Van Til & the Use of Evidences

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today we are going to do a Sounds super exciting. We're gonna be doing a book study. Okay, if you saw the thumbnail, I am going to be covering chapter one of This interesting book called Vantil and the Use of Evidence.

I have no idea if this can be purchased anywhere as a matter of fact. If I go to Amazon right now, let's see what happens. This bad boy. I don't think is Take a moment to do this. Hold up. Let me see here then till and the use of evidence and It is not available.

There you go. It's not available. So This is the place to cut. This is the place to be right if you can't buy this anywhere. Or maybe you found some copy somewhere. Actually, I did not purchase this book.

I stole this book from a friend and I'm just kidding. I'd steal from it. But the friend of mine was generous and giving me this This very old copy now. I have to tell you something that when I was struggling with issues of apologetic methodology I was kind of born and raised apologetically speaking listening to William Lane Craig and more of the classical approach and Taking a look at kind of a lot of these rational traditional arguments and evidential arguments and things like that and I really enjoyed them and they were useful to me.

I was able to you know, I I've often used the cosmological argument the kalam cosmological argument, you know I remember reading dr. Craig's on guard Defending the faith with precision. I remember that the little subtitle there and it was a great resource For me and I still go back to some of those older books that I used to use at the beginning When I was studying apologetics and so I find them useful and then when I was introduced to presuppositional apologetics I was like wow, like this is this seems biblical.

It seems very powerful In its argumentation or the transcendental argument, of course I listened to the famous Bonson debate and I absorbed all of the you know The presuppositional literature and the videos that were out, you know.

But there was a struggle I was grappling with the relationship between a presuppositional approach and an evidential and classical approach on the one hand I really wanted to use these evidences in my my various apologetic interactions.

But at the same time I wanted to make sure I have to be a presuppositionalist. There's no neutrality. No autonomy these sorts of things and so this was really kind of a balancing act for me, you know if I felt very William Lane Craig II I would you know I'd read a William Lane Craig book and I do apologetics like that and I'm like no I'm I think I'm a little off here then I'll feel like oh I need to jump back into Bonson or Vantill and I kept going back and forth not really understanding the relationship between evidences and Presuppositions and our worldview and what that looks like and so when I was able to get my hands on this little book Which unfortunately none of you can get your hands on it unless you could find it somewhere.

When I got a hold of this book, it was very very helpful and it's it's small. I mean look at this thing it's like a super small and the chapters are Ridiculously small. So for example in this live stream, I'm gonna be walking through chapter one and It's just a couple of pages.

I mean Very easy to follow along and I just want to kind of highlight kind of the main things that I've gotten from the first chapter and I'm gonna try my best to go through the other chapters as well in further videos, but Super super helpful.

And so that's what I want to talk about today Vantill and the use of evidences and again, I want to destroy the caricature of You know of presuppositionalism that exists out there that presuppositionalist are somehow allergic to using Evidences and various arguments and things like that.

So So that's we're gonna be talking about here. I hope this is helpful for some people I hope that this channel scratches your presuppositional itch. If if you're really wanting to get into kind of the deeper issues and so if you look at the backlog of many of my past videos we cover all sorts of aspects of Apologetics in general but presuppositional apologetics more specifically and so I hope it's a blessing and that it's useful for folks now that being said before we jump in I have to have to have to throw out the reminder that The epic online presub conference with myself.

Dr. Chris bolt. Dr. Jason Lyle Matt slick and Joshua pillows. That is on the 12th. Okay, it is going to be Saturday November 12th this Saturday November 12th beginning at 10 a .m. And ending around 4 30 p .m With short breaks in between speakers and so those who have RSVP for this event will be sent a link and of course they have the schedule there and they will click that link when each of the speakers come on or they can stay connected the whole The whole time if they like but it's it's epic because it's gonna last the whole.

You know the whole day is which I'm super excited my first time ever doing something like this. I'm so so Excited and blessed that the speakers who will be sharing agreed to to come on and to share. So if you take a look at the the conference topics there, I'm gonna be giving an overview of the presuppositional method.

Dr. Lyle is going to be talking about a little bit more in depth of what I'm speaking about now. And that's using evidence within a presuppositional framework. I'm sure he'll kind of include You know some of his creation Apologetics in there as well.

Dr Chris Baltz gonna be talking about transcendental arguments in general and Van Til's transcendental argument in particular. Matt slick is going to be teaching us how to apply precept to the cults and Joshua pillows is Gonna speak at the end and he's going to answer the various Objections against the presuppositional approach.

All right, so I'm super excited. That is this Saturday now, here's the thing before I you know, remove this from the screen. We jump into our topic for today. The final day for people to RSVP for this event is on the 10th.

Okay, the conference is on the 12th. The last day you can sign up is on the 10th by 11 30 p .m Eastern so you can sign up right now by going to revealed apologetics comm. Clicking on the link on the drop-down menu precept you and then you could RSVP.

Okay, that has to be done by November 10th the latest 11 30 p .m. Eastern on November 10th. But the conference is on the 12th. Okay. Now I work with middle school students. I feel like I have to repeat myself over and over again if you when is it I thought the conference was on the test.

It's on the 12th and the deadline to sign up is on the 10th by 11 30 P .m. All right. Okay, so wanted to throw that out there also I'm planning an epic online Calvinism Conference in which I'm going to be having dr. James white Guillaume been young Scott Christensen who wrote the book what is free will I think that's what it's called and You know, he wrote a book on on the problem of evil as well and sites and Bruggen Kate who is going to be Joining me in that as well.

So we're gonna be covering a whole wide range of topics. I promise the epic online Calvinism debate on the conference Sorry is not going to be the generic run-of-the-mill Calvinist conference where we walk through the tulip, you know total depravity on condition.

No. We're gonna be covering topics that I think are gonna be very useful and helpful for people and so When I nailed down that specific date, I have all the speakers confirmed when I nailed out down that date I will let folks know when they're able to kind of sign up for that as well and by signing up both to the online Precept the epic online precept conference and the epic Calvinism conference.

You're supporting revealed apologetics as well. So if you found this channel to be a blessing I would greatly appreciate it that you support by purchasing a ticket and RSVP for This weekend's event and our event that's probably gonna be in the late January.

Okay of next year. All right. Well without further ado got that out of the way. If you have any questions as I am going through Going through our topic for today. Preface your question with the letter Q or the word question so that I can differentiate it from the comments.

All right. Now I kind of announced I was gonna come on today at last last second. So I'm not sure how many people will be listening. But if you happen to be dropping by I see a couple of people watching already and you have a question I'll try my best to address them.

And if I can't address your question I'm just gonna look weirdly and oddly at the camera and say I Don't know. Okay, so I I don't know everything so I will try my best to be as useful and helpful to you as possible.

The Legitimacy of Evidence in Presuppositional Apologetics

All right, so let's jump in chapter 1 of Vantil and the use of evidence is Entitled the legitimacy of evidence. Okay. I think that's an important place to start. I mean the book covers a bunch of different topics.

So for example, I can read you the table of contents part one begins with the legitimacy of evidences. Chapter two is entitled evidences apologetics and theology. Part two knowledge in the covenantal framework.

He speaks of two senses of what it means to know. What about epistemological neutrality speaks about neutrality the role of evidence and proof? Okay, and then he goes on to take a look at some scriptures and answers various objections and things like that.

So, I mean this tiny little book is packed with some super helpful Information, but we're just covering chapter 1 which is very brief. So I'm not sure how long we'll be here depends how many questions come in or you know.

If I you know, I did have some coffee. So I might be blabbing and I have the energy to blab but I just remembered it was decaf. So I'm not sure. We'll see. We'll see what happens. Okay, so chapter 1 is entitled the legitimacy of evidence.

Okay now I want to open up with again this kind of dichotomy that was in my mind when I was struggling. Should we be evidential or should we be? Presuppositional right and this either or mentality is really a common misunderstanding.

It's something that many of us who are in the apologetic game sort of speak and and study the method a lot. Methodology and things like that we can kind of set the issues up in this way and it all it definitely has been set up in that way by critics of The the presuppositional approach and I would say by uninformed presuppositionalist presuppositionalist who are Emphasizing presupposition so much that they do so to the exclusion of the use of evidences and other arguments.

So again, so evidential or presuppositional I think this common false dichotomy Really needs to be destroyed. Okay, because it's it does not properly represent the situation. Okay, so sometimes we could approach this topic as though presuppositionalist don't use evidence and Evidentialist don't have presuppositions.

Okay, Bonson pointed this out in one of his lectures and this was again He pointed it out as a common misunderstanding. Okay. Presuppositionalist can use evidence and evidentialist have presuppositions.

I would argue though that the presuppositionalist tends to be more aware of Their presuppositions and the role that they play in the apologetic encounter. Okay, and this is something that van Til often emphasized.

It's important for us to be what van Til said epistemologically. Self-conscious we need to be epistemologically self-conscious. We need to be aware of our theory of knowledge. We need to be aware of our metaphysical assumptions.

We need to be aware of the broader worldview context in which we are engaging in the apologetic Dialogue with the unbeliever, right? So we want to be sensitive to our worldview at every point at every point of the apologetic encounter and that's not simply because Our worldview gives context to the data points we bring up.

But it also allows us to always be in touch with the authority of God, right? It helps us to recognize that what we're doing when we're engaging the unbeliever is much more than just simply Arguing for the truth of a position, right?

We are representing our Lord and the manner in which we do it. We want to do it in a way that is consistent with the Word of God. So that's super super important, right? Worldview thinking allows us to Be better at consistency when we're talking about specific things, right.

When we speak of specifics and we have A consciousness of our worldview perspective. We tend to be more consistent with ourselves because we're aware of what is undergirding the specific data points that are being brought up within the apologetic Conversation.

Okay, so evidential or presuppositional. Presuppositionalist don't use evidence and evidentialist don't have presuppositions is false. Okay, in reality presuppositionalist can use evidence. They should use evidence.

They should use arguments and evidentialist Have presuppositions, okay. So again, so but what makes people think that presuppositionalist are allergic to evidence? I think the root of that common misconception is Partly due to Van Til himself and the kind of the unclear way that he often presented his position now I don't want to put all the blame on Van Til.

I want to blame also many of the critics of Van Til. Because I think one of the problems in terms of the critics is that Van Til has often been read in Piecemeal fashion. Okay, you pick up a quote here you pick up a quote there and outside of its context it can look like Van Til is very allergic to any sort of rational argumentation and and use of Evidences matter of fact.

Van Til has often been accused of being a fideist, right? We don't argue right for our position we just believe and then we assert Dogmatically that the Christian worldview is true, and that's it. You're a fool if you don't accept it and you know game over.

That's it end of discussion and that's that's not at all the case and it's clearly not the case when we take a closer look At what Van Til wrote in many of his books? So we want to when criticizing a position we want to read holistically what that person has wrote Across the spectrum so that we can get an accurate and fuller picture of what that person holds to so that we're in a better position to To criticize.

Okay. All right, so I mean here is a quote from Van Til that lends to this idea that he's really He's not interested in talking about the facts and things like that. Van Til says in his apologetic syllabus He says it is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts only.

Okay, it is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of facts Only okay. So again, it's impossible. It's useless to try and vindicate Christianity by an appeal to The facts the historical facts right taken.

I saw in an isolated fashion. Of course this this sounds very Sounds very anti evidence, right? And again, I wouldn't blame people coming to come to that conclusion if this is all they they read of Van Til.

Let's take a look at a quote from Greg Bonson. Greg Bonson says that the gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demands for factual signs and logical Argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny read that again.

The gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous Scrutiny, so there you go. The gospel does not cater to Rebellious man's demands.

Okay for factual signs. Give me facts. Give me arguments. We don't cater to that right because he's the sinner. He's the the totally depraved sinner that is running away from God, right? So we do not Satisfy his demands.

Okay now again Taking this in piecemeal fashion that would seem to Suggest like our prior quote from Van Til that we're really not supposed to be arguing with unbelievers because they're the unbelievers, right?

They are the the guilty party. Who are they to judge God and demand evidence and things like that? And there you go. So you have isolated quotes like this that kind of lend to You know this this idea this common misunderstanding.

All right, well there are a couple of things I want to keep in mind and what you see when you hear someone like Bonson say Something along these lines and something like what Van Til has said in his syllabus there you begin to identify some very important influences that Really affected Van Til's perspective and and really informed his apologetic methodology.

Now for those who are kind of just know a little bit about Bonson and a little bit about Van Til It's very important to know some historical context. With respect to the development of Van Til's thought really when he was kind of putting the presuppositional Puzzle pieces together at the beginning of his career.

Okay, there was a heavy influence influence Of Abraham Kuyper who I'm going to speak about in just a moment, but I almost skipped here's another quote in isolation that looks like the by the Christian apologists the presuppositional list is against The use of evidence and argument and things like that.

Okay. This is from Jim Halsey. I think I'm pronouncing that It's a quote from his book for such a time as this an introduction to her the form the reformed apologetic of Cornelius Van Til. He says the Christian can point to nothing outside the Bible for verification of the Bible.

Because the simple fact is that everything outside the Bible derives its meaning from the interpretation. Given it by the Bible now taken in isolation. Very easy to interpret this in a negative light and I would say that's Jim Halsey's fault.

This is a very clumsily put together sentence and without context. Yes, it sounds. Really? It sounds demonstrably false. If you just take it at face value isolated from the broader Context. Okay. So now we have let's go back here.

So we have Van Til. It is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by discussion of facts. Only we have Greg Bonson. The gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny we have Jim Halsey who says the Christian can point to nothing outside the Bible for Verification of the Bible because the simple fact is that everything outside the Bible derives its meaning from the interpretation given to it by the Bible.

Okay, there you go. Well, what is the undergirding influence of this? Well, of course, this is except for Van Til himself Bonson and Jim Halsey, they are channeling their Van Til, right? They're channeling their Van Til.

They're they're saying hey, I want to be faithful to Van Til's apologetic because I think it's biblical. I think it's powerful and they're Emphasizing really things that are consistent with what Van Til taught.

However there is a deeper influence that that Kind of goes beyond really at the early career of Van Til an early influence on Van Til's thought and that came from Abraham Kuyper. Okay. Now I have You know a picture here of this old dude that probably no one knows.

Okay, but if you know anything about church history and of course reformed history Abraham Kuyper was the prime minister of the Netherlands between 1901 and 1905 he was an influential Calvinist theologian and journalist and he established the reformed churches in the Netherlands.

Okay, and when he founded that church and in the Netherlands it became the second largest Calvinist denomination in the country behind the actual state supported church the Dutch Reform Church. Okay, so he's a pretty Influential dude.

All right. Now. Oh, why is he important here? And how does he relate to Van Til? Well there you have to understand there are two main pillars of Influence in Van Til now, of course, there are there are others obviously, but there are two very important pillars that I would say are Really the foundation of the presuppositional approach as Van Til Made it and he kind of took these two pillars the thoughts of these two individuals and put them together and formulated.

You know the presuppositional approach. That's an overly simplistic way of of explaining it but Abraham Kuyper and B .B. Warfield Abraham Kuyper and B .B. Warfield now, I'm not gonna talk so much about B .B. Warfield, but B .B. Warfield emphasized the importance of Rational argumentation he believed that Christians should engage in the apologetic task.

However Abraham Kuyper Abraham Kuyper was he placed a great emphasis upon world views. Okay, so did Van Til, right? But he placed a great emphasis upon world views he placed a great emphasis upon the lordship of Jesus Christ.

He placed a great emphasis upon upon antithesis. That because we have a worldview perspective and because we're committed to Christ. There is no neutrality, right? No neutrality whatsoever. And of course because there is no neutrality and because there is antithesis There is this diametric Opposition between the Christian worldview and the non-christian worldview and Since there's no area of neutrality from Kuyper's perspective.

Jesus Christ rules all Pardon, there is no neutrality and therefore there is no point of contact between The Christian and the non-christian. All right, and of course Abraham Kuyper as a result Concluded that apologetics is useless.

Why is it useless? Well, because the Christian has a worldview the unbeliever has a worldview. There is no neutrality. Therefore there is no point of contact. So what's the point? Right? So again Apologetics is useless from the perspective of Abraham Kuyper.

Now, of course Van Til did not agree with this. But the impact and the influence you see coming from Kuyper comes in that worldview emphasis. It comes in that emphasis of Antithesis and the the reality that there is no Neutrality, okay.

Now this is a very important distinction that we need to make and all of these points that I'm getting I'm getting straight from chapter One of this book, okay I'm not just riffing off, you know shooting shooting from the hip all of the first chapter kind of explains a lot of this.

Okay that there is no neutrality and so apologetics is is really useless. Van Til disagreed with that but Emphasized and appreciated the Kuyperian contribution of worldview no neutrality the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Okay, but we need to make an important distinction that while it's true that there is no neutrality, right? I would hold to that wholeheartedly. I think Abraham Kuyper is a hundred percent. Correct. There is no neutrality I think Van Til is a hundred percent.

Correct. There is no neutrality given the Christian worldview and our commitments to Jesus Christ. There is no neutrality. I agree with that. Okay what I would disagree with and what Van Til disagreed with Kuyper here is that while there is no neutral ground between the believer and unbeliever there is Common ground.

Okay. I'm gonna say that again. This is super super important in understanding the presuppositional approach. Okay, while it is true that there is no neutral ground between the unbeliever and believer there is Common ground.

Okay, and what is that common ground, right? Why is it that we can still communicate with the unbeliever even though we are coming from Dometi diametrically opposing paradigms? The common ground is that that unbeliever is made in the image of God and that he has a knowledge of God so that we Can speak with him and he will understand because the unbeliever never actually is consistent With his unbelief the unbeliever professes with their mouth.

But they believe something else in their heart and that is what we as apologists are trying to expose the Inconsistency between what they believe in their heart and what they say with their mouths, right?

Okay, perfect example of this comes when we speak of morality, right? Oh, there's no God. All right. There's no purpose No nothing to the universe and then they'll shake their fist when they see injustice and speak as though there is something like Objective morality and objective right and wrong things like this.

Okay, so we want to be able to point those inconsistencies out okay, but you see a heavy influence of Abraham Kuyper in Vantill's thought and I think in correctly Vantill ate the meat and Spat out the bones.

Okay with respect to Abraham Kuyper and with respect to whether apologetics is useless or not. It obviously isn't Vantill literally wrote a book called Christian apologetics. So he believes that you should do apologetics.

Okay now in light of this, okay. We have these quotes these isolated quotes from Bonson. We have some isolated quotes from Vantill. We have isolated quotes from Jim Halsey. Okay, we see the Kuyperian influence in the presuppositional tradition, right?

Now in light of this when taken in piecemeal, how have others read Vantill? Okay now again Others in reading Vantill. It's very evident that he is treated in piecemeal fashion. Okay. Again if I wasn't a presuppositionalist, but I studied presuppositionalism the way that I do now I would still say that many of the critics of Vantill just haven't read him thoroughly or They have not read him rightly and in context some of it is Vantill's fault.

But I would also say some of these attacks and objections against Vantill's presuppositionalism are completely Irresponsibly formulated and show an ignorance of what Vantill has said in other places. So what have people said about Vantill or concluded about his thought?

Let's take a look at Clark Pinnock in his book the philosophy of Christian evidences in page 423 and Well page 420 and 423. He says this is reflecting upon the presuppositional method. Okay, he's saying this is a result of it because God transcends the world.

Nothing in the world of factuality is capable of revealing him of itself. Okay and then he goes on to charge Vantill with something along the lines that he says he believes he can start Vantill can he Vantill can he believes that he can start with God and Christianity without consulting objective reality.

So Clark Pinnock is saying yeah. He wants to start with God and Christianity as though he can do that without actually talking about what is objectively real the facts, right? Pinnock is kind of saying well given the presuppositional approach Vantill's trying to start with God and Christianity as though all these other things are impossible.

Now, of course, that is not Vantill's position. He doesn't hold to that these this is a caricature. Okay, so Clark Pinnock Doesn't have a firm grasp as to grasp as to what? Vantill was getting at okay.

I think it's an inaccurate Interpretation of Vantill and presuppositionalism then we have John Warwick Montgomery in his in his book. Or I think it's an article. I don't remember off the top of my head once upon an a priori Bonson wrote a response to John Warwick Montgomery.

It's available online. I Don't know where you could find it. Sorry, that's not very helpful. It's available online somewhere. I have no idea where but it's it's somewhere out there. He says this in kind of concluding in light of his understanding of presuppositionalism.

He says Vantill eliminates all possibility of offering a positive Demonstration of the truth of the Christian view that that's that's pretty harsh, right? Vantill eliminates all possibility of offering a positive demonstration of the truth of the Christian view.

All right. So there you go. All right. Vantill destroys apologetics. That's a pretty lofty claim again he's either have it hasn't read all of Vantill or he is Reading Vantill and just not understanding correctly because Vantill obviously would not agree with this nor is this a Necessary logical entailment of a presuppositional approach, right?

John Warwick Montgomery is just wrong here. Okay. Of course, there's another theologian here in the book Vantill and Carnell and page 361 Gordon Lewis says Vantill has left the faith defenseless, okay.

Given the presuppositional approach. There is no defending the faith, right? Why because all you have on presuppositional ism. It are dogmatic assertions. That's all you got. Okay, there's no argument.

It's fideistic. We assert the authority of God. It sounds sanctimonious and You know reverent to speak of the lordship of Jesus Christ. Then he is we are to set apart Christ as Lord in our heart and all these sorts of things.

It sounds nice, but in reality Vantill has left the faith defenseless. How do we defend the faith by simply asserting on? Authority dogmatic assertions. That Christianity is true and the Bible is true.

Where is the argument? Okay, and this is. Again, this is an outflow of the misconception that Vantill is against using Evidences and so in the chapter of this book here With it goes on to talk about these various quotes.

I got the quotes Directly from the first chapter. I mean if the chapter is so short, I won't bore you by reading the chapter, but I mean technically good. It's pretty short but yeah, so Notaro kind of surveys some of these quotes by Vantill and then he surveys some of these quotes from these people have misunderstood Vantill and Then he kind of asked the question.

Hey, what gives what's what's going on here? And then he goes on to show that Vantill was not so allergic to evidences as as many thought. Okay, so Vantill and evidences. Okay. What do we get from Vantill and the use of evidence?

Well from reading chapter 1 and listening and reading some of the quotes from Vantill that Notaro points out. We find that Vantill likes them. He likes evidence, right? Notice what Vantill says in my credo in page 21.

He says we present the message and Evidence for the Christian position as clearly as possible. Knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is the non-christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved.

Okay, there you go. Vantill says we present the message and Evidence for the Christian position. Vantill believes that there is evidence for the Christian position and we should present it as clearly as possible.

Okay. Why because knowing that because man is what the Christian says he is. The non-christian will be able to understand in an intellectual sense the issues involved. What does the Christian say the non-christian is?

Well, the Christian says that the non-christian is made in the image of God. He has a knowledge of God that is being suppressed according to Romans chapter 1. And so we can speak to him meaningfully because the non-believer is never Consistent with his professed unbelief and we want to appeal to the imago Dei within them.

To show that they are suppressing the truth and we call them to repentance, right? So Doing that may require to go all presuppositional on them, but it also may require to about require us to remove the mask of Suppression of the truth by discussing some of the data points the evidence for Christianity.

Okay, that includes that. Okay Vantill says in the Christian theory of knowledge on page 250 and again, this is highlighted in the book here. He says the Christian faith is not a blind faith, but is based on evidence.

I'm gonna say that again. Okay, I want you to listen carefully. Yes. This is a quote from Vantill. He says the Christian faith is Not a blind faith, but is based on evidence. Okay. So now if I take this quote and I put it on Facebook somewhere.

But I don't attribute it to anyone. I bet you no one would think it came from Vantill. Right cuz Vantill didn't speak like this. Well, apparently he does right in common grace and the gospel on page 184 Vantill goes on to say Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason.

Okay, I'm gonna say that again Christianity meets every legitimate demand of reason and is not irrational but capable of rational defense. Okay, it meets every legitimate demand of reason and Christianity is capable of rational defense.

That means Vantill believed that you should Use your reason and Vantill believes that we should rationally provide a defense for the faith. Okay, so that's there you go. Okay, very contrary to This guy over here, right?

Vantill has left the faith defenseless, right? Why because a Dogmatic assertions nothing else. Okay, Vantill eliminates all the possibility of offering a positive demonstration of the truth of the Christian faith.

No, he doesn't. No, he doesn't not in any way shape or form. As a matter of fact, I love reading this one. These are really helpful quotes. If anyone says well Vantill didn't believe you should use You know the church did the traditional proofs and evidences and things like this Vantill says in the defense of the faith page 197 quote.

I Do not reject Theistic proofs, I'm gonna say that again say it slowly. Okay. I do not reject theistic proofs. Okay, what are the theistic proofs? Cosmological arguments. Teleological arguments. Moral arguments.

He didn't reject them in principle now. There are presuppositional is to reject some of those arguments, but you have to understand something. Okay, for example, Greg Bonson rejected various forms of the cosmological argument.

Okay, you can learn this from some of his lectures where he kind of criticizes and gives his own critique of the cosmological arguments. Well one of them. I don't know how he felt about all of them in general, but the Bonson's rejection for example of A cosmological argument is not an essential feature to a presuppositional Perspective.

Okay, you could be a presupposition list and find The cosmological argument a good argument right and you may find it useful in various Contexts and you might be a presupposition listen say, okay, I could I could accept the cosmological argument.

But I have yet to see one formulated. That's a good argument. Okay, and you have people who differ. It's not an essential feature. So Vancell says I do not reject theistic proofs, but check this out. But merely insist on formulating them in such a way as not to compromise the doctrines of Scripture.

I'm gonna say that again I do not reject the theistic proofs but merely insist on Formulating them in such a way as not to compromise the doctrines of Scripture and what Vantill has in mind here is that the traditional proofs have often been formulated in such a way as to assume neutral categories and Autonomous categories with respect to man's reasoning ability and this idea that things like causation is Intelligible in and of itself independent of the broader context of God's revelation.

Okay, I would argue that our knowledge of causality is itself Revelational and requires a Christian context to make intelligible. Okay now check this out. Okay next quote here. This is from the defense of the faith page 199.

Vantill says I would therefore Engage in historical apologetics. I get this question. Sometimes can a presupposition list appeal to historical arguments. Yes, according to Vantill I would therefore engage in historical apologetics.

But he makes this qualification and I think this is a it's good that he makes this. I do not personally do a great job of this because my colleagues in the other Departments of the seminary in which I teach are doing it better than I could do it.

But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the Non-believers philosophy of fact that's a key point in understanding Vantill. Okay. You want to talk about the historical facts with respect to the resurrection of Jesus and the empty tomb and the women?

Finding it and the criteria of embarrassment and all these sorts of things we can talk about all those things. You want to use the minimal facts if you take a look, for example, I had an interview with dr Gary Habermas somewhere on my show.