More WLC & Apologetic Methodology, Karlo Broussard on Alleged Parallels of Atheism & Sola Scriptura

Greetings and welcome to The Dividing Line, my name is James White, and I don't know what you're on about because there's nothing up on the screen, oh, there's something up on the screen now. Hey, lots of stuff to get today, we might open the phones, I'm not sure if I can get the thing to actually work to do that.

I might see if I can work that out later, I did mention it on Twitter or wherever it was. Unfortunately I don't even see the phones anymore. I'm not having a good computer day folks, let's just put it that way.

The computers around here have decided they do not like me and they want me to go away, so I feel like going away. Where did the phones thing go? I don't even know. It's just like poof, gone. Lovely. Anyway, so maybe we won't.

If I can't pull it up, it's not even there anymore, I don't know where it went. Maybe Safari still has it. Go back to the old ways. Things like that. Anyway, so we might do something with that, or we may not.

If I can't find any way to bring it up, then let's see, phones. Phones. Click to use Flash. Lovely. Use every time. Okay, it looks like that one's actually working. We found something worked, woohoo! Alright, so we may do something with that a little bit later on.

Anyway, Cy Tembruggenkate put up a one minute, long stuff here Cy, you're putting out really long videos here. One minute video, William Lane Craig and his own words. Because the second part of this, I have a feeling, you know I've done a lot of these things in the past, I have a feeling they just sat down and did the whole thing on apologetic methodology in one session.

And then just divided it up into 20 -21 minute segments, something like that. So I didn't really expect there to be any interaction with criticisms or with people saying, Hey, have you actually read Van Til, or are you just reading other people's interpretations of Van Til, what's going on here?

If you didn't catch the last program, on reasonable faith, William Lane Craig is doing a review of a radio interaction that Cy Tembruggenkate did on apologetic methodologies, presuppositionalism versus evidentialism, classical apologetics, exactly how you differentiate them, I'm not 100 certain, but anyway.

And the first part that we listened to, over and over again, we had to come to the conclusion that William Lane Craig's reaction to the things that Cy was saying indicated a fundamental lack of familiarity with the presuppositional approach.

And everybody's like, Nah, is that possible? Because he's written books, he's been involved in books where they have the different approaches and stuff like that. And it's like, well, maybe, but a lot of people don't remember when Norm Geisler wrote something about Van Til, he almost always depended upon secondary sources, upon interpreters of Van Til rather than Van Til directly, often actually citing someone else's words as if they were Van Til's.

So it wouldn't be the first time this has happened. And I do get the feeling, I'll be perfectly honest with you, that for a lot... See, I got to be very careful here about some of the parallels that I'm familiar with.

But look, we all do this. There are certain perspectives that we don't really have any great respect for. We don't really think should be taken seriously. And so it's really easy to just sort of dismiss them and not really spend a lot of time looking carefully at what they're saying.

And I've had this done to me many times before, and I have a feeling this is going on here. And so in listening to this second part, all I put out on Twitter was, well, now we have real clear evidence that William Lane Craig has not done original reading in presuppositional material.

So that's just all there is to it. And there's no question about it. And in the process, listening to Dr. Craig, he said a number of things where I've just gone, that's not what I've heard you saying in your debates.

You know, I mean, Romans 1 comes up and does man really know that God exists? Well, I believe that it's in the Bible. Well, if it's in the Bible and you believe that, then shouldn't that be the determinative reality of the formation of your apologetic methodology?

We've talked about this before. It's one thing to go, well, yes, yes, yes, I believe that it's in the Bible. But to take it seriously and go and sense it's in the Bible, then I need to reorient all my secular learning, all my university learning, all my doctoral learning, whatever else it is, in light of what is in Scripture.

That's a different thing. And I think that's what we've got going on here. I just don't, I don't get much of a sense from, for example, I've not heard anywhere where Dr. Craig even intimates me going, well, I'm not sure all presuppositionalists would say it like Sy Timbergate says it.

You know, you have frames take over here and you've got Oliphant's take over here. And Bonson, you know, had more of an emphasis. Nothing like that. Because there are differences. There are differences in interpretation between a Bonson and a frame and Oliphant.

And, you know, they all have their emphasis, shall we say. Nothing like that. I just don't think he's listened. So, Sy put together a one minute little clip here. I'm not going to bother saying the video because even though he does show the video, it really doesn't make much of a difference.

It's what he said and it's the same. Evidently, he's been feeling the same sort of disconnection that I've been feeling in regards to Dr. Craig saying, well, yeah, I accept that. I accept it can only be done through the Holy Spirit and so on and so forth.

And, you know, we need to be presenting the one true God and things. And I'm just sitting back going, yeah, but hasn't he said this type of thing? Well, Sy went back through some videos and put together some quotes.

So, let's listen to what Sy put together here.

I encourage unbelievers not to think of the Bible as divinely inspired. Over 50 of evangelical pastors think that the world is less than 10 ,000 years old. Now, when you think about that, Kevin, that is just hugely embarrassing.

We're not arguing for Christianity tonight. I haven't presented an argument, a moral argument for Christianity or even for the God of the Bible. Over half of our ministers really believe that the universe is only around 10 ,000 years old.

This is just scientifically, it's nonsense. You ought to rejoice in my argument tonight and just say, I'm going to be a theist, but I'm not going to be a biblical theist. We're not trying to disprove Allah's existence.

We are arguing for generic monotheism that is affirmed by Jews, Christians, Muslims, deists, and theists of many sorts. Are you certain that God exists?

No! Good. That last one, of course, is Sai's favorite. Are you certain that God exists? No! It's the apologetic equivalent of what was the Democratic guy that goes, remember the Howard Dean scream? Yeah, because it was like four octaves above where it could have ever been respected.

So, yeah, what?

Excuse me, excuse me, but I'm just kind of wondering, the one before that where he's arguing that, you know, we're just arguing monotheism, isn't that what all these Chrislam people have been accusing you of for the last several weeks going off the beam?

These people have gone absolutely bonkers. No, I don't even go there because, look, my summary for many years of William Lane Craig's position has been that, the way I put it is, the preponderance of the evidence points to the greater probability of the existence of a God.

That's what I've heard him arguing over and over and over again. And so it's like, it's a generic, as he just, the terminology he used there, generic monotheism that can be affirmed by a number of different people.

And Sai's point, and my point, is that's not what the apostles ever did. This is the incrementalism where you get excited because you can get someone to go from being an atheist to an agnostic to being sort of a deist type thing, and you just hope you can just keep pushing them far enough along that they'll get to the truth eventually.

And that, to me, is one of the key issues. Was there something else?

I was just going to say, it just blows my mind that you've never said such a thing. These people have accused you up one side and down the other of saying such a thing. He's been saying this really for a long time, and yawn.

Nobody gives a care.

I don't even, I don't take seriously anybody who suggests for a second that I've ever said a word about Chrislam or anything like that. Obviously such a person just has absolutely no credibility as far as I'm concerned.

I can't even interact with someone that silly because they're obviously not dealing with the real world, and so I don't even really give them much of a thought. But you heard the things that were said.

It's only one minute long. Let me just comment on just a few of them.

I encourage unbelievers not to think of the Bible as divinely inspired.

Now, we commented on that one, because I remember the scene that's being showed there. And this again, then what are you doing? What does this say concerning your approach to the lost man? Are you really taking seriously the idea of suppression?

He's suppressing the knowledge of God, rebellion against God. These are all key issues that, as I'm listening to his comments, which we'll get to here in a moment, I'm just not finding any serious interaction with it at all.

Over 50 of evangelical pastors think that the world is less than 10 ,000 years old.

So, Dr. Craig is extremely concerned about this. He really does believe that it is fundamental to Christian belief to accept current cosmologies and to accept the idea that you begin with the assumption of a beginning that is non-functionally, that isn't created to have a purpose and a function at the time it was made.

I guess would be the way that I would put that. And this is just intellectual suicide from his perspective. Now, of course, if cosmology changes, that's something that's going to mess everything up.

Now, when you think about that, Kevin, that is just hugely embarrassing. We're not arguing for Christianity tonight.

We're not arguing for Christianity. Now, of course, there could have been a context for that, I suppose. I mean, if I were, you know, if the topic were specifically focused on another faith or another religion or something like that, I suppose there could be a context in which I would say something like that.

But in all probability, it was in the context of arguing for the mere existence of a God. And the presuppositionalist says that is bare theism, B-A-R-E, not B-E-A-R. Bare theism is incoherent. It is insufficient to actually bear the weight that someone might want to put upon it.

And so there's an issue there. And then the bad sound stuff here, I don't know what it was from, but this is, I haven't presented argument, a moral argument for Christianity.

I haven't presented argument, a moral argument for Christianity or even for the God of the Bible. Or even for the God of the Bible.

Again, depends on what the context was there.

Over half of our ministers really believe that the universe is only around 10 ,000 years old. This is just scientifically, it's nonsense. You ought to rejoice in my argument tonight and just say, I'm going to be a theist, but I'm not going to be a biblical theist.

Now, there's an important one. I don't care what the context is there. You should say, I'm going to be a theist, but I'm not going to be a biblical theist. I don't know how to put together that kind of a statement with what I've been hearing from Dr. Craig on the podcast.

I don't see how to put those together. I really don't.

We're not trying to disprove Allah's existence. We are arguing for generic monotheism that is affirmed by Jews, Christians, Muslims.

Generic monotheism affirmed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims must be non-revelational monotheism. Because we as Christians do not simply affirm a generic monotheism. We affirm a revelational monotheism of a specific god, Yahweh.

And that becomes central to the apologetic for the identification of who Jesus is, because the New Testament writers identify him as Yahweh in human flesh, despite what Bart Ehrman doesn't know about New Testament theology.

And so, it's this ability to argue for something less than the reality that is the issue here. And I think it's important to recognize that.

Deist and theist of many sort. Are you certain that God exists? No! Good. I encourage...

Are you certain that God exists? No! Well, so, that would seemingly go to the knowing, understanding type thing, and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. And I'm sure Dr. Craig would say, well, in the context in which my opponent was speaking from a historical perspective, or a philosophical perspective, I can say that I know God exists experientially by the testimony of the Holy Spirit, or something like that.

But the reason Sy keeps pointing to that is, you've got him saying that there, and then, on last week's program, you heard him saying, well, yeah, men know God exists. It's in the Bible. You would think that would be more than, it's in the Bible.

You would think it would be, this is absolutely central to the issue, to what's going on here. So, there's that. So, I thought that was helpful to have, obviously, Sy's feeling the exact same thing that I am, and that is...

Ah... Um... Um... I don't know. Anyway. No, here it is. Okay, I found it. All right. I guess I still do need the... I guess I can't hear what I'm playing. I need a... I've wanted to look at the Bluetooth onesies, but there's always delay, and it ends up throwing you...

You've got to have it hardwired. There just doesn't seem to be any way around it, unfortunately. So, as silly as it looks. So, let's try to run through this as quick as we can, and see what we can learn from it.

So, let's pick up where we left off.

Sy Tim Bruggencate continues in this exchange.

Now, obviously, we need music in the background. Okay? I mean, it's sort of like when that guy did that really cool video from South Africa of my closing statement. It sounded so much better. I need to hire a piano guy.

Okay? And he can just set up a little keyboard over in the corner at the debate, and when I start preaching, he can just... You know, we could get that lady that plays for T .D. Jakes. Yeah. Oh, she's good.

Yeah. She knows how to just roll. Right in there. The timing's perfect. Yep. Everything. Yep. To get it faster and slower, depending on...

And we need that tune. Dun, dun, dun. No, no, no, no, no, no. Yeah, you gotta have that. Gotta have that. When he sees evidence and says,.

Well, Christianity can't be true, then it shows that they were always the judge of the evidence, and I say, that's problematic. Now, remember, I still got the... I'm not sure if I've ever heard Sy with cool music in the background.

I don't think it goes with the Canadian. You know, it just... Eh! You know, it's not working. Where's the maple syrup? Anyway, remember last week that I was taken aback by the fact that William Lane Craig responded so negatively to the judge issue because isn't the whole...

You know, we cannot, and I emphasize this myself, we cannot put the unbeliever in the position of acting as judge of the existence of God. And he said, well, that's a prejudicial example. Why not a person...

We're just proving to a person that we have the cure for their disease. The category disconnection here is astounding. We're talking about someone who is demanding the right to judge whether God exists.

It's not talking about disease. We haven't even gotten to the point of sin and a savior from sin. If you haven't even gotten to God yet, how have you gotten all the way to that point? The example, and the one that fits the idea of suppression, and of exchanging, the exchange issue that you find in Romans chapter 1, they exchanged the truth of God for a lie.

This fits it perfectly. And that's what Sai is talking about. So I think my main issue.

With the other types of apologetics is it reduces God to probability. It does not talk about the God that has certainly revealed himself in Scripture.

And how many times have we heard Dr. Craig talking about probabilities, preponderance of evidences, all sorts of stuff like that? This whole group. I mean, remember the... In fact, I was just looking at it.

Again, this whole Mike Licona thing where he's getting into the apparitions and stuff, where he's talking about, I know this woman, and he's even now started to put the newspaper article where the girl fell at the concert and she's the one that appeared at 2 .30 in the morning, and the only way he could get rid of the apparition was to say the Lord's Prayer and stuff, and all this kind of stuff.

That really seems to me to be a part of this whole put themselves in the position, preponderance of evidence. Well, think about the probabilities here. I mean, it's sort of hard to explain these apparitions on the basis of an atheistic worldview.

But on the basis of a Christian worldview, then it makes perfect sense. It does. I didn't know that it did, but this kind of stuff is troubling,.

Very, very troubling. And I think it ultimately reduces or takes away from Jesus Christ's glory and salvation, because these are things that you need to do to try and bring people into the fold. What I'm trying to do is give them the truth, not so that they repent.

2 Timothy 2 .24 and 25 says that in the hope that God will grant them repentance, leading to a knowledge of the truth. So the people that I give truth to, it's not so that they repent. I give truth to them in the hope that the Holy Spirit opens their eyes so that they have truth to be converted unto.

So what Sai is saying there is I want to be used as an instrument, but what I'm doing is, you know, I like the illustration of prying up the fingers, of demonstrating the inconsistency of the person who's living in God's world, but is not living in accordance with God's world.

That's, you know, that's the kind of illustration, that's what I see us doing in apologetics, in dealing with the person who's denying the existence of God, specifically, is, you know, it's been well said, that critique of the worldview, the internal critique of the other person's worldview, and with the atheists, just simply the exposure of their suppression of the knowledge that's already there.

They're going to give you plenty of evidence that they live in God's world. You just need to know how to utilize it and place it within the proper context.

At this point, this is exactly the same thing the evidentialist would do, is he would present evidence and arguments in the hope that the Holy Spirit would use them to open the heart of the unbeliever and lead him to repent.

But notice the difference, however. This is where the difference is getting lost. Dr. Craig doesn't seem to grasp what the issue is. I'm well aware of the fact that evidentialists can say, well, we need to pray that the Holy Spirit will work.

But what's the Holy Spirit doing? Is the Holy Spirit bringing about regeneration? Because I don't think Dr. Craig's theology is such that regeneration precedes faith. So he's dealing with an individual who has the capacity in and of itself to repent and believe.

And even if he... I don't know. When I heard him say, yes, I believe what Romans 1 says. I believe that man knows that God exists. Well, what's the nature of that knowledge? What's the nature of the suppression of that knowledge that is spoken of in Romans 1?

That's what we need to find out because that's going to have a direct impact. That's what Paul's saying in 1 Corinthians 1. Why is the message of the cross to them their perishing foolishness? But to we who are being saved, it's the power of God.

It's the nature of the person that determines how that's going to be interpreted and how it's going to be heard. And so when he says, well, yes, that's what the evidentialist is doing. The Holy Spirit has to use these things.

But what does the Holy Spirit do with these things? What's the nature? How is this? If this man has this free will, and in fact, as a Molinist, what does any of this have to do with Molinism? I mean, because God's already chosen the exact universe where in this person is going to be in these certain circumstances.

The Holy Spirit can't change any of that. God's just dealing with the cards he's been dealt. That's his own words. So why does a Molinist pray to the Holy Spirit? To pray to the Holy Spirit would do something in this person's heart and mind.

If they've already been, if the circumstances have already been micromanaged, so they've been put into position as to whether they will or will not believe. Freely, allegedly. I think that empties the word freely of having much meaning, personally.

But,.

Still, that's what's happened. I think it's actually unloving and uncaring to withhold good evidence from an unbeliever and just command him to repent without giving him any good reason to.

Now, did you catch that? I think this is extremely important. This is where you really see where the disconnect is. Because it's unloving to withhold from the unbeliever good arguments. Because they're already suppressing all the truth that they already possess.

I just don't, I'm sorry, when he said on the last program, I believe men know that God exists. I don't remember if the specific terminology of suppression came up or not. It needs to, one way or the other.

But, it was almost like, yeah, yeah, yeah, I believe that, but I don't let that get in the way of what I'm doing. Because we've got our philosophy and we've got our molanism and we've got our decades of doing this and we don't want anything to get in the way of that.

So, we're not going to go there. Unloving to withhold from them. So, they already know God exists and they're suppressing that knowledge. And so it's unloving to withhold from them more arguments that they're going to suppress.

And then, I keep trying to plug this in somehow to a molanist worldview. And I don't know how it works. In light of middle knowledge, didn't God already make a decision as to how many are going to be saved, how many are not going to be saved, freely?

So, if they're not going to be, if they're not going to believe, freely, then why give them more arguments which would increase their guilt before God? I don't know. I'm just trying to make sense out of it.

It doesn't, it's not helping me out very much.

If those reasons exist, why would you withhold them?

And I think that's the big difference in the apologetic. It's a different view of God. It's a different view of Jesus. And that's what I found when I was using evidence to try to convince people that God exists, that I was actually not honoring the Lord that I adore.

And thankfully with this methodology, I think that anybody can do it, and it's just a matter of starting with the presupposition that He exists and that His Word is true.

Here's the first response from.

Eric. I think Psy wouldn't talk to anybody unless he thought that something he said would be effective, so I think right there he's assuming that they at least have the free will to listen to him when he's talking about presupposition.

Okay.

Wouldn't talk to anybody unless he felt that something he said would be effective. I believe that anytime the Word, the truth of God is proclaimed, then God is glorified by that. When you mean effective, sounds like you're judging whether you're going to get the desired response type of a situation, which I don't know.

And I'm not going to. I'm not going to engage in that kind of examination of somebody to go, well, you know, obviously there are lots of times when I go, is this the right time? Not the right time type situation like that, but it's not based upon whether someone's going to accept what I've got.

To say. So yeah, I think even he presupposes that the atheist is capable of understanding his reasoning, his logic, and whenever we do present... Well, of course.

The person is capable of understanding the reasoning and logic. The issue is not whether they have the intellectual capacity. This is a matter of the will. And that's why this is all a theological issue.

It's all based on what you believe about anthropology and theology proper. Does God have a sovereign will that he's accomplishing? Is man dead in sin? Theology matters and it determines your apologetics.

And you're seeing it right here.

We're not putting God on trial, we're putting the atheist and his claims on trial. Because whether or not they believe in God is completely irrelevant to whether or not God exists. So yes, I think that when you present things to the atheist about God, as the verse says, how can they believe if no one's told them?

How can they come to God if they haven't even heard of God and no one preaches to them? So yeah, definitely I think that the atheist.

Could understand. Now notice there was conflation. Eric made a mistake there. He confuses the gospel proclamation and giving people knowledge of the gospel with the knowledge of God himself. He just switched between the two without recognizing that that's actually two different contexts and two different points.

Step outside of his worldview and say, okay, let me think about what you just said and set my beliefs aside and consider or weigh out the pros and cons of what you just said. Because no one else can be the judge of the evidence for himself but him.

I can't believe in God for him. He has to do that himself.

So you are inviting this person to be a judge of the evidence of God's existence. He's basically saying, yeah, you have to do that. You have to put the individual who is suppressing the knowledge of God in the position of judging the evidence for the existence of God.

And that's the whole point. That's the whole problem. That's why you have to address the presuppositional aspects of their nature as a fallen human being. And if you don't start there but they don't accept that, it doesn't matter.

That's what they are. You have to have some knowledge of the spiritual nature of the person with whom you're speaking. Of course, in the academy, that's not even allowed.

That's a good response, but it does leave out what I have wanted to emphasize, namely that it is the Holy Spirit who is using the arguments and evidence you present as means to draw that person to himself.

Now, again,.

That sounds great! I'm excited to hear William Lane Craig saying things that strikes me as not exactly what he's been saying for a long time. I don't want to discourage someone from moving toward the truth, but within a Molinistic context, how does this work?

It still seems like it's almost a prevenient grace type thing where God's using this. He can use these arguments type things, but drawing whom? Is the Holy Spirit doing this equally with each person? Is the Holy Spirit actually able to bring a person to the point of regeneration or not?

I don't think Craig's theology... I think we're hearing him saying these things and probably reading into them a context that we want to hear. Well, at least I do. I tend to want to hear someone say something correctly, even if they haven't in the past.

But I think we have to be careful at this point.

There's just no reason to think that the Holy Spirit confines his work to preaching and doesn't use other means of working. So, while what Hernandez said is entirely correct, it's incomplete. I think he needs to emphasize the way in which the Holy Spirit is the one who brings about conversion and repentance by using means.

So, can the Holy Spirit bring a person to repentance? Unless something has changed recently, what he would say, what he's, I think, saying is that the Holy Spirit can use means in the realm of prevenient grace.

But, again, I'm trying to put this as best I can into the context of a Molinist. And it's sort of tough to do. Because who's going to be saved and who isn't going to be saved is already known to God. It just hasn't been determined solely by God.

It's a synergistic decision between God and whoever determines the content of middle knowledge. Whoever the car dealer is, as we've said before. That's.

Where it goes. This is the moderator of this debate and he's a pastor in the Houston area who has this radio show.

And he presents this question. Let's just say the Kalam cosmological argument, which I think anybody getting into apologetics is going to run across pretty quickly. It's pretty easy to understand and it basically gets you to the sense that there is a cause behind the universe and all that we see.

Or anything that begins to exist. Would you say that it's kind of a front to God to even offer something like that as proof that God exists?

Now, before listening to the response there, an affront to God, notice the terminology, to offer this as a proof that God exists. Again, if what you're saying to the rebel sinner is you have the right to examine this argument and to judge God's existence on the basis of this, that's different than saying here's an example of the consistency of God's world that you cannot explain.

And that this puts you in the position of having to answer for why you live the way you do in God's world when you have to keep borrowing from him and then rejecting other elements of his perspective.

So you provide an internal critique of that person's worldview. The big difference is going to come out in your language. It's going to come out in your language as to whether you're trying to get this person to make a decision versus you want to see this person see themselves as God sees them.

Those are two different things. And the one tends to push you toward utilizing not programs but isms and frequently emotional appeals and things like that that, well, we see what the result of all that is.

To a non-believer?

I would say it would depend on the context. However, even William Lane Craig admits that it's not arguing for the God of Christianity. And my Bible tells me there's no other gods. So if it's not arguing for the God of Christianity, it's arguing for something that I don't believe in.

Yeah, that's, I think, really silly. Doesn't he believe in the God of the Old Testament? And the Kalam cosmological argument leads to a creator God of the universe.

I think William Lane Craig just basically said that Yahweh is just a generic monotheistic God. I think that's what he's. Why would he make the distinction? I mean, that's the only way I can interpret what he's saying there, is that it's okay to argue for a non-Christian God because we have the Old Testament.

As if there's somehow a difference in God when the reality is it's just where you are in regards to what God has or has not revealed about himself. And, of course, you've heard me say more than once, I believe the doctrine of the Trinity is specifically revealed between the Testaments and the Incarnation of the Son, the Outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

But that sounds like.

What he's saying. And I think this is the God of Christianity, but that would require additional argument based upon Jesus,.

For example. That would require additional argument. How can we, how can anyone go back to.

An Old Testament context? Why would you want to? I wanted to ask you, then, about this cumulative approach, which someone like William Lane Craig, I think, would embody, right? I mean, like you say, let's say he's arguing with an atheist, he'll make five arguments for the case that God exists.

The Kalam, the argument for morality, the resurrection of Jesus, there's usually another two in there that he uses frequently. Do you think the cumulative approach then is, I mean, obviously you think you would say it's a valid approach.

Because you're arguing for kind of a big picture God, and you're going to whittle your way down to the God of the Bible.

That's an incrementalist approach. Rather than, I don't know what you're embarrassed about, but it's an incrementalist approach, that you go from atheist to agnostic, to deist, to theist, to Trinitarian.

And, you know, if you don't.

Get them all the way to the end, what happens then, I wonder? I guess that's the perspective. And what would you say are the benefits of that? Because, I mean, a presuppositionalist would argue that you're already sort of talking about a God other than the God of the Bible, and you're already ceding ground to the nonbeliever.

Right. Well,.

First of all, I'd say that some arguments like the Kalam is used to get at certain attributes of God. I mean, if you even look, let me just put it to you like this, if you look biblically, the Bible didn't start off with, it didn't start off with a list of every attribute of God.

It didn't say God's a trinity, God's this, God's that. In fact, it's progressive revelation in Scripture. So, I don't see why I cannot start with an argument that doesn't conclusively lead to the God of the Bible, if the Bible itself doesn't start with giving you every single attribute that God has.

Now,.

How does, how is that a parallel? We have, so we, let's go back to what only Abraham had. Let's, I mean, if that's a more effective way of arguing, how could that be a more effective way of arguing? We have the completed revelation of God in Jesus Christ, and we'd use something less than that?

What is it, what is it about the full revelation that's embarrassing to us? I don't, I don't understand that. That doesn't make any sense to me. We now have the full light of the gospel and the intention of God from the beginning and fulfilled prophecy, and you want to go back to trying to argue somebody into believing in a generic God, and then, and then what?

Well, then maybe we can, now, once you've got the foundation of God, then maybe we can introduce the idea of of prophecy or something like that, and just start moving our way slowly up. I think that's, I think that's the idea,.

As far as I can tell. In fact, you find in the Bible where God says, come, let us reason. Now, is God putting himself on trial? Of course not. He's... It's a really abused.

Text. Really, really is, in its context. God made us reasonable. There's no question about that. But to take that one text and say, oh, that means that man's mind has not been darkened by sin. That man's no longer suppressing the knowledge of the truth.

That there's no twistedness.

It's going way too far. He's respecting us as beings that reflect his mind, and has given us minds that reflect his image.