Van Til & the Use of Evidences

Alright, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala and today

We are going to do a and it 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

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 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 think I'm a little off here then I'll feel like oh I need to jump back into Bonson or Vantil 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 and in further videos, but Super super helpful.

And so that's what I want to talk about today Vantil 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'd like but it's it's epic because it's gonna last the whole You know the whole day, 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. When is it? I thought the conference was on the 10th 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 brougan

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 I'm not conference Ari 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 in 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 all right, so let's jump in chapter one 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 one, 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 remember it was decaf.

So I'm not sure We'll see. We'll see what happens. Okay, so chapter one 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

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 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 gonna speak about in just a moment, but I almost skipped here's another quote in isolation that looks like the by the

Christian apologist 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 BB Warfield Abraham Kuyper and BB Warfield now,

I'm not gonna talk so much about BB Warfield, but BB 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 to met 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 there 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 and 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 could 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 is 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 presuppositional ism.

Then we have John Warwick Montgomery in his in his book Or I think is 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 presuppositional is 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 on 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 and 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, a 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 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 could 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 Vantill 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 It's in the backlog of videos and it was really cool to hear him talk about Him and Bonson.

He knew he knew dr. Bonson. I'm not sure that they were close but they were maybe at a conference or something like that and Gary Habermas gave his his minimal facts and he asked dr.

Bonson what he thought about them and and dr. Bonson says well, I think that That's basically a presuppositional argument and dr.

Habermas. So what do you mean? He says well you you are assuming The unbelievers position for the sake of argument and then showing it to be reduced to food reduced to absurdity, right?

The minimal fact says hey, let's assume the standards of secular history

Okay, and even on that basis given these minimal facts. There's this strong evidence for the resurrection

So Monson, you know thought that it was presuppositional and dr. Habermas was like, all right, whatever as long as it's helpful, you know

So so yeah, so presuppositional ism has no problem in engaging in historical apologetics, right?

He says I will there I would therefore engage in historical apologetics as long as we make the distinction

Between talking about the facts but not simply talking about the facts without also going to the broader

The broader worldview issue what Vantil says the non -believers philosophy of fact now you may be engaging in an apologetic argument with someone about the historicity of the

New Testament and the historicity of the resurrection Okay, and suppose someone says hey

What's the evidence for the resurrection and you lay out the evidence and the person's like hey, man That that gives me a lot to think about this is really interesting.

Hey, maybe we can meet again and talk at that moment I don't have to run even as a presupposition. I don't have to run straight away.

You have to hear the rest your presuppositions, bro No, right We can talk about the historical data without always getting into discussions with you know

Worldviews and things like that, right? I would say the worldview considerations is the background music playing in your mind

It's always there and when you talk about the data points It's important the facts right the historical facts the criteria of history and all these sorts of things

But eventually depending on who you're speaking with you can't stay there Otherwise, you're just gonna be talking past each other

You're you're throwing facts at someone who has a worldview that filters the facts and interprets Interprets the facts in a completely different way.

It's got a different paradigm. Okay, so I think Vantil is spot -on here He says but I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non -believers

Philosophy of fact, okay, super duper important Now notice the the quotes here.

I'm gonna go back to the quotes here. So facts only this is what Vantil said here Let me go back to the quote here

Okay, it is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate Christianity as a historical religion by discussion of the facts

Only now I want you to think about that. We're gonna go all the way back over here. Okay. All right and And Bonson says, oh,

I'm sorry. So Bonson says to go to the Bonson quote The gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny

Okay. Now notice what's going on here. There are important qualifying Comments that need to be made.

Okay, these like facts only in the vine Vantil quote and Bonson's mention of the rebellious man's demand, right?

These are important qualifiers which imply that factual discussions are not absolutely ruled out

But are proper when combined with other necessary considerations namely

Christian Presuppositions, so let's go all the way back again And break this down It is impossible and useless to seek to vindicate

Christianity as a historical religion by a discussion of the facts Only now notice what

Vantil is not saying he is not saying that we should not talk about the facts

Okay, that's not what he's saying It's just not what he's saying. Okay, he's not saying we shouldn't talk about the facts

He's saying we should not talk about the facts only Why well because we need to eventually address the unbelievers philosophy of fact, right?

So take it in isolation It looks like he's repudiating facts, but in context, of course, he's not okay

Let's take a look at Bonson's quote here The gospel does not cater to rebellious man's demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous

Scrutiny notice what he's not saying Okay, Bonson is not holding to the position that we should not give logical argumentation

Okay, and factual signs what he's saying is we shouldn't present logical argumentation and factual signs in a way that caters to the

Autonomous test that the unbeliever demands that we that we go through in order to demonstrate to him the existence of God right

Bonson would agree that we should appeal to factual signs and logical argumentation

But he would disagree that we should do it in a way that caters to the unbelievers Assumptions of autonomy, right?

Isn't that an important qualification right read someone in context? That's a very helpful way to better understand and at the end of the day if you disagree with Vantil you disagree with Bonson You disagree with presuppositional ism fine

But let's just make sure we're understanding the position that we're disagreeing with and I think that's I think that's fair.

Okay. All right So in summary, these are the qualifying categories

These are important qualifiers which imply that factual discussions are not absolutely ruled out by by that are not ruled out

But are proper when combined with the necessary considerations namely Christian presuppositions, and that's it

That's chapter one, right the legitimacy of evidences Okay, evidences are legitimate when done in a proper context and the chapter ends.

It's literally just a couple of pages All right. Let me see one two three Four there are four pages in chapter one

Front and back, of course, I guess there's more than four but very short chapter It covers these main points.

So Super helpful. Now if you like what I'm doing here Why don't you let me know in the comments?

Like do you want me to try to continue to go through the book? I know I'm still working through Against all opposition.

It takes a lot of time to do this stuff. I have a full -time job so I don't always have time to sit here and make lessons and Presentations, but I will try my best if folks find this find this helpful

Okay, and if you don't find it helpful, then I'll try my best to do something different But I want to know what you guys are interested in so that I can be a resource for you guys.

All right All right. Well that concludes chapter one And so let's move on to some questions if there are any and there are a couple of here

So we'll see if I could address some of them as best I can All right, and I apologize ahead of time if I don't know the answer.

I'm just gonna be like, I don't know That's a good question. All right. Let's see here

Richard Cox says would you present one of the classical arguments for the existence of God from a priest up perspective?

How different would the presentation be? That's a great question Richard in One respect if you were to walk into a room while I was in an apologetic encounter with someone

There's a lot of what I would be saying that sounds that would sound very evidential Right if you just kind of saw it real quick and like oh, what are you guys talking about?

But Again, I always have the worldview issues playing in the background So when it's appropriate

I bring them in and that's part of my presuppositional approach, but I suppose you're you're Asking more like well, what does a traditional argument look like?

Well, if we could just lay out a structure I think John frame mentioned this in his book. I don't

I know there's a difference between John frames presuppositional ism and Vantill and Bonson's many people who know

John frame Excellent. Excellent theologian and apologist Excellent student of Antil had some important disagreements

He was more critical of Antil than say someone like Bonson But he presented some of the arguments like this and I think it's useful just to get the gist

All right. So instead of saying causation Therefore God frame framed it.

I don't need to do that frame framed it God therefore causation

Okay, so God is the necessary precondition for Causation itself and so there are ways to formulate it with along presuppositional lines, right?

But again, you don't always have to I mean it depends. I mean conversations are sloppy They don't know you if you're gonna go in.

Okay. I'm a presuppositionist. I have to argue this way I have to use the transcendental argument you plan so much in your head

Conversations don't tend to go exactly You know how you like it

I don't know if it was the the great philosopher Mike Tyson once said Oh, man,

I can't I'm gonna forget the quote. He says everyone has a okay. Everyone has a plan Until they get punched in the face

Okay, same thing. Okay, we can read all these presuppositional books all these apologetics books We have we have a plan right and then the conversation just doesn't go the way we expect to be get punched in the face metaphorically speaking so Yes, we can plan to argue a certain way

But at the same time you want to be able to be flexible and to navigate conversations You don't always have to talk about presuppositions first.

You can talk about individual arguments Cosmological argument I don't mind giving I've given I've written out the kalam

Cosmological argument for someone on a napkin and I don't think by doing so I was ceasing to be presuppositional

It just happened to be appropriate given the context of our conversation You see so in reality if the presuppositional is right everything is evidence for God I can use a cosmological argument

I can talk about causation I can talk about design or I can talk about mundane things Because all even the understanding and intelligibility of mundane things and normal things require the

Christian worldview so we can start Anywhere the unbeliever wants to start. Okay So again, so that's one way so God therefore causation, right?

We could argue that causation requires God or Somewhere along those lines. All right.

All right. Thanks for that question Richard Let's see here John Doe says how many positions are there in Christianity?

And is there a chart for example denominations methodologies and so on? I don't know how many positions there are but I would suppose there are charts that lay out all the denominations and things like that Okay, and there are books that talk about different methodologies.

For example, there's the five views of apologetics Which talk about the classical the evidential it talks about reformed epistemology

Not sure. That's an actual apologetic method, but it's relevant to the conversation. You have the presupposition list

You have different sorts of presupposition list. So yeah, these things have been catalogued Denominations as well.

Yep. There's a book I think by Ron Rhodes where he talks about all of the different denominations now again

This often comes up in apologetic context and is usually used Against the

Christian position, right? Look, look how divided Christianity is. What is Christianity? Look at all the different denominations, you know, there's so many different Christianities And again, that's just not the case right

Christian denominations are unified in the essentials and they differ in non essentials

Simple as that Should we baptize a baby? Should we not baptize a baby is baptism only for Professing believers or is it a covenant sign for the children, right?

That's important debate It's very important debate, but it's not one that defines you in and out of the kingdom so to speak

Okay, so you have many denominations that differ on non essential issues But true

Christian churches will agree on the foundational gospel issues. Okay. So yes, there are many I'm sure of books catalog it

There a bunch of books that catalog it and the different methodologies of apologetics to that those are cataloged as well in the literature

Okay All right. Thank you for that John Doe Let's see here child of the

King asked the question What precept book would you recommend for adults who say the Bible can't be trusted because it's been translated so many times

How can we trust it? Okay, so There are a couple of things

I would highly recommend anything from Dr. Michael Kruger of reformed theological seminary

He wrote the book canon revisited talks about the history the historical development theological development of the canon talks about the different books of the

Bible Things like that. So Michael Kruger is written on canon and the history of the text and things like that The Bible can't be trusted because it's been translated so many times

I'm not aware of a specific book that addresses this but if someone says that I would just ask them all what do you mean?

Why what is the necessary connection? between the Fact that the

Bible has been translated so many times Therefore it can't be trusted. I don't see

I don't see the logical connection. Let's assume it's true The Bible isn't translated so many times Therefore it can't be trusted that doesn't logically follow right?

So if someone says that I would say can you can you can you draw out your line of reasoning there? What led you to that conclusion?

How do you get from translated so many times to therefore we can't trust it Okay, you might also want to inform yourself as to how the

Bible was translated, okay There is a false conception of but biblical translation in terms of which the

Bible is translated from this language into that language Into that language from that language No You have

Hebrew and Greek and then Hebrew and Greek is translated into English Hebrew and Greek is translated into Spanish Hebrew and Greek is

Translated to Japanese Hebrew and Greek is you have the native language translated into another language.

There's really just one step of translation It's not translation from Spanish to English and then English to French and then

French to Chinese. It's not how it works Okay. Also, there's an assumption in the in the in the assertion as well, right?

That if it's been translated so many times surely we would have lost the meaning and therefore we don't know

What it really what it really says, okay now besides that being factually false Again, what is it leaving out?

It's leaving out the presupposition that the Bible is not just an ordinary book It is a book that has been super intended by the providence of God Okay, and so if the

Christian world is true internal critique now God is able to preserve his text and that's precisely what

Christians believe now We're not relegated to a fideistic assertion of well God protected the text and therefore we can trust it

The evidence is also on our side in that case you can bring up specific evidences and explain how the translation process

The preservation of the text how that works out So that'll get you into the area of textual criticism and things like that again a wide wide area of study

And so I don't specific books don't come to mind textual Textual criticism books.

I do apologize, but hopefully my answer was somewhat helpful. Okay. All right. Thank you for the question there childhood king

All right. Let's see here Ah Joel Duff says thank you for covering this book have been interested in reading it.

So this is great. Awesome. Awesome I'm super happy that it's helpful for you Let's see here

Did it to do

Get three people in a room and you will get five different opinions on a topic

That's not necessarily true. That sounds witty and cool, but that's not true all the time

I can get three people and they would have the same opinion It's not necessarily the case, but I suppose you have people do differ.

It depends on the topic. Yeah Let's see here. Sandy pigeon says how we got the

Bible by dr. Timothy Paul Jones from Southern Seminary. So there you go There's a specific book that might be helpful.

Okay And it to do. All right. Well, that's it. Okay, that seems to be the last of the the questions guys

I hope you guys enjoyed this I know I kind of went live last second, but I really appreciate you guys coming coming and listening to me blab for 54 minutes.

Okay So if you guys like this style of just going through, you know certain things in a book that's helpful

It's related to presuppositional apologetics. Let me know. I'll I don't mind doing it. So Thank you so much real quick I just want to give a last second kind of You know to point people in the direction here if you are looking to support revealed apologetics

Which I would greatly appreciate it. Please sign up to the epic online presub conference It is on November 12th.

And the last day to sign up is on November 10th by 1130 p .m. Eastern So again, it's gonna be super awesome.

It's gonna be all day long It's epic and we're gonna be covering some super interesting and fascinating topics

So you can do that by going to reveals apologetics comm click on the presupp you presupp

University presupp you drop -down window and RSVP your spot for Saturday.

All right Well, that's it for this live stream guys. Thank you so much. I think

I need a cup of water my lose my voice Thank you so much for listening in and I appreciate you guys and until next time.