis or anybody above him or say oh, you know, it's because of this over here He just said this is the way of life.

There's foolish people. There's wise there's foundation over here and over here there's one that's gonna make it through and The one that builds their life upon his word is

The one that makes it through and and that is what Van Till said where the whole issue of epistemology and apologetic rests

It's there. This is where it begins Come on Jeff how in the world are you ever supposed to get?

That get into the Academy and make an impact in the Academy when you're making such wild claims as if Jesus is like the creator of everything and that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in him

I Mean, come on. I mean, how are we ever supposed to really get anywhere? I mean, it sounds

Radically Christian Christ centered here. Yeah, it sounds very Christian, doesn't it? Yeah. Yeah, it does But really and that's just the thing

I think we struggle with as Christians as they want to be liked by the world and you know I think we need a we didn't note very carefully

Jesus when he says woe To you and all people speak well of you if that's what we're pursuing in life If that's what we want is the approval of men then we're going about it backwards

It's a moral issue and in the end we're philosophically inconsistent The Apostle Paul says in Galatians when he's dealing with an issue of a false gospel

He says am I still trying to please men or God if I was trying to please men? I would not be the slave of Jesus and we have to ask ourselves the question

Do we want to be slaves of men or of Christ? And if we want to be slaves of Christ in all

Aspects. Yes of life. You're not just in quote -unquote Religious. Yeah, that's right.

And and this is the thing is that the Christian worldview is all -encompassing Jesus is Lord over all he says

I have all authority in heaven and on earth that beard you're a radical. Thank you Jesus says he says all authority in heaven and on earth

I I take that to mean all authority now on earth And so that means that Jesus has authority over the sciences.

Jesus has authority over literature Jesus has authority over poetry. Jesus has authority over media He has authority and so there's not any place without any realm or sphere that he is not in Charge of that he doesn't directly speak to and so but one thing

I want to note though And this is important and people can look this up When you look at the history of the Christian Church moving throughout time to where we're at today

It was the Christian Church that births or gave rise to these great moments in modern science getting a pop education when you look at things like Cambridge Oxford Yale Harvard these were not

Institutions that were given to us on the basis of an atheistic framework The name of Christ is still chiseled in the in the walls though His name is no longer known in the hall

That's right And you know, you'll have you know things people walk over in these university or walk under I should say in these universities

I say things like in his light we see light though. They've abandoned their commitments to Christ. They cannot shake the biblical worldview and So when someone says well, you're not gonna make it in the

Academy now because they don't respect that well in the end again Are we slaves of men or God and do we want as Christians to have an apologetic?

That is rigorous? biblical morally responsible as Christians and Philosophically consistent because if we pretend to pretend neutrality as Christians, I think that's a moral issue

For us as Christians. It's it's a moral issue Christ is we're supposed to be for Christ and not against him in all things and I think

Philosophically we break down and become inconsistent when we step off of our commitments That are based upon God's self -disclosure his revelation of himself when we abandon those commitments we fall into philosophical inconsistency because like you said at the beginning if Man is the reference point if I'm the reference point if we are the reference point then we don't get to talk in a meaningful

Way about science ethics and logic. We don't get to talk about worldview. We don't get to talk about distinctions

We don't get to talk about laws of any sort and so even the Christian Apologist who doesn't start all of us thinking with Jesus Cannot make a coherent appeal to all these things that are necessary to have a debate and the key is the coherence

Not that they don't make an argument. That's right. There's gonna be holes and flaws in it. That's right. Well now we have we have started off with sort of an introduction to these things, but We'll get into these things

We're gonna start on the video. My primary purpose is The first section of the video is

What he what he called the at one point the exegetical foreplay at one point

Now there is something we got to talk about. Yes, I Had never heard of this fellow before me neither didn't know anything about him.

And so I Listened I didn't watch the video.

I listened to the presentation and To all of the presentation

In a one shot. I was doing a long run. So I just just listened to it during a run and I was confused

Because on the one hand he would talk about Critiquing you feeling that you're that the presuppositional methodology of apologetics drives people away from the gospel

Many people have taken the trip to secular city as a result of presuppositional apologetics and all the rest of stuff and so the only the only context

I could give that an Atheist wouldn't care about these things wouldn't be talking about these things.

Yeah, so My assumption from the start is that this is simply an evidential apologetic

But then as I get farther and farther into it At one point I remember right where I was on the trail where I was running at one point

I went if I do a review of this I'm going to call it the pagan Christian apologetic apologetic because the

Epistemology and the worldview was not distinctively Christian. It was pagan and many of the arguments being made were

Were the same arguments that you get from atheists and things like that. We did not show any Self -conscious understanding of a meaningful

Christ centered worldview Yeah but then I got toward the end and I started and I picked up on some language and things like that and I'm like Is this guy even a

Christian? And I started thinking about it. Wait a minute if you can go through an entire

I think it's like 44 minute presentation and That is not clearly stated one way or the other it takes an effort to do that No, you gotta work hard at it.

You gotta work hard at it. Yeah, you gotta work hard at it And so I went on YouTube and I did something

I don't like to do. I do not like commenting on YouTube I don't have comments available on my videos for the very reason that I I was wasting my life years ago deleting all the profanity from atheists off of my

YouTube channel and So I just just asked the question on the on the video.

Are you a Christian? I got it interesting response back but basically

Thought other people posted links things like that. He's an agnostic. He's evidently lost his faith

I mean it for 10 years. He was doing quote -unquote evidentialist apologetics. I don't know what kind of a church

I don't know anything about it, which would help me a lot. It would help me a lot I don't think he feels that that's relevant.

Yeah, but it would help me a lot. And so when people a number of other people commented when

When listening to this because I said listen to this video before I get started They also were very confused

Yeah Because there was no clarity about the perspective from which he was coming from now his argument is well

If it's a valid argument doesn't matter what my background is and and of course from my perspective. No, I'm sorry Been there done that got the t -shirt if if you're going to I don't even invest time to be honest with you in folks who will not be clear and open honest and forthright about the actual position that they are seeking to promote because if you don't know that It will always lead to Misunderstanding miscommunication a waste of time down the road.

Yeah Don't want to go there, but it really made this video very You know,

I listened to it again Was it this morning? No on my ride yesterday

Now knowing the background and it changed the flavor of what

I heard not I had that kind of background Yes, so I think a lot of people might be a little confused as to exactly what the motivations are

Yeah in the video given that we're talking about someone who if you're an agnostic now or Even a hardcore atheist.

I mean it used the phrase baby eater, which sorry I don't know how anybody could ever use that terminology at all.

But I guess it's sort of something atheists do Why raise these

Elements of critique, right? Yeah, that's the question is is when when the video was posted

On our page initially didn't know who he was It was it wasn't that long Maybe it's been a month and a half ago or so But the video is posted when people had seen it and just let me know.

Hey this video you should take a look at it not only was I confused and I first listened to it because he says I'm you know, I'm concerned because you're gonna take people away from the gospel and They're the kingdom of God and I was like, okay

This is just a believer who's trying to offer a critique and then it just sort of kind of devolved I started looking things up and I got the idea that maybe he was an atheist now

He's definitely a band in the faith and he's either an atheist or an agnostic Again in one of his videos he refers to him and others in the room where I suppose are atheists as baby eaters as you know ingest

But other people had you know said hey, I'm confused. Where's this guy at? What is he and I did see your interaction with him on the

YouTube video and I I don't Usually have anything to do with YouTube comments. It's just a world

I don't want to go into yeah a world I didn't I wish didn't really exist but he did say back to you that You know in reference to you know, maybe my exegesis was wrong, but I still think it's you know, it's not a good

You know apologetic and he says that you know It's the same critique that a that a theist could offer you or a

Muslim. My response to that is not true Muslims come from a different perspective that revelation is actually possible and that so it is a different perspective

No, they can't offer the same critiques critiques as an atheist And here's the thing I would want to say to Noah if he if he were to listen and he was really you know

Saying okay, you know, why are you challenged by my statements? I would say okay No, what if in our response today if you wanted to offer a critique if we were to say to you

Well Noah over the last couple of days last seven days long a lot of things gonna happen in seven days We've had some significant changes to our position, but none of those changes are relevant in your future critiques of me they don't matter because My critique of you as an atheist is my critique of you as an atheist and my beliefs are really irrelevant to the discussion

So don't bring them up. I think anybody would see well, that's not really true. It's not really honest

It's not genuine. Of course, your beliefs are relevant to your critique of me And so well, but of course from his perspective, we're so lazy

Yeah that our apologetic ignores all the differences between atheists. Yeah when in reality what we're saying is there is a

Fundamental spiritual reality that is true of all human beings that will manifest itself in many different ways

But if you ignore that Fundamental reality, you will never actually get to the true source of what the problem is in the first place

That's right that's what he seems to have been missing and that's what a lot of Evidentialist apologists seem to miss and part of that's because some of the critiques of presuppositional ism out there even from reform folks

Are not all that Accurate or show a real understanding of what it is.

We're attempting to say. Yeah, look before I start the video Here's the point from my perspective. Here's here's why am

I presuppositionalist? Well It's real simple First of all, I believe that apologetics flows from your theology

If you develop an apologetic methodology and then tweak your theology to fit your apologetics, you've got it backwards unfortunately,

I see a lot of people that do that and There needs to be a natural Consistent flow from what you positively believe

About first of all who God is it has to be it has to be a God -centered theology. We got a man -centered theology

Good luck there. Yeah, there's there's no coherent means of coming up with a consistent system at that point but a

God -centered theology with a biblical anthropology You don't have those two things in place you're not gonna be able to create a

Truly Christ honoring consistent apologetic methodology. That's right and that's really where it all comes from for me and That's why

I was shocked at so much of what Noah said at the beginning because I'm assuming the guy's a

Christian Listened to it the second time and I'm not sure why he was raising the issues that he was

So let's dive into it or we never get this done. This is going to be a jumbo mega mondo

Run straight through tomorrow. It's 44 minutes long.

So no, I'm not gonna run straight through So, no, we're gonna be starting and stopping no two ways about it

Now there are three texts That he focuses upon after we get through the introduction stuff.

There are three texts first Peter 3 15 Romans chapter 1 in Colossians chapter 2 and I told

Noah and with all due respect on an exegetical level he Face -planted all three of them did not seem to recognize background.

I don't again. It'd be nice to know If you have any seminary training, does he know any biblical languages?

Is there is there anything there? I can't tell you can't tell from from from a video like this

But I think it's very important to respond those are key texts there At least you got at least you went to the right text.

Mm -hmm. Just did not handle them. Well at all let's uh, let's dive in and Here we go there

I'm making this video response to Jeff Durbin and everyone at Apologia Studios and in case you're wondering who the heck

I am My name is Noah. I was an evidential apologist for about 10 years

I maintained a fairly successful YouTube channel back when YouTube was actually about interaction between users

I went by the username Veritas 48 because Truth 48 sounded cool.

I really don't know why I chose that. No, but in all seriousness I was actually kind of a big deal back in the day. I was

Anyway, that was a long time now, I like that That's obviously created.

Yeah specifically to you know it almost looked like he was looking off into the distance and experiencing it, you know, and now of course in Knowing what's happened since then has different meaning that I would initially would but again

I don't remember Veritas 48 and sadly Veritas is not the most uncommon

Name that people choose. Yeah, like there are even seminaries And a lot has changed since then when you're an evidential apologist you sort of find yourself pushed into a certain niche whether it's cult apologetics or scientific apologetics or in my case

Philosophical apologetics. I really enjoyed natural theology and arguing for the existence of God It tells me something it does it tells me something natural theology to a reformed person

You know fundamental to our critique of much of evidentialism is the idea

That God's creation can be appropriately Interpreted apart from his special revelation.

Yes, which begins all the way back with Adam There is such thing as natural revelation

But I think the scope of it's of what it communicates is extremely limited

Mm -hmm, and it also doesn't deal with the issue of sin and the fall in the noetic Effective sin on our minds exactly which is what we'll get into in Romans 1

Yeah My mission field completely by accident sort of happened to be secular folk

Atheists one of the main reasons that I like this area of apologetics was that it allowed me to bridge gaps between my faith and Unbelievers, it was kind of like a building a bridge in which me the evidential apologist would sort of meet the atheist halfway so that okay, so And by the way, if you just want me to just just go

Stop that Meet the meet meet the atheist halfway build a build a bridge go out there in that that neutral ground in the middle

Well, okay. Let me just say this when I talk to atheists I try to build a bridge in a way, but it's a different kind of approach

It's trying to establish common ground that is God's ground Which is what all of creation belongs to God and they they know the

God they're in his image the God that I'm talking about Now again, the argument is not you know God. Yes, you do. No, you don't.

Yes, you do It's not that it's that I do try to establish common ground with an image bearer of God That's the only biblical point of contact.

Yes, is that this is my fellow creature We're both made in the image of God this idea see this is that and we're gonna get into this in Colossians but if you really believe

For by him were all things made whether in heaven earth visible or invisible Principalities powers dominions or authorities all things created by him and for him

He is before all things and him all things soonest they can they hold together

Yes, that means there is nothing Jesus didn't create. It sounds like a metaphysical statement

It sounds as cosmological and extensive and expansive as it could possibly be philosophy, right?

Oh boy, you're you're doing Theology that determines and anything beneath it.

That's right is under its umbrella. That's right And if you believe that then if I say to the unbeliever

I'm gonna lay my presuppositions aside you lay yours aside. Let's stand on this neutral ground and Then let's say

I'm successful let's say I begin to incrementally move them along my argument

Somewhere down the road. I'm gonna have to tell them about what Colossians one says about Jesus Yeah, and if they're as sharp as I am

There you go. Well, wait a minute. Jesus created everything God's God's the creator of all things

Back at the start you you told me that we could sort of stand on neutral ground together Yeah, but now you're telling me there is no such thing as neutral ground every fact

It is a fact was made a fact by Jesus. That's right. Every fact is a fact of God and you just have to go

Yeah, gotcha. Gotcha. So here's the thing. This is important Who is being the most honest and having integrity in terms of flowing through the discussion saying let's put it on the table

I just I believe without any kind of a criticism and an attack on brothers who aren't here and are

Evidentialists and they're thinking I think the person that's presuppositional and their approach to apologetics is is the one that's saying

I want to be the most consistent and the most honoring to Christ and I want to make sure that I have

Integrity in the discussion with the unbeliever because I'm not pretending neutrality. He's not neutral. I'm not neutral Well, and you're defining consistency by saying most consistent with God's revelation with God's revelation

I mean God's revelation, but see a lot of folks don't believe that the Bible actually defines

The realm of appropriate apologetic interaction, yeah, just like they don't believe the

Bible defines the realm of appropriate worship Yeah, so if you if you don't accept that the

Bible actually provides those parameters Then that's one reason why people go that direction But if you are convinced that solo scriptura means something more than you only have to carry 66 little books around Then yeah, you have to go a different direction

Both Reason together about the world and our place in it things like meaning and morality, you know

Just small things like that little tiny things like that And so Jeff if you watch this video just know that that's my background if I come off snarky or rude

I don't purposefully mean for that to overshadow my criticisms, but there will be snark there will be so why am

I making this video? I'm making this video because I sincerely believe that your approach to apologetics ends up damaging your ultimate message

I forgot to play that thing that I spent all that time putting together What the whole long list of all his snarky comments?

I apologize folks. We spent so much time talking about the basic things

There's a lot of Utilization of terms like absurd. Yeah Lazy dangerous a lot of pretty strong terminology and When you put them all together, you're like, whoa

And I actually put together a sound file of about the first 20 -25 minutes.

I just collected all the This is egregiously absurd ridiculous bubble bubble on you know, you put all together for about about four minutes worth of stuff and I was gonna start off the program with that and totally spaced it

I'm not sure if it's just the the joy that is exuding from our colors. It makes it difficult to think clearly

You know, by the way Rich Pierce is manning the controls today making all of this possible

Fighting fighting with the cameras to keep them functioning because they're overheating But but I brought a

Coogee sweater For brother rich to yesterday you you saw it I did and I just want everybody know

I did not want to leave him out I I wanted I wanted to offer him the opportunity of entering into the the spirit of the season the spirit of the program

It's magical. I am wearing plaid. It's fine. And he is from Prescott Yes, okay, and I can guarantee you one thing about Prescott the only

Coogees in Prescott Were imported to Prescott by people who did not grow up in Prescott.

Mmm. Yeah, would that be a fair statement? What the only

Coogees in Prescott are what things look like after you've gone hunting? You're welcome.

A lot of blood a lot of color a lot of just it's I'm sorry. Yes. That's beneath beneath comment

Alright, we move along That's a brief break there because of the heavy the heavy

Lifting yeah, and just one thing to say about the it's okay No, the criticisms in terms of you know, like egregious and this is bad and this is awful

Here look at this needs to be understood. Look when you make claims like that. This is bad. This is awful

This is fallacious, you know, this is all you're here's the thing You're making assumptions behind those things that you can't just have as a given because you see if I sit down with if I sit down with a

Professor of biological evolution at a university that that tells me there is no imminent morality, you know, we all live we die

And we're gone. We're absolutely gone. We die that you know, there's no imminent morality. No ultimate oughts I don't get to sit down in front of that guy and just start throwing whipping things out saying oh

That's just absolutely wrong and evil and you can't treat people that way because from his perspective That's not even possible in his universe.

So when someone says to me, you know, this is bad. This is awful I want to ask well by what standard is that bad?

How do you judge whether something is off logically? Do I have to have integrity in debating you? Like for example, do

I have any obligation to treat Noah with respect with dignity with honor?

Do I have any obligation moral obligation to have integrity in my response to him? Could I make a

YouTube video? absolutely lying about what Noah claimed could

I could I Make up The quotes from Noah that he absolutely did not say could

I make a video like that? Am I am I obligated morally not to do that? You see the point is is that when you make these sort of claims against really anybody certain things have to be true about the world for those to have any meaning whatsoever and In his abandonment of Christ, I would argue he's given up Any meaning in those statements when you say something is illogical?

When you say it's not true and you say that it's bad for people when you say it's destructive I want to say when you have been when you gave up Jesus you gave up all those things

Oh, he's good. He's gonna say later on that logic isn't something we have to explain It's just what makes things the way they are

It's just the way that it is and and didn't seem to understand your brute facts thing But well, I'm not sure. Yeah, is that in the later part?

I don't remember sure not sure but yeah The brute facts when I was going did not understand the brute facts at all not all but we continue on or we're never ever

Gonna even get close to getting we'll be here. I hope you'll hear me out You have this this new giant platform at Apologia Studios and clearly you're being supported

Financially because of your apologetic endeavors and so with this new platform I think it's important to challenge you about your apologetic approach and your arguments.

So let's have a conversation You've had James White on recently You've had quite a few Christians on but look

James White already agrees with you, right? Let's try and have a conversation with someone who disagrees with you

I'd like to see more of that from your ministry. And so that's what I'm but that almost makes it sound like he's a

Christian they're giving another perspective it does and for the record you approached me about doing this

I did this video and You would actually a couple weeks ago said hey, let's do something and then

I'm just looking at December going. Oh, this is insane Yeah, and we weren't able to do something and I hadn't even seen. Yeah, that's right.

So you you approach you with this You know, I think it's just it's just important for us to as we we have so much to do in this video

You know when it comes to Just people that agree with me. Let me just address that real fast, you know our ministry

We have had Dan Barker the co -president of the Freedom from Religion Foundation on on the radio program

I'd try to go for the big shots. I got Dan Barker on the show I'm being brave man because he has more attorneys on on retainer than anybody else yeah, and so we've we've traveled

I went to the reason rally and put content up from the reason rally to try to engage atheists and I went on on I went searching at the reason rally with these 30 ,000 atheists and unbelievers for somebody that was was

Very very rigorous in their thinking and I found the co -president of the Atheist Society at Cornell Because he was sophisticated and he knew his stuff and he knew the languages that I gotta have you for this

I want somebody that can really represent atheistic thought in a good way We've had atheists on our show.

We've had the I think he's the president of the Atheist Society at ASU at this point We've had him on the show

I've done two public debates with atheists and so I you know when it comes to having people on that disagree with you

You know, we've we've done that we try to do that. We try to make sure we give atheists a fair shake. Yeah Well, and now we're giving him a fair shake by letting him say have his say too

Let's press on Brian present you with here see that's what I meant about snark right there that little that was that was snark

So I'll start the video off this way I can't conceive of how an intelligent educated person could listen to what you have to say about your religious

Epistemology and think that it's true. I just can't it's so demonstrably false as I'll attempt to show in this video that it makes me

Feel like we've actually started to hear the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God Like I can actually hear them whistling as they pour dirt on God while I watch your videos.

That's very creative very creative Not exactly sure what it means. No, but it's it's it sounds it sounds like you're doing like you're bad

Yeah, there's a difference between being able to make very colorful statements that sound very erudite and and well thought -out and actually backing up those claims when it comes to epistemology

Intelligent educated, you know in presuppositional apologetics if if Noah would do any study

I would highly recommend for him If he really wants to know picking up Van Till's apologetic by Greg Bonson It's just sort of a collection of different things from Van Till and sort of distilling his thought

Bonson Kind of just brings out. This is what he was saying One of the things you'll note and you begin to study

Van Till is that he was very very particular about making sure that our epistemology was coherent that's where it was all at the area of how do we know we know and Van Till used to used to talk about people in terms of their epistemological loafers

They're lazy and he didn't just mean that about unbelievers. He meant that about Christians and Christian apologists.

They're loafers They're lazy. They haven't even thought through their worldview enough to say why do I believe what I believe and how do

I know? This is true and what works? so when it comes to the area of epistemology that is an area that you will find

I think some of the greatest work from Presuppositionalists in terms of this is this is why we believe what we believe and we've thought through that and In my experience just out of respect

I haven't found that to be as rigorous a commitment in terms of thinking it through it in the area of evidentialist apologetics

I'm not saying there aren't people that do that I'm saying that it seems to me in my experience that you find that the most in the area of presuppositional apologetics

We want to know why and how we know we know, okay Yes, and I'm gonna try to convince you that this is the case or at least put a rock in your shoe about the whole

Thing so my goal here is to kind of give a critique about a couple of things first how you approach non -believers through your exegesis of Scripture and Then secondly the actual arguments that you use to defend your faith against secular people

I'm going to attempt to show you that the views that you teach others and indeed your entire religious

Epistemology is first and foremost almost certainly false, but it's almost certainly almost certainly that Two things caught me right there

One was the I had heard the almost certainly false. Okay, because I've listened to this twice this first time.

I'm watching it That thumb is going to drive me insane The thumb the someone mentioned on Twitter that he's gesturing with his hands

But all you can see is the thumb going like this. It's going to drive me. Absolutely. You think a coochie's bad

I love my coochie. I think coochie's beautiful But having a thumb doing the beat you need to need, you know But put some eyes and a nose on or something like that make it make it, you know

Add to the add to the stuff here But yeah, just watch so myopic and dangerous and that doesn't mean that Christianity is false myopic or dangerous

It just means that Vantillian Presuppositionalism has created a kind of monster and it's a monster that I'm gonna argue actually moves people away from the gospel message

And I'm hopeful that since your ministry is called apologia studios that you'll at least watch this video with a sort of first Peter 315 ish kind of demeanor.

So you I Have to how did how did he get the right pronunciation?

Apology a good job Noah, you're making dr. White very happy But That aside

Why is an agnostic? Saying that you're apologetic is going to move people away from the faith.

Yeah, I don't know. That's what I could not Yeah, that's the that's the I have to say with respect to Noah.

That is the bit of deception and And I believe in the video. I'm not not trying to say anything about his motives

I'm saying it is Deceptive in nature to make the video in this way because I would have to work very hard Yeah at making a video for atheists critiquing saying all right now atheists.

Listen, we got to get this right guys We just got to start doing this right because we're gonna look foolish to Christians, you know

If we you know, it would it would it would you would say wait a second Jeff You're not being completely honest and in that critique and that you know, that's what

I would call Noah to it was just a little more honesty in terms of where he's coming from and And what his motivations are but but one thing

I want to point out before you go to the next part He says I hope you watch this with a three first Peter 315 kind of mentality gentleness respect

Having an apology. Yeah. Yeah, but she's gonna criticize you for um, I want to say I I'm a sinner and I make

I may fail in a lot of ways But there's a standard like that exists outside of me that I have to Hold hold up and and be submitted to and so if I ever fail as a

Christian I'm gonna ask for forgiveness for those failings I'm gonna do better because I want to bring glory to my Savior, but you notice something in this discussion

I hope everybody sees this when Noah makes this critique and he says Jeff I hope you approach this in a first Peter 315 kind of way

I want to say I do have to hold to that standard, but guess what Noah you don't You don't have to hold to a standard

Really at all at this point because you've abandoned Christ and notice what has to happen The unbeliever can say to the

Christian you need to show gentleness. You need to show respect But not Noah. Yeah, I Actually have to hold to those commitments because I'm a

Christian gentleness respect having a reason defense for the faith within me But the unbeliever didn't have to do that Oh, but he would say that he still holds those things sure but without any coherent foundation without any real ought behind it

Rather than yeah, so gap Particular apologetic approach that you believe is justified by certain passages in Scripture and these passages

Lead you to interact with people in a particular way They form the basis of how you interact with those outside of the faith

The way you interpret these verses leads you to believe the following first that there can be no such thing as knowledge apart from Christ That Christ is the epistemological

Foundation of all knowledge secondly that all men really know that God exists and they're just suppressing it in third

You believe that the preferred now real quickly really know that God exists, but they're just suppressing it.

Mm -hmm, obviously What we understand katakana tone to mean in Romans 1 18 can take many different forms and does not require a

A Conscious I I know that Yahweh exists and I am going to suppress that by Atheism Buddhism Hinduism What a scientism drugs sex rock and roll, whatever

He seems to be stuck on this idea that we're actually saying is that everyone has a clearly formed conception basically based upon Revelation as if they've all read the

Bible, they know Yahweh exists and That suppression is that purposeful so they're all just a bunch of liars rather than what we're saying

And that is you're creating the image of God There are certain things that natural revelation reveals to you you're supposed to give thanks to God and honor him as God Yeah, but you refuse to do that and there has been this exchange.

That's the Romans 1 18 language of the exchange of the truth for a lie and that lie can be that lie is

Multi -faceted. Yes as man's experience Demonstrates well have to deal with Romans 1 here in a few minutes when he says that has nothing to do with atheists

But it actually has to do with all humanity but he has it seems that the idea is well what you all are saying is that that people have this

Absolute clarity That Yahweh is the one true God and they're just simply suppressing that and they simplify it down rather than again

You know, I have to deal with Apologetics with Muslims. I'm dealing with people who are theists.

They believe in one God the creator of all things Yeah, and yet there is still an element fundamental element of suppression

Yeah in dealing with that, especially when it comes to their denial of original sin and so on and so forth.

Yeah, so There's there you can simplify it for the sake of trying to make an argument

But we're not the ones doing the simplification. Yeah, the point is self -deception. Oh, yeah, we're self -deceived

Our sin has corrupted our reasoning faculties and Romans 1 is not simply like you said about just atheists We're not saying there's the atheist text.

It's the it's the that's the humanity. That's our experience as we will say yeah, and that's what we go off in all kinds of different religions and we pursue all kinds of different gods and Unbelievers have a way that Romans 1 works out in their life, but it's not the whole thing.

Right, right. Definitely definitely energetic method Ought to be to assume

God's existence in Christ's triumph and show that the atheist lives in a kind of absurd way

Without believing in Christianity, they sort of pop their head into Francis Schaeffer's upper story

And so these verses that we're going to be talking about will sort of form the basis for those dangerous and almost certainly false

Beliefs in your video entitled street -level apologetics. You point out that first Peter 315 begins with the words but in your heart

Sanctify Christ as Lord and it then continues with the famous piece that everyone remembers and always be prepared to articulate a defense

To everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have with gentleness and respect

Now to you the early part of this verse means something particular that part at the beginning about sanctifying

Christ as Lord will in essence dictate the sort of apologetic approach that you feel is biblical and what

I want to argue is that it's ultimately that Apologetic approach that turns people away from the gospel

It's Sully's your message in a way that I hope matters to you and this is sort of us now I just I just have stuff.

I want to let let him do his whole first Peter 3 thing. Then we'll take it apart exegetically, but sadly

There is a consistency here on his part of the evidential apologist, which again

Sully's These these are not this is not language of an agnostic. Okay, this is not I've never had an agnostic come up to me and say you're

Sully That assumes a standard that they don't actually believe exist in the first place But it's very pragmatic very very pragmatic

Clearly once again If you believe God is accomplishing his will in this world if you believe he has an elect people if you believe that the

Spirit of God is the only One that can take out a heart of stone and give a heart of flesh Raise people to spiritual life

This type of pragmatic theology has no place So it would seem to me that if this reflects at least the theology that he once held

But no longer holds because I can't place it anyplace else. There's no connection to an agnostic here, right?

Then you would have a very sub -biblical theology Yeah, which he evidently though not holding to it anymore is still in some way

Connected to you. I can't quite shake us Christianity can't quite get rid of it. I guess yeah No but I find it interesting that the emphasis you choose to place on this verse is the part about Sanctification and not the part about having a demeanor of gentleness and respect when defending your faith

And this will clearly be reflected in many of your street apologetics videos Where do you interact with people extemporaneously like the one that you have that mocks?

Transgendered people by comparing them to a man in a dog outfit who sincerely believes that he's a dog that lack of empathy and inability to grasp the

Gravitas of that issue for a lot of people is a sign that you really do focus on the first part of that verse and not the latter but I'd like to address that one of the things

I think you'll note in My Fallible approach to trying to reach people with the gospel as I I do want to try to demonstrate a

Level of respect and love and I'll even tell people as I talk to them who are atheists that say we're just stardust

I'll say I don't I don't accept that about you. You're not that low as just stardust

So I want to try to be consistent with my commitments to say no I I see you as greater as better as having more meaning more dignity more value than you give yourself

Now I know I have failings as a as a as a sinner before God and again if I ever have failings

I want to I want to make sure I confess those and I want to grow even as a believer But in terms of his example of the transgender video you and I were talking about this over lunch

It's interesting when the whole issue with Bruce Jenner came up and also with Rachel Dolezal came up You have two incidents that came up very close in proximity towards one another

One is is is a man who mutilated his body a grandfather who mutilated his body and Pretended to be a woman and everyone's saying well, that's a woman

Another one was a white woman who was pretending to be a black woman And so we want to answer the fool according to their folly

And so the question was in the video approaching the culture in a way to say, okay now let's be consistent Now if a man if a grandfather can mutilate his body and dress like a woman does it make him a woman?

Well, sure. How about if a if a woman who's white says that she's black she black.

Well, no How about if a man dresses like a dog? Is he a dog? He'll say oh, that's ridiculous.

You're not puddles You're not puddles. You're not a dog. You're a man. What's interesting here is almost a moment

James that was prophetic in that video Was we threw out a wild example in that video while we were on the street

We said I said ask people if I was a 50 year old man Could I and I wanted to be

I thought it was a six -year -old little girl. Could I do that? I said let's make it as crazy as possible. We got a dog

Let's do that As soon as he asked the question He like no not a six -year -old girl and the amazing thing is is as this video comes up with Noah Challenging us on the video that very thing is in our news feed right now

So it got hit with it six seven far from being a mean -spirited Attack upon that worldview.

That's the very thing we're seeing in front of us today We got mentioned there there is if you haven't seen it, it's all over face

Facebook but there is a video and it's a serious not not this isn't made up this guy's been has been you know, applauded by the

LGBT especially the T part of that community and he has seven kids six or seven seven kids seven kids

I've been kids in his 50s. Yeah, and He dresses like a little girl and pretends to be a six -year -old little girl pacifier with a pacifier

I six -year -old he's been adopted by an older couple that lets that lets him live with them as a six -year -old little girl

Oh, okay. Yeah didn't get that. Yeah. Yeah So when Noah says, you know, you're demeaning to them and you're not really you're not really understanding their experience in a way

You're not empathic as a matter of fact We are just showing the results of the worldview now somebody might say well that's offensive

But the point is is there are people who really live like that? For example, there are people who are who believe that they're animals that live have have actually mutilated their body to look like cats to look like parrots there are people who mutilate their bodies to look like women be a people who try to look like What a black woman when they're white and there are people who try to live like little six -year -old girls

That's not demeaning That's me asking a real question Well, and not only that let me just point out when you say when people say that's offensive.

Well, sometimes love is offensive Yeah, it is not loving to not challenge that kind of absolute rejection of The reality in which we live.

Yeah, anybody who is supporting that man in dishonoring himself in Dishonoring his family in dishonoring his children in dishonoring

Motherhood fatherhood everything else anyone who supports him in that is not showing

God love is not showing themselves love and is not showing him love That's right. We have to Recapture the meaning of the term love because our society has come up with a squishy emotion.

Yes Rather than the biblical definition of love. Yeah There was a day when people recognized that if you loved your family

Then as a man you would sacrifice yourself to protect your family And so they would defend us against people like Hitler and so on and so forth and they died in D -Day now

You know, the greatest evil you can do is to offend someone to hurt someone's feelings. Yeah, it's immaturity

It's not love that's and we need to start saying that is not love. Yeah, that is sentimentality. They're not the same thing

That's important and just just briefly I'll say in Proverbs 26 verses 4 and 5 it tells believers how to reason with people

One is don't answer the fool according to their folly and the second is to answer the fool according to their folly lest they be wise in their own conceit

So I hope Noah can listen to this perspective the video that we put out that he's critiquing there

We're addressing that issue was answering the fool according to their folly I want to approach the world on their terms and say is this true?

Because that that's what you believe is you want to live consistently with this now again The the way that we view love like you said today

Is is an emotional thing not as something that needs to confront and I think as as Christians We need to look at the

Bible and see there are times when God's prophets and God's spokesmen and God's people speak to people with A serrated edge.

Oh, yeah, sometimes it's necessary Sometimes it's necessary if you love people to yell at them before they jump off the cliff

Oh, yeah, most definitely and we now live in a day where to say anything about truth is to risk offense.

Yeah, and Anyway, we Haven't gotten to the first verse yet. Well, we're sort of working our way through it

Yeah I digress to you that part of this verse is Interpreted to mean that Jesus is

Lord over all of your reasoning that he ought to be the foundation for all knowledge

That his lordship is an axiomatic component of a Christian's epistemology and thus we begin to see the blossoming of your

Presuppositionalism and because of this you say in your video quote, I don't approach apologetics with neutrality

I'm not approaching the defense of the gospel with a maybe Jesus is who he claimed to be

Let's reason and see if we can get there how very Vantillion of you you use the example of Paul going into the synagogues and discussing

Christ with the Jews and you say look you know he reasoned from the scripture the scriptures were his foundation and you sort of extrapolate from this a kind of normative approach to Apologetics in which this ought to be the standard for all of apologetics

But of course Jews believe in God right or at least the ones Paul was reasoning with certainly did in fact most everyone

Paul Likely interacted with was a theist of some kind atheism was exceedingly rare in those days, especially in that part of the world

So it makes sense to start with the existence of God already in the bag when reasoning with people like this

Additionally relying on scripture as the foundation of your apologetic is Obviously appropriate for audiences who already believe in those scriptures

But if Paul was talking to someone who let's say felt the scriptures were Unreliable documents for some reason or another or perhaps didn't believe in God at all or perhaps had no conception of God Can you see how starting with God or reasoning from the scriptures isn't going to work for that sort of person?

Just really quickly isn't going to work for that sort of person theology matters

Well theology matters and here revelation matters as to the nature of man himself

There is a Specific point where he transitions from first Peter to the next one

I almost feel like getting all of that in and then going back over this but there's so many things in between that's

Well, let me just say just quickly when he says Paul approaches the Jews in Acts chapter 9

Reasoning from the scriptures because they already believe in the scriptures Well, I'm gonna say this you need to also look at Paul everywhere else

He evangelizes like for example acts chapter 17 the Areopagus I want to say read Acts 17 with Romans 1 right next to it, right?

You'll see that he is reasoning from his fundamental commitments in Acts 17 as he is in Acts chapter 9 there's no difference.

He's not switching epistemological standards from one to the next and Relying on scripture for people who agree with it versus those who don't agree with it

I want to say that's inconsistent to say that the standard itself Changes in its claims to authority based on who you speak to So if I talk to the person over here that accepts the

Word of God, it's true Because they accept it. But if I go over here, it's no longer the final authority if they don't accept it

It's one of the things that Bonson pointed out, you know people want to say And and let's build a ladder with different rungs on it

And let's get to all these different points of evidence and science and logic and reason and good We make our way all the way up there.

The evidentialist says we get to God We're there now and we get there and we realize well, he had all the authority the whole time we didn't really need the ladder

You know, and that's the point is if God is the ultimate authority if he's the final resting place Then his authority is final whether somebody accepts it or not

And it doesn't mean that I just make the claim of his authority Of course God makes the claim but it can be demonstrated that he is in fact

Authoritative and they know the God that we're talking about and all these appeals that he's making really are now incoherent without him

The one -size -fits -all Apologetics is quite simply going to lead to more atheists people's spiritual development comes in all different types of colorations spiritual development what what what

Even as a even as a as a Christian. Yeah, what would that have meant to him as an evidentialist? Yeah, does he not believe man's dead in sin?

Yeah, and now as an agnostic what in the world is that? Yeah, I have no earthly idea. Yeah, that's that's what left me so confused confused.

Yeah Yeah, that's why I had to honestly ask the question Gospel message may sit well with a monotheist struggling with who

God really is But it's apt to fail if one has sincere intellectual reservations about the concept of God being coherent.

What does it mean to fail? Evidently failure is not getting the person to do what you want them to do

That's a completely different definition Than any I mean God's Word never fails.

That's right It always accomplishes what he intended it to accomplish Theology matters again, but you have an answer to this you have an ace up your sleeve that we'll get into in a minute

Namely you believe that all people really do believe in God no matter what they say

So going back to this but in your heart sanctify Christ as Lord Why should anybody think that this verse is advocating anything other than simply keeping

Christ sacrosanct to get from but in your heart sanctify Christ as Lord to I don't approach apologetics with neutrality is a gap so large that if we took every

Stupid thing Ray Comfort has ever said and we turned each one of them into a football field and stretched them out end -to -end

It would equate to roughly one -fifth of the gap between those two statements honest to God You're simple honest to who honest to who?

Can't shake your Christianity Noah He might just say well that Jeff that's James. That's an expression

Well, the thing about expressions that they become expressions for a reason because it's just one of those things honest to God Yeah, that's just a strange thing.

But even that even that okay Let me look I Want to address this phrase?

But I want to see if he's let's see if he's ready to move to the next one and then we can do it all Reading things into the verse

I agree with you that this verse is implying a connection between apologetics and evangelism But evangelism comes in many forms

Sometimes it's simply removing barriers to belief and that's what the evidentialist apologist has on you and this is why

Presuppositional apologetics is horrifically ineffective in bringing people to the gospel It just is and I'm usually pretty careful of making, you know, giant sweeping generalizations like that But I'm just gonna flat -out say it.

It's this kind of apologetic. That does not bring people into the kingdom of God now Silly I thought the

Spirit of God brought people in the camera. Yep, and I thought he used means and I thought this was a discussion of what is consistent with God's revelation.

This is all pragmatic experiential observational, I think this does that theology matters and we've got someone here who evidently in their

Christian days Had a really bad theology. Yes, really low view of God's sovereignty and very high view of man's

Capacity as a sinner. Yeah. Yeah, and there's there's there's a giant concern at this point

For this is really gonna drive people away from Jesus. Yeah, my friend and that's just confusing to me

I just ain't it once again, we've talked about it a bunch now, but it's just confusing to me and But but you know,

I I think we have so much more to do here but Again, I agree with you driving people away

It's it's our sin that keeps us from God and and and I don't throw out arguments that That's the thing that sends them away from God they go a canometer a bell against God because that argument was so bad exactly the the the issue is much deeper than that it goes back far longer than that and It's foundationally our sin that keeps us from Jesus says in John chapter 8 whoever commits sin is a slave of sin

We're slaves We're not free and and the Bible says in Romans 1 that all humanity knows

God suppresses the truth of God He's so clearly known because of God's own God's own creation that we become futile and our thinking our foolish hearts are dark

It's just one fast to be wise. That's just one, right? That's what that says. Yeah But but interestingly you quoted

John 8 and what was the reaction of the Jews when Jesus said slave to sin Yeah, I'm in a slave in my offense.

Yeah Absolute offense. Yeah is taken immediately. Yeah Yeah, I just want I want to go to the point where he switches the to the next one and then we'll wrap it up But I'm real fast if he would like to meet anybody that's come to Christ on the basis of an argument from Scripture With the gospel

I can introduce him to some ex -atheist that apology a church If you'd like to meet him, oh, well,

I yeah, definitely Okay in person and my experience is limited, but I'm not aware of anyone in my entire apologetic career

Who's ever made it into the faith for now again my entire apologetic career, which ended exactly when yeah

Speaking as though recurrent. Yeah, it speaks as if don't don't tell me that's not that's not

Purposeful. I'm sorry. I can't buy it. I a path created by presuppositional apologetics.

But what do I know? I'm simply convinced that you're confusing the way in which two people reason together in a conversation in order to come to a conclusion

With removing pieces of your commitment to that belief you're defending when you have that conversation

You've simply assumed that approaching a disagreement on neutral grounds means that you've devalued the thing you sincerely believe in our defending

Not devalued Denied. Yes It's it's an entire world view that flows from the amazing outstanding from the world's perspective moronic assertion

That the creator of this universe actually entered into his own universe in the person of Jesus Christ that is an amazing thing and According to the scriptures a foolish thing to the world.

That's right It's not a matter of devaluing it It's you have to live in light of it or down the road.

You're gonna have to admit. Yeah, I was lying to you I I yep, you're right. There are certain absolute results of believing that that I completely

Lied to you about I skipped him I said I can set him aside and the reality is you can't set any of the side That's right.

And Noah admits here that in written first Peter 3 3 15 He says now grant there is a connection between Christ lordship and evangelism in this text

I'm sorry, Noah the text says apologia. Yes. Yes. That's the reason defense.

Okay, and And so it's not but I agree by the way, I agree that there is a connection between lordship and evangelism

But that's not all that's happening in the text Now if you grant Noah if you grant that there is a connection based upon this text

Then you've given it up that you've given up the argument There is a connection between the lordship of Christ and what takes place in evangelism here

But the text itself talks about apologia a reasoned defense and that word goes beyond simple discussions about evangelism

It has to do with a defense of our faith providing a reasoned defense of our faith And I don't know if you want to talk about this now the exegesis

Let's let's make sure we got everything he's done got on it. So we don't have to redo it, but that's crazy I mean if you really think about it, it actually kind of shows how committed you are to your beliefs, right?

You're willing to take a step back and say alright. I know that I believe this thing very strongly In fact,

I would claim to know it But this other person doesn't and I want to better understand this person's reservation so that I can remove whatever

Intellectual barriers are holding them back from the belief. I want them to hold Intellectual barriers.

I am NOT denying that people have intellectual barriers what I am denying is the Bible says the intellect is separate from the spirit and That they that the the noose the mind has not been darkened

By the effect of sin, yeah, that's really again No evidence of a truly biblical anthropology.

Yes in what is being said though. It's being expressed in the context of some type of Religious something which

I don't really and and it would be good to note too that one of the things Van Til is famous For saying is that we invite the unbeliever onto our system to do an internal critique, right?

Vancella invites the world you step into our system do an internal critique of our system and we'll do an internal critique of yours

That's right. That's right, but not by pretending that we're we're neutral. That's right at all Lee shows that you take the conversation and the person that you're interacting with seriously, you know

Everyone has things they sincerely believe not just you Jeff not just Christians everyone has views or even entire canons that they believe are true or sacred and It's the mark of an intellectually honest person to be able to temporarily strip themselves of whatever sincerely held assumptions they have for the purposes of Discourse discourse.

No, no, hold on a second. So we're not intellectually honest or rigorous or whatever terminology used there

I Engage all sorts of people all the time

I spent six months listening reading and listening to everything Bart Ehrman ever said before I debated it.

Yeah John Dominic Crossan exact same thing and and they're very different people thankfully

Muslims Roman Catholics there is a vast difference between Being able to enter into their way of thinking

Listen to them speaking to each other Understanding them in their own context and my saying

I'm going to lay aside my commitment to the Lordship of Jesus Christ I'm gonna pretend that I can exist outside of that commitment and saying that's necessary for me to understand what they're saying

No, it's not. Yeah How do you how would you demonstrate that it's necessary for me to lay those commitments aside to be able to understand what the other?

Person is saying yeah I don't he doesn't even attempt to argue by what standard would you say?

It's intellectually dishonest and my question would be at this point know with your position where you stand now

Why why should I care? Why should I be worried about that challenge at all? And so I it loses its weight and strength when you step away from Christ But I don't want to say this is vitally important to get

Jesus said to people who are following him massive crowds He says he turns around to them.

It's an opportunity to grow the church and he turns around to them and he probably Totally freaked out the disciples.

They're thinking they're finally gaining some headway He turns around and he says if anyone comes to me and does not hate and he starts listing the closest people in their life

And he says and even your own life You're not worthy to be my disciple.

He says take up your cross, which means do the death march you come ready to die and join me in this death and That's the message of Jesus Now he wants to say

Jeff as a Christian now someone who believes in that Jesus you need to put the cross down For just a bit to step that might offend him that might scare him, right?

Right because because you got to understand, you know Jesus called to you to come and die and to hate all in comparison to him

You know that that's radical and you're not really gonna step in these people's store incremental. Yeah incrementally

And he my my answer to that is that Jesus calls me to come and die Which means that I give up everything to follow

Jesus and I don't give up everything to follow Jesus and then turn around Because of a challenge of a guy who's ultimately an apostate like Noah and say well

Let me go back and gather some of that stuff again. Let me go put my hands to the plow and then look back That's not the message of the

Christian faith And I think that might sound radical to some people that might sound just what that's that's just a huge commitment

Jeff And I'm gonna say that's the Lordship of Jesus Christ Aimed at bringing people to share your perspective and if you don't approach

Intellectual discourse or in this case a defense of the gospel with at least some degree of meeting in the middle for the sake of Conversation then an intellectually honest conversation cannot be had and this is we've demonstrated.

That's not the case. That's right I mean, we're open about I'm open about it But I'm not I'm not I think if you're being dishonest when you pretend you can do that Yes And when in reality is you can't literally the entire reason that people hate site and brogan

Kate Honestly, it's not because he's winning debates or because he's making people look like fools.

I think it's cuz he's Canadian He asked me watching this right now, oh, yeah.

Yeah, it's because it's because you're Canadian. It's maple syrup or something I don't know what it is. Didn't you put maple syrup on the

Arby's? I think I think I think we ate at Arby's Sometime this year and I think but sir upon and and in and in so like elf when he put maple syrup on us

Yes, and in size defense, I want to say this sigh is one of these sweetest person

People you will ever meet in your entire life He has a rigorous commitment to Jesus Christ and his his lordship and his word now to the unbeliever

They may not like that. They may that may rub them the wrong way because I you know He stands committed to Jesus now.

He's not perfect. He would tell everyone he's not perfect, but That's the man he's a very sweet gracious man and it you know in in debates

You may not see us but you know in just sitting around and talking with him. He's a very humble guy to yes He is so anyways, please it's because this form of apologetics is inherently dishonest and smart

People are able to see through that inherent dishonesty. So to bring this back Setting Jesus apart as Lord seems to be synonymous with having an inability to reason with people wherever they're at in life

Instead you reason at them. And so it's my sincere reason at them.

Yeah, so so if you don't if you don't do the Neutrality thing.

Yeah, then this is this is a bad. This is it's just bad Yeah, and and and he needs to understand too that if you read any book on Presuppositional apologetics you're gonna read about the twofold

Apologetic methodology and what is that twofold apologetic methodology is one Proverbs 26 verse 4 don't answer the fool according to their folly

That's a command. Okay, don't do it But or lest lest you be like unto them

But the second part is to answer the fool according to their folly lest they be wise in their own conceit We're actually called to step into What their folly is and answer them according to it, which would

I think? That's necessitate Understanding them understanding where they're coming from so we can reason from within that sphere in that framework

And so what I try desperately to do is I'm if I'm reasoning with a Mormon I I can't tell you dr.

White how many countless hours of debates lectures I mean my time in reading books to understand their position to fully grasp it and even grapple with it

Yeah, and and the same with Jehovah's Witnesses and with atheists. I've read the God delusion. I've read

Goodness you'd name the book of Harris's books. I've read Dennett's books. I've read stuff from Hitchens I've tried to listen to I've listened to so many hours of Hitchens.

Yeah that I actually love the man Oh, yeah, I have an affection, you know, you know, you do know

I was scheduled to debate him I couldn't wait. I was so I was so upset when it didn't happen But let me just say this

This may not have a lot of meaning for Noah But I have done my very best to make sure that I understand the people that I'm talking to Understand their position the way that they see the world.

I've read their books I've spent countless hours doing so and I've had a lot of encouragement from you the thing you've said for many years

Is that we have to accurately represent our opponents and that has been my mantra is to make sure that that is taking place

And so that's just not true. I'm gonna say these are mere claims on Noah's part. It's just not that way that this wildly myopic interpretation of but in your hearts sanctify

Christ as Lord is being used to justify an apologetic that is basically inherently dishonest and Dishonesty is not a

Christian virtue, but first Peter 315 is not the only verse that okay right there

Dishonesty is not a Christian virtue and it is a wildly myopic

Reading yeah first Peter 315 First thought across my mind Noah since I know you're watching.

Um, well, I don't actually know that I don't have revelation on that Yeah, that's what I have. Yeah. Yeah, uh rich is telling me that we've got a

Larger number than normal who are watching the stream today Cannot develop this fully

I Did a sermon I remember a presentation for wretched radio In Ohio a few years ago where I unpacked this much more fully in the course of the entire hour

But first Peter 315 I have confessed that for many years

As an apologist I Didn't know what was going on in this verse because Yeah, you know sanctify

Christ as Lord in your hearts sounds like a nice pious thing to do but Your attention immediately goes to the always being ready process of Polly Guillaume Ponte Toe, I tuned to whom us log on pretty taste and who mean

L pit us always being ready to give that reason defense Everyone asking you a log on a reason concerning the within you hope and so you

Jump off from there and start, you know, trying to raise funds or something like that and then

I Don't remember how it happened or what the context was But I Noticed as I'm looking at the nestle on 28th edition of the

Greek New Testament in my lovely Accordance Bible software in front of me at the moment that Korean and hagiocite are

In italics now, I don't know why I hadn't noticed that before it's right there in front of my eyes but that's the way the mind works and if it in italics, that's means the editor is saying this is a quotation from Greek Septuagint probably the

Old Testament somewhere and So I started doing what you're supposed to do always supposed to do and look at those backgrounds and I didn't get the feeling that Noah has done this study and to be honest with you the vast majority of people that I Know who use this who would disagree with no,

I haven't done this study either so he can't exactly be faulted for that But what I am gonna fault you for Noah is you have said that that interpretation that Jeff gave is myopic

Your criticism is myopic you missed it Bad place to miss it. In fact all three places bad place to miss it

This is a quotation that takes us back to an incredible series of texts

Beginning in Isaiah 7 all the way through Isaiah chapter 11

Don't have time to develop all of it. I just Only a few weeks ago on sermon audio did a sermon at Phoenix Performed Baptist Church on And this is literally

I'd say maybe two three weeks ago at most I did a sermon on the Emanuel text the prophetic text from Isaiah 7 through 11 this comes from that section comes from Isaiah chapter 8 specifically and The point is this

That when it says it says Korean day Tom Kriston hagiocity and tice cardiac

Humong it's difficult to render this into English smoothly

But it says Korean which is in when it's being quoted out of the

Greek Septuagint is about Yahweh The command is being given

To treat Yahweh as holy To set him apart as holy don't listen to the people around you go back to Isaiah 8 you can see it for yourself

But instead you are to treat Yahweh as holy here

Peter draws from and a number of the New Testament writers draw from portions of this section of Isaiah as evidence

Paul Paul pulls this out It seems awfully clear that when

Jesus had that post -resurrection Conversation with the disciples on the road to Emmaus and then he opens the disciples minds to understand that from Moses all the way through the prophets they all testify to me

It's after said that this is this is one of those texts that was opened up them because it becomes

You know, the early church is just beating us psalm 110 obviously the most often quoted of them but courios

Renders the the Greek the Hebrew Tetragrammaton Yahweh and so what the original command was was to Sanctify in the set sense of treat as holy

Yahweh Not the nations around or their gods or anything else, but treat as holy

Yahweh Here you have Korean Dayton Christan So it's functioning a positively the

Christ as Lord as Yahweh Set apart treat as holy and then the key is and this is where With all due respect you face planted

Exegetically and Thais car de ice who moan in your hearts This is a willful act in the heart the very seat not of just emotion

That's what us Westerners think. Yes, but in the Greek concept the very seat of the intellect mind

Will it's the center of the human being? This is a command to treat as holy the

Messiah as Yahweh, I mean the whole Incarnational theology

Trinity everything is is behind this It wouldn't it make no sense if they if if Peter was not as I said in the

Forgotten Trinity an experiential Trinitarian In your hearts in that place where you you prioritize

Where you decide what is most important and what is less important? in other words in your in your

Making of what we would call today your worldview how you deal with all of life

Is to be focused upon the fulfillment of this command and I've admitted I've misused this text for years

Until I realized the only person who is truly ready to engage

The only person who is going to cause people ever noticed Give a defense to whom those who ask you why are they asking you?

because when you treat when you make this Arrangement in your heart

You're gonna react so differently speak so differently act so differently than the world around you

You're gonna react to tragedy differently You're gonna react to difficulties differently And the result is people are going to come to you and ask you where did you get this?

Hope? and it is the fact that you have put Christ in the center as Yahweh in the entirety of your life that results in your being asked where did you get this?

Hope? Now you may go well I don't see what that has to do with epistemology and if you do then you're ignoring the

New Testament teaching on the nature of man because man is a whole and You're missing

Peter's entire point which is to encourage Christians in the midst of persecution

Remain focused. How do you remain focused? You've got to have a focus upon who Jesus Christ is and Who he truly is and who we are in light of that you weren't giving a mile myopic interpretation you were giving an appropriate interpretation that recognizes what it's all about and Unfortunately, Noah missed that.

Yeah, I can't really add anything to that except to say that if We're told to set

Christ apart as Yahweh in our hearts Always being ready to give a reason defense.

I have to say this. It should be obvious. It's obvious as a nose in our face if Jesus is

Yahweh Yahweh makes certain claims about the world that affect how you view ontology epistemology ethics all those systems and so it's meaningful to set

Jesus Jesus apart as Yahweh and it affects Everything else I believe about the world and so if if if if there's no real connection between Jesus being

Yahweh and my apologetic I want to say first Peter 315 makes no sense. Well, not only that but hagiadzo to to treat as holy

Yes set apart as holy. This is this is placing Recognizing his place and hence recognizing my place is the one who is subservient to him is to serve him

Again, it is an entire Radical Christian worldview. We're also going to see in Romans and Colossians.

Yes, it's consistent Yep, very very consistent and we're going really really slow

But we press on yes is to promote the idea that Christ is Foundational to being able to have knowledge the ace up your sleeve is

Colossians 2 2 which says that their hearts may be encouraged Having been knit together in love and attaining to all the wealth that comes from the full assurance of understanding

Resulting in a true knowledge of God's mystery that is Christ himself in Whom are hidden all of the treasures of wisdom and knowledge now, here's how you interpret that passage

He says I want their hearts to be encouraged and joined together in love so that they may have Who's the really skinny guy

Up there at the could put that back up rich. Oh, no And look and he's it doesn't look bearded or no, it's a baby beard.

It's a baby. It's a baby beard Wow, I love when people do this, but see people can do this to me all the way back into the 90s

Yeah It's like but but wow, look at that, yeah

How long ago was this I was about four or five years ago that was check this out this really and this is this was about Four days after a major nose surgery really and I oh, yeah, you can sort of see that Yeah, my face is puffed up.

Yeah, I I I had made the commitment and I was like my wife said There's no way you can do this.

You just had a major surgery You're like I was like probably couldn't even get out of bed and I just begged God God Give me a strength from one hour

And so in reality, this is a real gift from God to me that I could actually do with this little thing here

So, okay. Well now I feel really bad pointing it out Okay, that's all the riches of assured understanding and have the knowledge of God's mystery

Christ now listen to closely this All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in him

It seems like sort of a powerful statement in a passing statement But it's everything when it comes to how do we know what we know?

How do we defend the faith? Listen what it says again. He says all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ That's a major statement that's an epistemological statement that is huge He's saying how do you truly know anything you want to know where all the wisdom and all knowledge is that it's in Jesus He's a source of all wisdom and all knowledge and this is a passage most of you guys probably already know

So do you this is an epistemological statement? In fact, it's the beginning of any kind of epistemology

How do you truly know anything at all? Well, it's Jesus Greg Bonson who definitely had an influence on you

I can see says in his book presuppositional apologetics stated and defended the teaching of Colossians 2 3 through 8 is unambiguous all

Knowledge note not simply knowledge of religious matters is to be found in Christ Bonson goes on to say all wisdom and knowledge is deposited in the person of Christ whether it be about the war of 1812 waters chemical composition the literature of Shakespeare or the laws of logic

Every academic pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ for Jesus is the way the truth and the life

Okay, so who is Paul writing to in Colossians? What's the context here? Paul's writing to a church

That's being negatively influenced by pagan cults and false teachings. The church there is entrenched in mysticism and in bad philosophies that are not

I'm wondering it would be nice if I could see some sources because there's actually a lot of discussion as to the nature of the teaching

Proto -gnosticism is an early form of Gnosticism. It clearly is using the same terminology

Gnosis play Roma, you know all that all the terminologies there It doesn't really seem that that has entered into the church in the sense of like in Galatia quite yet But it is a danger that he is aware of it's been reported to him.

So he's he's speaking of this But it's gonna be very interesting to see how Noah pretends that noting the historical context allows for the utter diminishment of The vast

Application of the statement right that is going to follow Since impugning

Christ's divinity So in effect Christ's deity is being challenged and so Paul is responding with this letter

Paul's aim is to make Christ central and to argue that he's the Lord over all wisdom and that he in effect trumps all of these other various vain

Philosophies and that it's through seeking him that one actually finds all of the treasures of knowledge and wisdom

Things that are now does that mean that Christ is only trumps this particular range of Claims of wisdom.

Yeah, or is it all claims of wisdom because of what happened in Colossians 1?

Or it says for by him were all Things great whether in the heavens the earth visible invisible

Principalities powers dominions or authorities all things created by him He's before all things in him all things soon as they can they have there now, is that just limited to Proto Gnosticism in the first century.

Yeah, I mean that is a that is a claim that Jesus is the creator of the entire created universe because that was a

Smack in the face to a Gnostic. Yep, because if you understand Gnosticism Then you understand that they believed that there was a pure holy spiritual

God It could never have created this evil universe. Yeah Spirit is good. They're duelists material is evil and So you have these eons that come down that makes up the play

Roma and eventually you get far enough down You have a Demiurge who is Jehovah and he's still powerful enough to create but he's far enough away from the true

God that he can create the physical universe and What Paul is doing is he is smacking

Proto -Gnosticism into pieces by saying you can't make some room in here in the play

Roma for Jesus He is the one who made it all yeah That's his statement

How can you limit that? How is that not relevant to? any other

Philosophical statement regarding origins for a Christian Yeah If Jesus made the world and everything in it if he holds it all together if there's nothing that exists

That wasn't created by him If he did all that then that means that that has something to say in the area of philosophy and metaphysics and again

It's everything and encompasses everything and I want to say this is confusing to me because Noah said something to the effect of here

That's what Paul is doing. This is Noah's explanation of what Paul saying Colossians 2

He's saying that that Christ trumps all vain traditions and philosophies

Does that mean all or when I heard him say that I thought? What are you attacking at this point?

Because it sounds like you've granted the basic supposition behind, you know What we're what we're saying now again

Not all of what we're saying a presuppositional apologetics or covenantal apologetics is wrapped up in these three texts

There's so much more but if you grant that that Paul is doing that there haven't you given it all away?

Haven't you just admitted that that that that interpretation is correct pretty much. I don't say I can get around it

Ordered to be obtained in these other hollow traditions. Everything in these passages is about raising

Christ up over these other traditions It's not a philosophical text about the problem of epistemological grounding, right?

No, wait a minute. So It again if if you if you take this perspective, this is again where Noah had some massively weak theology as a quote -unquote

Christian, which might explain a lot of where he is now unfortunate sad You don't have to have a text

Specifically having a subtext a subtitle. It says we are now going to discuss

Philosophical epistemology for it to be relevant. That's right If you have just said that Christ is the creator of all things

That he is before all things that all things exist for him that in him all things

Soonest a can they have their subsistence. He holds it all together He is he is the maker and creator of all things

How can that not have the deepest? epistemological Significance of any statement you could ever make that's right.

I don't get it. Yeah, I mean it Wow Respectful respectfully it was bad.

Well, the Jesus it was bad and the implications he draws. Yes, it was bad

It was it was bad but the point is People will hear that they might resonate with that Many of the best evidences for such things as the deity of Christ come from texts

That are not specifically arguing about that subject at all Some of the strongest evidence is how

Jesus refers to himself in other contexts. So it's just it is a absolutely naive

Concept of exegesis To approach it in in this way Paul is not quine and his letter to the

Colossians is not a response to carnap This isn't about epistemology read the rest of the passage

Paul admonishes the church to live their lives rooted in Jesus It's about he went he didn't he didn't he started too far in If you read

Colossians 2 3 through 8 in light of chapter 1 and what was said there

This whole thing falls apart. Yes, it now becomes well You just just tell the Christians to live together and in a nice noise not and what he says

He's Paul's telling Christians to live their lives rooted in Jesus Yeah, why thank you.

All right, so when I Engage in philosophy and apologetics Do I get to continue to live my life rooted in Jesus or are you gonna take that away from me when

I do it? Because it makes you uncomfortable. Hey, I might make the unbeliever uncomfortable. So yeah

So are you saying that as a Christian? I should be inconsistent with Paul's call there because that's what you grant. He's telling

Christians to do So do I do I live consistently with that live my life rooted in Jesus or do

I abandon? My being rooted in Jesus for the sake of the comfort of the unbeliever It becomes this real mess that Noah's created in the text where the text cannot just mean

What it means on the face of it And so it's just difficult around my mind around really what his criticism is, but I'm not sure does he get to verse 8 here

I don't know where he says See to it that no one takes you captive now philosophy and empty to seed according to the human tradition according to the element

Elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ I mean that is about as clear as you can get boy if that's not about epistemology and philosophy

I don't know what is I don't I don't know either. I mean that that is and then of course well and let's notice rooted grounded in him as You have been taught about in the room of Thanksgiving then the the you have the term

DIA tastes philosophias There's philosophy kena's so Philosophy love of knowledge would be non kena's if it's based on the one who made all things

I suppose Yeah, and then rather than according to Christ and what are the very next words? Hati and I'll talk at oikai ponta play roma taste the adidas somaticos for in him is dwelling all the fullness of Deity in bodily form

Why do we subject all of man's philosophies all of man's teachings all of man's traditions to his

Christ? Because he's God incarnate. That's why that's right. That's right. Noah.

You didn't deal with Colossians 2 my friend Colossians 2 dealt with you. Yes, that's

I don't have a mic to drop here. Here's a treble there. Okay, how's that? We dropped the treble?

Notice though I think for the brothers and sisters that are listening to this and really starting to engage this There are oh,

I want to say that notice that Paul says here. There's a philosophy that is not According to Christ, which means that there is a philosophy that is

According can be according to Jesus and what Paul is trying to arm Christians with is what's necessary to avoid

Falling prey to those things. I mean the word there is to be robbed to be robbed and Paul does not want

Christians to be robbed By philosophy and empty can deceit according to human tradition according to the elemental spirits of the world and not according to Christ So you talk you're talking about take taking captive yeah taking captive, right

That is something that you have to have a basis to be able to resist that I was assuming you mean robbing in the sense of taking someone.

Yeah as a captive and taking them away. Yes, and the only Foundation that Christians are given to resist that is a recognition of who

Jesus Christ truly is That's right. And if you think theology is just over there in your philosophies over here

Well, you might end up as an agnostic on YouTube. That's right. And I think that dr White is is where this is coming from.

He had a very very a very very substandard to say the least view of a biblical epistemology the view of Jesus of Anthropology of you of us consistency of theology and that's where this comes from So the critique comes really from really the the bad

Understanding he had on biblical view of God and man that he had before he abandoned faith primacy of Jesus in light of an increasingly pagan and heretical

Context to treat this as though it were implying or that it should be interpreted as an epistemological

Grounding for all of human knowledge is to so wildly divorce this passage from its context that it should scare anyone who takes exegesis seriously, okay now just Listen to what we just said.

Yeah, we just went to chapter 1 Follow it through Go to verses 8 and 9 which absolutely nail it down.

He didn't do either of those things Yeah, but were the ones engaging in cult apologetics, right

Wow, I Mean, there's a sense of irony here because it's this kind of interpretation that is what cult apologetics is all about right one of the things we're supposed to watch out for is

Divorcing verses from their historical and authorial context and extracting these kinds of one of the things

We're supposed to do one of the things we're saying Where's we're supposed to this is where I think that something needs to be said about integrity.

Yeah He's speaking in the present tense One of the things we're supposed to do it in a cult apology as we minister to the cults kind of an idea it's like no you gave it all up Noah, you're no longer a

Christian and Yet for some reason in this video you're giving people the impression that you are

Why not just have integrity might why not start the video say look I used to be this, you know I've left the faith.

I don't believe anymore. I'm not a Christian any longer, but these are my critiques of what Jeff says as Coming from my worldview now.

Yeah. Yeah, I have a great deal of respect for that. Yeah, I would I really would Descriptive statements that have nothing to do with the original passage and that's exactly what you're doing

You're taking a passage that's clearly about Christ's dominance over other vain traditions and then Decontextualizing it and treating it as though it's though Paul has solved the fundamental problem in in epistemology

And so again, you're reading that did Paul solve the well Paul didn't have to solve it.

God solved it in the incarnation Yeah in his own revelation Yeah Suppositionalism into the passage you're not extracting this from the text

You're giving it to the text and now I think we've pretty much 100 % review to that Yeah, I mean,

I think that's just it's it's done. Let me just say I I identify as a presuppositional list

Because the text drove me to it. I was not a presuppositional list when

I really move forward I I went to I wasn't raised a Christian. I went to a Bible college.

It taught me my text from Norman Geisler's books I was an evidentialist and it was years later that I got my

Theological teeth kicked in when I realized that I was going to these texts and texts like them and I was not really fully embracing

Those truths and living consistently with them It was a real change of mind for me to really see the

Lordship of Jesus in every area Including my thinking and it was the text that drove me there.

Yep. Same here Yes absurdities like in your video where you say reverence submission to God is first before there is any knowledge

Wisdom or anything now, that's prima facie absurd I can learn to drive a car for example without being in reverence submission to God I can learn to do my taxes without being in reverence submission to God I can even know that God exists without being in reverence submission to God Well, and this is what's important to point out here is that there is so -called knowledge there is a pseudo wisdom

There is a borrowed capital kind of wisdom that every image bearer of God has Every this is one of the things that that Van Til would say you'd say and as long as we're talking about presuppositional apologetics

Let's go back to the one of the the great people that distilled it unbelievers can count

Sometimes they can count better than Christians. They can do their their books. They can do accounting They can do their taxes better than Christians.

They can do arithmetic, but they cannot account for the account for their counting and And and one of the things that unbelievers can do is live

Like an image bearer of God in God's world regardless of whether or not they submit to him And so that that needs to be granted.

There is common ground with all of us. We talked about this in the beginning there are certain things that unbelievers do because they are undeniably in the image of God and inescapably in the image of God and And what's important here note is that you cannot account for knowledge

You cannot make sense of any wisdom or epistemological system apart from God if you don't have

God you can't make sense of the world so the The the problem with the attack is in his understanding of what true knowledge me

That's right. When you were talking about true knowledge. You're talking about knowledge that exists consistently within a worldview that gives it

It's proper meaning in place rather than putting you in the center, which you can't be in the center

You're insufficient to function as the center. You're insufficient to be the definition of all these things Yeah, and so then you weren't saying that every unbeliever

Is an idiot or then they walk around with nothing in their heads. Yeah, just sort of go along in life There's nothing in there.

No, they're making claims. They have beliefs. They have commitments. They know stuff I I'm sure

I've flown a lot. You've flown a lot. I'm sure I've had atheist pilots Oh, yes that have flown me around the world and thank thank

God For for that and good atheist pilots, but the point is is

Here's a good example I've had I'm sure atheist pilots fly me around the world But I thank God that they weren't acting consistently with their atheism when they were flying me

I thank God that they were dependent upon a uniform universe that they believed in induction that the laws of math held together while they were flying from one place to the next that the laws of speed and you know all those different things the physical constants all held together and I thank

God that they knew they had a moral responsibility for the 250 souls on board They knew that they had an aught behind making sure we arrived and we should pray that God be merciful to them because they are

Then responsible before God for all those gifts that he has given That's right And so the point is is you cannot really have any basis for justified true belief

You can't have a basis for knowledge for wisdom any of those things apart from first a submission to God It's not gonna make sense

I'll give you an example So we had Dan Barker on the radio program a long a long time back and and he's making all these claims about as long

As I did no, I know. Yeah. I've listened to all the beginning of the discussions. Oh, no, we're talking

We're talking did you ever hear the ones on the Tom like a show that the radio program? I heard a radio show with you.

I was like, I was like 21 or 22. Yes. Yes. Yeah, I've listened.

I think probably everything you've done But but I so we're in that we're in the show at Dan Barker and in on the show at Dan Barker He's just you know challenging

God challenging Christians and moral and stupid and idiotic and illogical all those different things and he's just it's supreme

Atheist, you know, like we have the better morality the better, you know view of logic and that's better intellect Yeah And as we began to sort of like chop away at the foundations and keep pointing him to his feet

By the end of the program, I I just pointed out to him So in your view, basically, it's not really wrong wrong to rape a woman.

Is it? He said in the cosmic picture. It won't matter cosmic broccoli, man. Yeah And but that's the point is that you can make claims as an atheist and say all this is immoral and this is wrong

We ought to be doing this. But when you really get down to the foundation the atheist goes Yeah, we don't really need those. Yeah, and the end doesn't matter and that's the point.

It's a so -called knowledge. It's so -called wisdom It's not true wisdom. It's not consistent quickly because we've got to get to Romans 1 but Valerie in Twitter said few people know that in addition to Joseph Jacob also gave coats of many colors to his two nephews

James and Jeff Oh, that's awesome Rich you know, you know that I don't know if you can see rich I can't the look on his face right there is

Stop encouraging him Don't help me Slight break in the criticism there we press on because we got to get the

Romans one guy We start to see how these poorly exegetic passages rise to really really absurd statements like this

I mean, this is not clear thinking this is very muddled logic, but the most insidious interpretation

I see you comes from what you feel the Bible has to say about non -believers in Romans chapter 1

The Bible says that God has made himself evident to everybody that the problem of mankind is never intellectual

It's never a lack of evidence ever The problem is and always will be for them and for me outside of Christ not intellectual not lack of evidence, but it is always suppression of truth

It says the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth and unrighteousness

For that which is known about God is evident within them for God made it evident to them question who made it evident to them

God did now if God sends the message guys, does it get through? Yes, I don't know

Jeff did the Jews always get the message when God spoke through the prophets or what about in the days of?

Noah, I mean even Jesus said in Luke if they don't listen to Moses or the prophets They won't be convinced even if someone rises from the dead

So even Jesus knew that God's message always doesn't get through to people hell Even the disciples were confused about what he the

Son of God was saying half the time and it was ironically Jesus himself Who was ultimately hung on a

Roman cross in part because his message of the kingdom of God? Was thought to be a kind of call to political rebellion.

So does God's message always get through? Well, not really and so Well, not really pause because because of sin and suppression of truth, not only that but In Romans chapter 1 now, he's about to read the whole thing but the direct

Statement and I mentioned in I mentioned in the Exchange I had with him

I Suggest to him. I said, you know, I I included a fairly lengthy

Interpretation exegesis of Romans chapter 1 but how long is this chapter starts on?

page 137 and goes To 165 so close to right at 30 pages including the

Greek text in justification the God who justifies and suggested he might want to take a look at that because I Was really amazed at the comments that he made here.

Yeah, but the important thing is Because that which is known about God is evident within them for hot they ask our our toys if on narrow sin

God Made it evident to them and the result of this in verses 20 and 21 is that being understood see what has been seen having been clearly seen

The result clause is they are on a polygate ooze they are without an apologetic

They are without an excuse the clear direct Assertion of the

Apostle Paul in Romans 1 is that the revelation gets through?

Yeah, that man is held accountable for honoring God as God and giving. Thanks to God They know that they're that his divine power and attributes exist

I don't think they you know, there's all sorts of special revelation That is I don't believe in the gospel in the stars and stuff like that, but the point is

Paul's assertion He's disagreeing with Paul Paul makes it plain the revelation got through That's the confusion of the

Apostles about the identity of the Messiah is not a refutation of Paul's assertion in Romans chapter 1 right, which specifically is

God's made it manifest. It's been clearly seen they have no excuse

Yeah, and that's my point in saying because of sinful suppression The witness gets through the evidence gets through because God is the one that has made it evident to them

When you bring up examples of people rejecting God and sin in history It seems like a simple enough answer.

That's because sin it doesn't mean that God's message hasn't gotten through to them it means that we are such rebels against the king that we act out in a number of different ways and You can cite examples in history of people not supposedly not believing in God or abiding against God It doesn't contradict what

God is saying here in Romans chapter 1 that he's made himself known to all of us No, but we're see we're totally missing

Romans 1 as is about to be explained to us Imply that since God is the messenger that his message always gets through is just flagrantly unbiblical

And I can give you ten more examples of this and it's this flagrantly unbiblical idea That's going to be foundational to the way that you actually approach non -believers

You interpret Romans to effectively mean that no one has sincere intellectual barriers to belief in God Nobody which

I guess makes me what sincere into what the only way I can understand what he's saying here.

Is it sincere? intellectual barriers means Neutral Honest non -rebellious

Uninfluenced by sin I Would believe in God if I just had enough evidence if I could just get over this particular objection type stuff

That's why I was I think it was about here. I started going. This is the pagan Christian apologist because I was still going is this

Sounded like a Christian apologist at first anyways, yeah, because there's no Christian anthropology here at all

There's no understanding of what sin does or what Romans ones about or anything like that at all?

Yeah, and but and then he simplifies it, you know, because I understand there's all sorts of different intellectual objections

But they have a source. Yes, because we're made in the image of God. Yeah, and That if you don't see we're made in the image of God Very easy for you as an apologist because you don't have to do any intellectual heavy lifting if that's true.

See this is why oh That's why you're doing all this Jeff is that you don't have to do any intellectual heavy lifting you got

You leave the intellectual heavy lifting to the evidential philosophers. Yeah, that's oh man

I should have should have fast -forwarded 18 minutes in we wouldn't have had to do all the rest of stuff.

Yeah No, I understand that there are lots of things going on in this text and also in the world as is manifested

I recognize that Romans chapter 1 says certain things about God and man and I understand that that's gonna work its way out many different ways.

Now. I don't simply say well, that's just sin. That's just sin I'm happy to say well I know what's really going on here because God has given revelation that this is what's going on It's sin a simple expression of truth and then

I have to as a Christian apologist work through the system itself To critique it.

I would just I would just point people to the last debate We had with the atheists at the Bonson conference that that debate from my perspective at least on my part was not me simply saying

Well, that's just sin. That's just sin. I try to deal with all of their Arguments and their claims as much as I was able in the very short time

We were given to show the absurdity of it. I talked about logic with them I talked about their view of I think uniformity in nature.

I talked with her I talked and engaged with them in their own arguments. I didn't just simply say in the three hours that we were there

It's just sin. It's just sin I recognize that sin manifests itself in our experience in a number of different ways for some people.

It's Alcoholism, it's a love of drugs and alcohol some people have sex on people. It's An atheistic persuasion that moves its way throughout their life.

Some people let's Mormonism Jehovah's Witnesses There's all kinds of ways that we create idols in exchange

For the truth for the law for the law There's lots of different lies and there's lots of different ways that it comes out it's coming up on two hours

Yes, and I have to use the bathroom All this tea you gave me. I'm like, thanks. All right, so so what

I'm gonna do let's let him Finish the Romans one thing.

Okay, and then we will give a summary response to all the Romans one thing

Okay, and we'll we'll we'll call it good. Okay, so I'm good Suppositional apologetics feels so cheap to intellectual people even

Christians see if it's not really intellectual Reservations that non -regenerate people are having then you don't have to spend the time helping them walk through their intellectual problems with Christianity You just get to blame sin and stay intellectually distant

So here's what Romans 1 actually says starting at verse 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people who suppress the truth by their wickedness

Since what may be known of God is plain to them because God has made it plain to them For since the creation of the world

God's invisible qualities his eternal power and divine nature Have been clearly seen being understood from what has been made so that people are without excuse

But it doesn't stop there If you were to continue reading the passage it goes on to say for although they knew

God They neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him But their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened

Although they claimed to be wise they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal

God for images Made to look like mortal human beings and birds and animals and reptiles

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity For the degrading of their bodies with one another they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served created things

Rather than the Creator because of this God gave them over to shameful lusts

Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones in the same way men

Also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another men committed shameful acts with other men and Received in themselves the due penalty for their error

So now we have a problem Romans 1 is not talking about atheists or people who disbelieve in God Paul is purposefully singling out a particular group of people engaging in idolatry.

There's imagery of temple prostitution and idols Acts of men sleeping with men and women sleeping with women.

He's referring to Gentiles who were entrenched in pagan practices So what you've done is you've taken a verse in which

Paul is speaking about one specific group of people. You've decontextualized it and made it applicable to all people notice how there's a

Continuity of this a day that Paul is referring to in this passage It's the same group of people throughout the body of Romans 1 18 through 32 the same

They that are without excuse and are privy to God's manifestation are the same They that burn for lust with the same sex

So this is clearly not meant to apply to everyone or specifically just to atheists because not all atheists are men

Liking men and women liking women this passage is an indictment of a certain type of sacrilege in which pagans who

Paul is Arguing already know that God exists instead choose to worship idols

See there were fertility cults at the time that involves sex between males and eunuch prostitutes this is what

Paul refers to towards the end of the verse when he talks about men sleeping with other men and Receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error

It's the same group of people that's being addressed in the passage where God's revelation is is made manifest

So this verse is not meant to apply to everyone on the planet so that part of your

Apologetic in which you approach all non -believers with the assumption that they already know that God exists and they're just suppressing the truth is

Lazy, it's not supported by the scriptures in Romans like you think that it is and most importantly it's dangerous and it's antithetical to your goal of evangelism

Jeff you have tattoos right now if I was to point out to you Leviticus 1928 Which says you shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves

How do you think you would respond to me? Perhaps that we're no longer under the Levitical law Well, then

I guess that prescription had a particular audience and a particular time frame in which it was relevant Or perhaps it was just for the

Jews to separate themselves from the pagans Well, then I guess that prescription had a particular audience and a particular time frame in which it was relevant

Now I could just as easily take this specific Bible verse that's talking about one particular group of people

Decontextualize it and apply it to you as a new audience, but to do that would be isogetical not exegetical and please don't misunderstand me

I'm not saying that there aren't truths That can be extracted from biblical passages that are contained within a context and then apply it across the board

There are a lot of passages in the Bible that aim to convey a moral precept or a theological truth through a parable or a story or a teaching but this is not one of them

Paul in Romans 1 is writing to Jews and Referring specifically to pagan Gentiles who were entrenched in idolatry.

See here's why what you're doing is dangerous Jeff what's going to happen is that one of the people that you're teaching at your church is going to go become friends with an atheist and That atheist is going to have a real sincere intellectual reservations either about belief in God or the veracity of the

Bible It could be really about anything and after many conversations and many back -and -forths That Christian in your class is going to really get the message that it actually is about intellectual problems for some people and when this happens

The Christian who sat through your class and heard you teach the things that you're teaching is going to come to doubt the

Bible Because if the Bible really does teach that it's all a sin problem and no one really has any

Intellectually sincere reservations. This is going to clash with the real world because this is not the way the world really is

All right now you can go on later on to talk about You know how he spent all this time doing this exegesis all we do is isogesis so on so forth

You've got a bunch of notes there. You keep those things in mind. Okay. I want to address the fundamental

Collapse as far as exegesis goes here some of you saw my debate with dr.

Graham Codrington in South Africa Johannesburg a few weeks ago and You're going hey,

I've heard this someplace before and you have What we just heard was that there's one particular group and one

Romans 1 18 through 32 doing all this stuff. Really? It is so painfully obvious Noah That what you have at the end of the chapter is one of Paul's vice lists.

Do you really think? That Paul had one Particular narrow group in mind of people who did everything

Every they murdered their parents. They they they were all thieves They they did everything in that list and they were all

Homosexuals all the may all the females were lesbians and all the males were homosexuals and that's the group we're talking about really

That is to use your term insane and absurd and you should have known better and you should never have put that on YouTube Because that is so patently

Obviously not the case Paul is not saying that every person does every single one of these things

These are all manifestations of the exchange Exchange the exchange of the truth of God for the lie and So in some people that results in homosexuality in some people it results in other manifestations but here's here's the

Here's the drop the tribble moment, okay That's gonna be asking I knew that drop the drop the tribble moment.

I'm not gonna drop microphones. They're too expensive. They drop the tribble It's supposed to do that here's the problem

Noah if you're gonna Pretend to do exegesis. Sorry, that was snarky, but that's what you're doing.

If you're gonna pretend to do exegesis Then be prepared to answer for it because when you get to Romans 3 you see

Paul gives us a pretty clear understanding of his intentions and In Romans chapter 3 after he gives this long list remember verses 10 and following through about verse 18

There's no fear of God before their eyes I know those are all quotations from the Psalter primarily and you can say they're all about Jews if you wanted to they're really not but What's Paul's interpretation?

His interpretation is that what he's done in Romans 1 2 and 3 has been to demonstrate the universal sinfulness of man

He says we conclude that Jews and Gentiles are all their mouths are closed they're all guilty before God and Then he's able to introduce the gospel.

Well, where did he do that? He started in chapter 1 That's the universal condition of man with its various Manifestations chapter 2 he then turns the

Jew who's sitting there going. Oh, yeah, give it to him Give it to him and he says, um mere possession of the law doesn't make you right before God You who rob temples?

You know robbing temples is wrong, but you've do it yourself then. Um, you're a hypocrite and so that that list in chapter 3 is again descriptive of all of mankind so that all every mouth is

Closed is what Paul says So you have gone against Paul's own

Interpretation in concluding that section and how he makes application of I'm sorry, that is an abject failure in Doing any meaningful exegesis you didn't do anything with the exchange.

You did not enter into that text at all because if you do it is going to absolutely destroy your entire critique because what

Romans 1 is saying is all Mankind does Suppress that knowledge in different ways.

It manifests itself in many different ways It's not the simplistic way that you have attributed to Jeff and to those of us who do presuppositional apologetics.

Yep, and I want to say there's a Bit of a problem with how he describes how

I teach people at church to do apologetics There's gonna be a problem Jeff you can teach people they're gonna be a serious sincere intellectual barriers

And you know if you're just saying it's just sin, then they're gonna realize it's wrong Well, anybody who goes to apology at church anybody who's ever learned apologetics from me

Would never have thought that I just taught it's just sin and you just need to know it's just sin guys ignore it all

No, we engage with their system and we engage with their arguments I mean I I hand out copies of where we got our

Bible from how do we know that we've got we have those this Text transmitted to us that God's actually preserved

A little bit of work on that, you know These are the things that people learn an apology at church they learn about where we got our

Bibles from the manuscript tradition how we actually work through that tradition to get back to the

Text and that's what they learn. And so we do learn to handle the intellectual barriers

Someone might have to faith, but we recognize in the end that what is going to open

Somebody's eyes is not the argument. It's not the look at the manuscript tradition Look at the biological complexity of life.

Look at the irreducible complexity of life We recognize that the ultimate problem if for anybody is sin

We're rebels against our Creator and we need to have our eyes open We need to have you to have a new heart a new heart.

And so in the end, it's about the gospel and it's about salvation Nobody hears from me guys.

It's just sin. It's not intellectual problems. Here's the point I actually want to argue

Noah that apart from Christ and the biblical worldview You can't handle intellectual objections because you can't look at history with any kind of meaning or Providence you can't even look at the future with any kind of hope or coherence because if you don't have

Christ you have no basis for intellectual barriers to even answer any problems to talk about again logic or reason or any kind of coherent epistemology and So I think that you need

God to even talk about Answering intellectual barriers. Well, he's gonna say well that was what the rest of the video was about Yeah, that's that's gonna be the response to that.

Yeah. Well, we only have two hours now We've dealt with three passages. He went through and so 23 minutes out of there's only 21 left

So we've got over halfway through but I will say a response to Leviticus if somebody said Jeff you have tattoos

What about Leviticus? I would say Anybody Got any kind of stuff for the dead going on any kind of worship of ancestors

This is lame that I explained that just a few a few weeks It's not about worship of ancestors. If you read the text itself

I would say dig into the text exegetically and you realize that this was not for the dead or any ancestor worship

No, so that's why I would tell people not to worry about that I would do it exegetically.

I wouldn't say and you'd also point out that kaka is a hotbox agama

Parallels Deuteronomy 14 1 it all has to do with the with the dead etc And if somebody said Jeff that Coogee, is it two different kind of fibers?

Yeah, I think that's actually mercerized cotton you might actually be oh You might be hello.

Okay Might be cool. Okay. I'm not sure about this one. But yeah, definitely

Well, anyway, I my hope obviously in spending two hours and 15 minutes on this subject is that people have been

Allowed to think through things, you know answering objections in formats like this I think one of the advantages this format of doing a program not only are you letting the other side speak?

Yeah, you're hearing what their objections really are But you're forced to interact with what they're saying if you skip over what they're saying, you know, you go

But it it's just like a debate it allows for the two positions to be brought together and hence clarity and the

We want our people. I know you want your people at your church I just got a text from somebody at my church saying you need to preach on that first Peter 315 text

I've responded back. I have I have actually and there even but We want our people to be ready to engage

You know this last objection that he gave, you know You're gonna be people go out there and find out atheists are different than what you've been saying

I really you know, a lot of them that are sitting there were atheists. They well know exactly that's all about that's right so I hope you've enjoyed have an opportunity to respond.

Yeah, I Hope that maybe you'll find the time to maybe to do some more It's only halfway through and the rest of it is is the non exegetical stuff and it's not that that's not important It just seemed to me especially with the strange approach of making it sound like we

You know Yeah, I kind of stuff that that was the most important thing to deal with you think that someone who was a

Christian But we're not dealing with yeah, and his argument is is that Jeff your foundations? Presuppositional s there your foundations are wrong if you're basing it on these texts and here's why well if we've demonstrated

Exegetically that Noah you're wrong about that and we're on Proper biblical foot footing here, then that means that the rest of your critique is also gonna fall apart

Because I'm a biblical world biblical perspective I see that's why I think he's most important about the most concerned about that part is

Because that's really not where he is anymore, right? And my hope is and I mean this with all my heart My hope is is that Noah would turn from sin to Christ and he would experience life

Real life and forgiveness and peace with God I would I would offer this to Noah as something he needs to hear the

Bible says they went out from us in order to Show that they were not of us and Noah. I would encourage you to think very very very deeply about that is that The Bible teaches that if you've abandoned the faith you were never part of the faith to begin with and I want to say this

Would you please just think through this? I think that dr. White and I can show you and demonstrate to you that your your theology was off your view of was off your view of scripture was off and that might have a lot to do with this false profession of faith that he had and So what

I would encourage you to do is to really think about the majesty of Jesus Christ the holiness of God Your own sin before a holy

God and the fact that you will be held accountable Before a holy God for your sin just like me and just like dr

White would be outside of Jesus and I would call you to to come to the one who died Who who was buried and rose again and to turn from your sin to the

Living God to put your faith in Christ to receive Eternal life and salvation in the end all of this discussion all these arguments

They in the in the end they need to be kept over here in terms of like what's most important for me to you

Is that you turn from your sin to know Christ and that's what I hope for for you. Well, thank you very much

Jeff I appreciate I didn't know how long we would go but a while We've done 217 so far and it's it's been a party.

We did our best to make this. Oh, yeah as as Visually, I feel I feel badly for rich.

He's still wearing plaid but You know, you never This has been the most colorful

Every year every year sometime in December. We'll have a we'll have a coochie party here

Just got a no vote from rich, but that doesn't matter. All right All right.

Thanks for watching the program today Lord willing I'll be back. Wow, we're supposed to be back on Thursday when

I will be an old decrepit man, actually My birthday your birthday birthday Thursday.

Yep. So I'll I'll bring in a cupcake or something and it'll be a healthy one.