Chapter 2: Christian Apologetics by Van Til

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala, and again, today we have another surprise live stream.

I did not plan this, but I figured I had the time, so hey, why not? And so as the thumbnail indicates,

I will be covering chapter two of this book by Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics.

If you like this series and you kind of just like the way the format is where I kind of just broadly summarize the main points of each portions of the book, let me know in the comments or you can reach out to me by emailing me at revealedapologetics at gmail .com.

I do read my email and respond. So if you like this series and you like things like this where I can kind of just broadly summarize relevant books to the topic of Christian Apologetics and so forth, let me know because I want to be able to provide for you information and content that is useful and relevant to the sorts of things that, you know, the people who listen to this channel are interested in.

So, so please let me know. Also, if you have been watching, there we go, oh man, having to drive in a minute.

There we go. You can listen while you're driving. Just don't watch while you're driving. That's the key point. But at any rate, if anyone is looking to support

Revealed Apologetics, that is greatly appreciated. You can do so by going to revealedapologetics at revealedapologetics .com.

There is a donate page there. I have the link in the description of this video, so that is a super helpful way to help me out.

Also, you can sign up for my new course, PreSupp Applied. That is also something you can sign up for on the website.

If you go to revealedapologetics .com, there is a drop -down menu called PreSupp U, PreSupp University, and I have two courses there.

One is an Introduction to Biblical Apologetics and another is the newest course, which is PreSupp Applied, in which pretty much these are the lectures that I provide there, along with the notes and presentation and so forth.

I do one on Navigating Apologetic Conversations, PreSupp Applied to Atheism, PreSupp Applied to Roman Catholicism, PreSupp Applied to Presuppositional Eastern Orthodoxy, and PreSupp Applied to the

Cult. So if you're interested in those sorts of things and you want to walk through those topics in a more structured and more visually appealing way, since I have the presentation up there and everything, that's a great way to do that and to support what

I'm doing. All right, with all of those things out of the way, again, I don't want to waste too much time with kind of introductory comments, but Christian Apologetics by Cornelius Van Till.

This is the book that I recommend to everyone who is wanting to get into Presuppositional Apologetics via Van Till.

Van Till is a very difficult read, and so I don't always recommend

Van Till to people, but this was—my camera's going away here,

I'm sorry, I'm getting like a black blinking thing on my screen, so hopefully someone let me know in the comments if they can still see me and hear me, that'd be greatly appreciated—but we're diving into chapter two of this book.

So if you want to get into Presupp and you want to kind of dive into Van Till's writings, this is always the one

I always suggest first, okay? Don't run over to Van Till's Defense of the

Faith or Prolegamata, the Systematic Theology, those are important reads, but this one is a great—to

Cornelius Van Till. All right, I also may do an analysis and comparison and contrasting of—which is another important Christian thinker, he is also considered within rationalism, okay, again, not in the same vein as Van Till, but definitely an important read and a useful read, especially with respect to his critiques of secular worldviews.

So there you go. All right, so let's jump right in, okay? First, let me highlight that in chapter one—chapter one was entitled—I'm not sure you can see that, but chapter one was entitled

The System of Christian Truth, okay, and then chapter two is entitled The Christian Philosophy of Life.

Now, it's important to understand Van Till's train of thought here, okay, in that—in the previous video where I spoke about chapter one, it's so important to recognize that Van Till believed that our apologetic, okay, the way in which we are to defend the faith is a way in which—a way that must flow from a biblical theology, and so that's why in chapter one of this book,

Van Till walks through basically the categories of systematic theology, and that's why the first chapter is called

The System of Christian Truth. And so if you want to defend the Christian worldview, it's so important that you understand the

Christian system of thought, okay? So keeping that in mind, that is the reason why

Van Till places that at the beginning of his work here, that we are functioning from a foundation of the authority of scripture and the theology that flows out of that scripture, okay?

So that's important. So chapter two is The Christian Philosophy of Life, okay?

And this is very reminiscent of his opening passage here, where he talks about in chapter one, okay, if you open up to chapter one, if you have the book with you on, you know, a digital format or something along those lines, but I quoted this in the previous video, but I'll quote it again just to give some context.

The opening sentence of chapter one of Christian Apologetics, Van Till defines apologetics as, quote, the vindication of the

Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of the non -Christian philosophy of life, and the phrase philosophy of life is very important because it highlights the fact that apologetics involves defending a worldview, okay?

And so again, you cannot, you know, ignore this fact that for presuppositionalists, it is apologetics' defense of a system of truth.

It is a defense of an entire outlook, an entire philosophy of life. Now, within the traditional categories of philosophy, when we think in terms of a worldview, we think in terms of some basic fundamental categories that I think are present in any worldview, regardless of, you know, which worldview you hold.

And those three foundations, some people list more than three, but at least minimally, three. Every worldview has a metaphysic, a theory of reality, an epistemology, a theory of knowledge, and an ethic, a theory as to how one ought to live their lives.

And so that's kind of three fundamentals here, and it's very important if you're going to understand Van Til is to understand where he's coming from in terms of his metaphysical presuppositions, things he assumes about the nature of reality as a

Christian, all right? So keep that in mind because we're going to be jumping into that in just a moment. Had to get my coffee there.

I have a delicious creme brulee flavor coffee here in this relatively plain looking mug, but I'll take one more.

Oh, boy. All right, there we go. All right. So in chapter two of Van Til, Van Til's book here, he introduces the concept of the

Christian philosophy of life or the Christian philosophy of reality,

OK? And he begins by affirming that the foundation of this philosophy is ready. This is kind of the language he uses, the self -contained triune

God. So unlike non -Christian philosophies that start with human autonomy and various finite perspectives, the

Christian philosophy of life is very much rooted in the infinite personal God who reveals himself through scripture.

And this foundation ensures that the Christian philosophy is coherent, it's comprehensive, providing a unified existence,

OK? This cannot be understated. One of the foundations metaphysically for Van Til is the triune

God in which everything exists.

God created all things, defined all things, right? These are important concepts for Van Til.

Now, Van Til emphasizes, again, at base, this is very important, the most fundamental presupposition in terms of metaphysics for Van Til has to be the creator -creature distinction,

OK? And this is emphasized throughout Van Til's writings. It's important because it is the ultimate metaphysical foundation for the

Christian. OK, look at look at the opening words of the book of Genesis, where you have the first the opening sentence there.

In the beginning, God, there's the creator, created the heavens and the earth. There's the creation.

So right at the at the at the beginning of the scriptures there, you have a fundamental distinction metaphysically,

OK, with respect to the nature of reality, how we view reality. There is a difference between the creator and the creature.

And when we blur those lines, we blur those differences. Problems will arise within our worldview, within our philosophical outlook.

OK, for Van Til, God as the creator, again, is distinct from his creation.

He's independent. He's self -sufficient, right? Whereas creation is dependent and contingent upon God.

And, you know, that's not the same for God. There's nothing that God relies on. We can refer to God's aseity.

He does not exist in such a way that he depends on anything external to himself. OK, and this creator creature distinction undergirds all of Christian thought.

OK, it ensures that God is seen as the ultimate authority and source of all knowledge.

Right. While humans are finite and reliant on divine revelation for true understanding, true knowledge.

And so this framework rejects any form of pantheism or dualism, basically instead affirming the sovereignty of God over his creation.

And the particular way that one ought to understand sovereignty for Van Til is going to be.

Pardon is going to be I lost my train of thought there. I kind of had a had a cough there and I'm actually experiencing slight technical difficulties.

I see myself here up on the screen and it starts flashing. I don't know if you guys maybe give you a thumbs up if everything is all right on the on the side of the audience.

You can hear me. OK, you can see me. OK, that'd be very helpful because this flashing here should never happen before is a little distracting.

One second. All right.

OK, so when we speak of the sovereignty of God for Van Til, that's going to be understood within a particularly reformed understanding.

Right. You have to understand that Van Til's theology is not something separate from his apologetic.

Right. Van Til is a reformed Christian. He's a Presbyterian. He holds to the Westminster Confession of Faith. He has a particular understanding of what it means for God to be sovereign.

So, you know, all Christians will affirm that God is sovereign, but it is the particular sovereignty as understood by Van Til within the reformed tradition that I think is really undergirding his concept of what it means for God to be the all conditioner, the the absolute non -contingent, you know, sovereign

God. So it's important to understand Van Til in his proper theological context. Now, along with the creator -creature distinction,

Van Til in chapter two explores the doctrine of revelation, not the book of revelation, but the idea that God reveals himself.

And he emphasizes that God has chosen to reveal himself both generally in nature and especially in Scripture.

So we have this distinction within normal categories of systematic theology. We have the distinction between natural and special revelation.

OK, God has revealed himself in what has been created, and he also reveals himself in more specific ways.

General revelation provides universal knowledge of God's existence and attributes, and that's accessible to all people, while on the other hand, special revelation in the

Bible offers this—in the Bible specifically—offers the specific truths necessary for salvation and having a right relationship with God.

OK, and this doctrine highlights really the necessity of divine revelation for true knowledge, right, as human sin distorts our natural understanding.

See how the theology is infused in these categories? And so Scripture serves as the ultimate authority and interpretive key for understanding all of reality for the

Christian. Of course, for Van Til, Scripture is going to be the special revelatory lens through which everything else is understood.

And that's why when you read Van Til, there is—apart from the fact that when he starts getting into the different philosophies, you know, he starts surveying the history of philosophy, starting from the

Garden all the way up to, like, you know, Kant and Hegel and all of these, you know, other philosophers, everything that he says is infused with these theological categories, which he finds to be, you know, grounded in Scripture itself.

All right? So that's very, very important. He does not talk about knowledge and epistemology and metaphysics independent of his theological commitments, because they are related.

OK? For example, your view of man is going to be theological in nature.

OK? As a Christian, I have a particular theological view of what man is. If I were to ask an atheist what man is, in a general sense, we could have kind of a surface level agreement.

But ultimately, we're going to have a fundamental disagreement for the Christian believes that man is the image of God, whereas the atheist, of course, is going to reject that.

OK? Now, Van Til also talks about the importance of the fall right there in Genesis and its impact on knowledge itself.

OK, now he explains that sin, and I think this is biblical, Van Til explains that sin has corrupted human understanding, which leads to a false and inconsistent worldview.

OK, we have faulty worldviews because of our sin. And the fall distorts the mind,

OK, making it resistant to God's truth and inclined towards autonomous reasoning. OK, we see this in the story of Adam and Eve, especially with respect to Eve when she decides for herself right and wrong, not listening to God and and putting the serpent's hypothesis to the test.

You know, if you eat, you will be like God. I will decide for myself. So you have this aspect of autonomy there.

OK, however, through the redemptive work of Christ and the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, believers are restored to a true knowledge of God.

OK, this this restoration allows Christians to interpret reality correctly in accordance with God's revelation rather than relying on the flawed reasoning of a fallen mind.

You see now Christians don't reason correctly all the time, but being released from the bonds of sin, right, and having our nature changed with the power of regeneration and then relying on the authority of God's word and then trying to submit yourself to seeing the world and interpreting the world through the lens of scripture, the

Christian has the capacity to understand the world rightly, OK, because we see it through the lens of revelation.

Now, I think Bantill in this chapter underscores the necessity of regeneration, again, from a reformed perspective, for having a proper understanding of reality.

OK, regeneration, the work of the spirit and bringing a person to spiritual life, renews the mind and enables individuals to perceive and embrace the truth of God's revelation.

For Bantill, without regeneration, human beings pretty much remain spiritually dead and incapable of fully understanding or comprehending divine truth.

This is, again, this is Romans, right? The natural man cannot understand the things of God, right, because they're spiritually discerned.

OK, and so basically this doctrine emphasizes really the transformative power of the gospel, which not only reconciles us to God, but also intellectually restores our ability to know and interpret reality in accordance with his will.

I think that's a very important connection because we don't often think of that element that through regeneration,

OK, not only are our souls saved, but we see the world as it is, as God has revealed it, and hence we can have a genuine, objective knowledge about the created order.

OK, and this is why it's so important that we do not rely on the foundation of man, the sinking sands of human intellect and things like this, but rather we see the world through God's revelation.

And this is so important, guys, because I think a lot of succumbing to adopting man's philosophies, it's very intimidating oftentimes when we hear unbelievers who are very smart, you know, we look at videos on YouTube that, you know, scientists are saying this and philosophers are saying that, and it's very easy to be, to feel intimidated and challenged by those things.

But in reality, if those world, if those views are not grounded in the authority of Scripture, the

Bible calls them foolishness, right? That's the, those are the foolish wisdom of God. The Scripture says that the foolishness of God, the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men.

OK, and so we need to be able to, even if the whole world was against the truth of God, we need to be willing to stand on what

God has said. And I think that's the implication of Vantill's view of the authority of God's word and the role it plays within our, our worldview.

Now, again, Vantill also discusses the presuppositional nature of Christian apologetics.

OK, again, it's a book on apologetics, right? Pretty much arguing that all reasoning is based on presuppositions.

You've heard this many times on my channel. I'd often, I often make this point, right? For Christians, the ultimate presupposition is the truth of God's revelation in Scripture, which entails metaphysical aspects, epistemological aspects, and ethical aspects, right?

The biblical worldview, if the biblical worldview is true, then there is a triune God who's the metaphysical foundation of all reality, and this, and this metaphysical foundation of all reality reveals himself.

And so you have epistemology there. We could know things because God reveals it. OK, these are all important categories, right?

And thinking in terms of ultimate presuppositions, OK, we are committed to the word of God because it comes with the very authority of God himself.

And in that sense, Vantill often placed a great emphasis on not putting God to the test. We do not test

God like he is some hypothesis. God is the standard by which all other things are tested.

That's what faithfulness requires us to do. OK, now that doesn't mean we follow things blindly and without reason and the things that we believe and assert are just arbitrary.

No, that's not what I'm saying. But again, not all things are justified in the same way as we've spoken about in the past as well.

I can justify a proposition over here by appealing to something more authoritative and creates the context and a standard to judge.

But God is the ultimate standard. And so he is my ultimate standard by which all things are judged.

I do not put anything in a position that is more authoritative than God. And Vantill warns us of that.

OK, so Vantill asserts in chapter two that Christians must unapologetically begin with the

Bible as their foundation, OK, and basically demonstrating the coherence and consistency of the

Christian worldview while exposing the inconsistencies of non -Christian philosophies.

Not the topic of this particular chapter, but the way in which we do that is going to be very important, the details of which include not simply showing that the

Christian worldview is consistent and stopping there. OK, a lot of people have misunderstandings with respect to presuppositional apologetics and transcendental argumentation.

We're often accused of simply asserting that, well, the Christian worldview makes sense out of stuff and it's consistent.

Well, I'll tell you right now, a worldview being logically coherent doesn't entail its truth.

OK, at minimum, I mean, if your worldview is true, it's got to be consistent, right?

OK, but mere consistency doesn't prove that a position is true. So that's not what the presuppositionalist is doing.

We're not simply showing that the Christian worldview is consistent. However, demonstrating its coherence and consistency is part of the task.

OK, and of course, we engage in internal critiques of the non -Christian philosophy in turn, showing that the non -Christian perspective is without foundation, it is without coherence and so on and so forth.

OK, now let me take a quick coffee sip here before I dive into another important aspect of chapter two of Cornelius Mantill's Christian Apologetics.

If you're just tuning in, this is the book that we're covering, chapter two, entitled

The Christian Philosophy of Life. All right.

All right. Pardon. Another important feature of Mantill's book, and of course,

Mantill's philosophy, is the idea of a vitally important aspect of Mantill's perspective.

And I think it is indeed biblical. And so we introduced this concept of antithesis, which pretty much refers to the fundamental opposition between Christian and non -Christian worldviews.

OK, and so this antithesis, if you think of these kind of the complete and utter opposition, this antithesis is rooted in the difference between those who are regenerate, those who are born again, those who are of God, and those who are unregenerate.

OK, regenerate minds submit to the authority of God's revelation, while on the other hand, unregenerate minds reject it in favor of autonomous reasoning in some way, shape or form.

And so this fundamental opposition, I think, affects every area of thought and life, basically creating a clear distinction between the truth of Christianity and the errors of non -Christian perspective.

I think one of the key things that all non -Christian worldviews have in common is this idea of autonomy or as Mantill or as Greg Bonson pointed out, pretended autonomy.

I mean, we can claim to be autonomous, but we're not really right. Mantill would often make the distinction that in order for the unbeliever to slap

God in the face, he has to already be sitting on God's lap to do so in order to reach up to God's face and smack him.

So we can point out the pretended autonomy within views, showing that they're not really autonomous.

They actually have to borrow from the Christian categories. OK, again, not simply asserting that that needs to be demonstrated throughout the course of your interaction with the unbeliever.

But I'm just painting in broad strokes here. I hope this makes sense. All right. Just to throw this out, if you have any questions, feel free to ask them in the comments.

I know that I did not do this video today, anticipating that many people would be watching live because I didn't plan it.

I kind of just I just appeared here on YouTube. But if you are listening live and you have a question,

I already see a question in there. I will take a look at it in just a little bit. Feel free to ask away.

If I'm able to answer the question, I will try my best. If I'm not able to answer the question, I will respectfully say, hey, that's a great question.

I have no idea. So so there you go. All right. So we also have in chapter two where Van Til elaborates on the

Christian view of reality and knowledge. So you have this kind of metaphysical and epistemological connection, basically emphasizing that all truth is unified and rooted in God.

Remember, this is the Christian philosophy of life. There's a Christian system of truth. And so we have a unified worldview perspective.

What I believe about something over here is connected to what I believe about over here. They're connected and find their unification within the mind of God.

And so this basically contrasts with the fragmentation and relativism found in a lot of non -Christian philosophies.

In Christianity, reality is seen as a coherent whole, governed by the sovereign will of God.

And knowledge is possible within the Christian world because it's based on the revelation of an all -knowing

God. So if you think about it, this understanding provides a solid foundation for all areas of human inquiry, basically ensuring that all aspects of life and thought are integrated and meaningful within a

Christian perspective. How can I have true knowledge about objective knowledge about a particular fact in human experience?

Well, because God has revealed himself, God has revealed the nature of his world.

And God is in a position to know what the nature of reality is. Right. Kind of makes me think when

I when I when I talk about the fact where the Bible talks about the fact that the unbeliever has a knowledge of God, you know,

I remember someone telling me back in the day, well, wait a minute, who are you to tell me that I have a knowledge of God that I'm suppressing?

You know, how could you possibly know that? OK, well, if you think about it, if the

Christian worldview is true, then there is an all -knowing God that is in a position to tell me in his word the nature of the unbeliever's heart.

OK, but the unbeliever is not in a position to tell me the nature of my heart because he has no revelation within his worldview.

Right. He denies revelation. He denies an all -knowing God and so forth. And so you don't have to agree with the

Christian perspective. But if it were true, it makes perfect sense that I could, in principle, know the nature of the unbelieving heart and the nature of sinful suppression, all these sorts of things.

Romans 1, so on and so forth. All right. OK, again, continuing on, Van Til in Chapter 2 highlights the role of faith in knowledge, basically asserting that faith and God are complementary with each other.

Right. Faith in God's revelation is the basis for knowledge, OK, basically providing the necessary framework for understanding reality.

And so this faith is not a blind leap for Van Til. But rather, it is a reasoned trust in the trustworthy

God who has revealed himself. Right. Van Til argues that all knowledge ultimately rests on faith commitments and the

Christian commitment to God's revelation provides a sure foundation for understanding and interpreting the world.

OK, again, when we say that faith is the foundation, I'm not saying that faith like belief that God exists.

You have to understand within the biblical concept of faith, faith is, how can

I put this? The Bible doesn't argue for the existence of God. You've heard me say this before. There's no like syllogism that offers an argument, so on and so forth.

The Bible says that all men know that God exists and it's foolish to deny it. OK, the fool says in his heart there is no

God, so on and so forth. So the idea of faith. Assumes the existence of God, because it's a relational faith, it assumes that there is some sort of relation, whether you're in covenantal relationship or not, you've broken the covenant or whatever.

The idea of faith in the Bible is this idea of trust. It is a relational trust.

OK, and so our faith, everything that we know and assert about reality that's based on revelation, we trust what

God has said about those things. Right. Trusting in God is the basis for why we can know what we know.

OK, I can't prove every single item of my knowledge, but I can be confident in the things that I that I claim to know.

If God has spoken clearly to that specific area, for example, I know that God created the universe.

Well, why? Well, because God's revealed himself as creator. OK, deny that you want to deny that.

Then you lose a foundation or you deny a worldview in which the creator God created all things and revealed himself.

That has implications for your metaphysics, your epistemology and so forth. And there's the fact that a non -Christian worldview rejects those things will show that it actually does not have a foundation to stand.

OK, again, not the topic of this video to go into more details on that, but just to give you an idea.

All right. We trust that what God says is true. If you deny what

God says, there are implications and ramifications in your philosophy of life. OK. So in concluding and wrapping this chapter up,

Vantill pretty much reaffirms the coherence and comprehensiveness of the Christian worldview. He emphasizes that the

Christian philosophy of life offers a unified and consistent understanding of all aspects of existence rooted in the self -revelation of the triune

God. And so pretty much this worldview provides a solid foundation for knowledge, ethics and meaning, which pretty much stands in stark contrast to the fragmented and inconsistent perspectives of the non -Christian philosophy of life.

And so Vantill calls believers to confidently uphold and defend this coherent system of truth, demonstrating its superiority and truthfulness in the face of competing worldviews.

OK, and so that is what chapter two is about. Again, this is not a book proving to the unbeliever necessarily like God exists, although I mean, there's a lot there for an unbeliever to think about.

But it's informing Christians and calling Christians to a consistent apologetic, unwrapping the foundations of where our apologetic should come from.

OK, the authority of scripture, systematic theology, the theologies derived from the scripture, understanding

Christianity as a system of truth. Right. All of these things Vantill is laying out in his book, which again, by extension, will impact how we defend the faith.

All right. OK, well, that's my brief chapter on chapter two. So in light of this,

I want you to think about this. OK, if it's true that the Christian has a philosophy of life and the non -Christian has a philosophy, a philosophy of life, and I have my presuppositions and you have your presuppositions,

I have my worldview, you have your worldview. I'm going to interpret evidence through the lens of my worldview.

You're going to interpret counter evidence in light of your worldview. You're going to understand the world in different ways because we're wearing different worldview sunglasses as the saying goes, then how can we communicate with each other?

As a matter of fact, this has been one of the major criticisms of Vantill, Vantill's apologetic. Well, if what you're saying is true, then how is it possible for the believer to communicate and find a point of contact with the unbeliever?

Right, because we're separated by these kind of worldview bubbles that are impossible to escape from. That leads us to chapter three, the point of contact.

OK, so whenever someone tells you, you know, if presuppositionalism is true, there's no point of contact with the unbeliever or Vantill taught that there is no because of sin and because of worldview bias and there's no neutrality, all these sorts of stuff.

Vantill taught that there is no point of contact with the unbeliever, just preach the gospel. If someone were to ever tell you that, that is one hundred and ten percent incorrect.

OK, Vantill does believe there is a point of contact between the believer and unbeliever. And in the next summary, chapter three, we will talk a little bit about that.

All right. All right. Well, that concludes my summary of chapter two of Vantill's Christian apologetics.

If there are any questions, please feel free to to ask them.

OK, let's see here. Chris Cutler says, Have you read Vantill's Common Grace?

Do you think he'd argue that there is a sense in which Christ purchased common grace or just that there is a connection of some sort?

I've only read bits and pieces of Vantill's Common Grace, so I don't know how to answer that specifically.

I do know that there is obviously a connection. He thought that, for example, even though the unbeliever does not have a foundation for knowledge and so forth, right through God's common grace, the unbelievers throughout history have been able to accomplish many things, accomplish things in terms of technology, scientific development and in terms of promoting culture and so forth by through God's common grace, unbelievers, even though they don't have a foundation, a strong foundation for their worldview, have been able to have varying degrees of success, at least on the human level.

So I do think that he would say that that is an aspect of of common grace.

And this is important because one of the things that people criticize Vantill for, right, if the unbeliever does not have a sufficient worldview, right, or a foundation for knowledge and truth and so forth, how is it that many unbelievers have been very successful in various fields of human experience in the realm of philosophy, history and science, like we mentioned before?

OK, and I think a robust understanding of common grace is is applicable here.

All right. So so, yeah, I haven't read the whole thing, read bits and pieces. And so there you go.

Thank you for that question. That might be the only question. We'll see if there's any other questions. I'll kind of shoot the breeze and see if anyone inserts a question there.

Please feel free. If you have any questions, it doesn't have to be about the book. If you have a question, I'm here. I got some time. I have my coffee in me.

All right. Richie Torres says we do have common ground. Yeah, that's right. So sneak peek to.

Chapter three, we do have common ground. Our common ground is that the unbeliever is made in the image of God.

And so when we communicate with the unbeliever, we must appeal to the image of God that is there. Yet he is suppressing.

Right. There is a big, important distinction between common ground and neutral ground. We'll talk about this when we cover chapter three.

But just real between common ground and neutral ground.

Vantill denied. He rejected the notion that there was neutral ground between believe and unbeliever.

But he affirmed that there was common ground. All right. All right. Richie Torres says,

Eli, how does one respond to the argument that precept is some form of slate, a sleight of hand?

Yeah, I would I would challenge the person to back up that claim.

OK, so, for example, Richie, OK, presuppositional apologetics, when it when it's in the form of like argument, we're arguing right.

One of the centerpieces of the presuppositional approach is the transcendental argument. OK, so when we argue, for example, that if Christianity were not true, you couldn't prove anything at all.

What we're saying is that the Christian worldview is the necessary precondition for knowledge, for logic, science and all these sorts of things.

OK, that's not a sleight of hand. We are offering an argument. And the argument is, you know, you can say

X is the necessary precondition for Y, Y, therefore X. That's that's the argument form.

And so I would I would ask the person take that. That's the argument form of the argument I'm offering. Show me how that argument is logically fallacious.

How is offering an argument from the presuppositional perspective, how is offering a sleight of hand?

Is it because we ask you, Mr. Unbeliever, well, how do you account for this, that or the other thing?

They're saying, well, you're just you're just shifting the burden. No, Christians are are are eager to show you that given

Christian, given the Christian presuppositions. OK, we have a worldview that accounts for the very foundations, for the very things we need to have this conversation, things like logic, things like, you know, induction, uniformity of nature and so forth.

OK, now we're asking the unbeliever it will give an account for those things because not only is demonstrating our position require us as Christians to show, given the

Christian worldview, these things can be accounted for. OK, also part of the apologetic is also to show that on your worldview,

Mr. Unbeliever, you can't account for these things. And that's why we ask you to show you in order to show you that it's true that your worldview can't account for these these basic worldview categories.

We have the internal critique. OK, so unless internally critiquing someone's worldview by asking them questions, unless that's a sleight of hand,

I mean, how silly would that be? Right. You're asking me to defend my worldview.

That's a sleight of hand. No, that's called debate. That's called arguing.

The Christian doesn't hold all of the burden of proof. Right. I don't deny that the

Christian has a burden of proof. I don't deny that. But I think it's philosophically naive to think that the unbeliever has no burden of proof, especially given the fact that the nature of our argument is at the worldview level.

We're saying your worldview can't account for any of these things. And I'm not just saying your worldview can't. I'm saying my worldview can.

And here's why. And then someone's like, oh, well, well, what about this? What about it? We can answer those. But then when we turn it around and you oh, that's a sleight of hand.

And of course, they say that because they can't answer the deep worldview questions, because unfortunately, many people that we engage with are they unfortunately, they can be very shallow minded.

They don't understand how argument and debate work. Right. You don't get to just throw rocks at the other side and not have to account for anything yourself.

Right. Again, that already assumes, you know, I'm just the neutral default position.

Right. You know, the atheist. Right. Everyone's born an atheist. Yeah. Well, even that statement itself is biased towards an atheistic, non -Christian outlook in reality.

So, yeah, if someone says it's just a sleight of hand, I mean, OK, that's not really an argument.

Someone's not even the even the question you said, how does one respond to the argument that precept is some form of sleight of hand?

Well, what's the where's the argument? It's a sleight of hand, because why?

Now, again, you're going to have to make a distinction between presuppositional ism as a methodology, Richie, and presuppositional ists.

Maybe there are some people who claim to be presuppositional ist and they use very shady maneuvers and discussion.

I don't deny that people do that. Yeah, of course, people do that. OK. But there's a difference between how people there's a difference between a presuppositional ism as a method, an argument and a presuppositional ist, a specific person with specific personalities in which they use different ways to engage in discourse and debate.

That's a big difference. So, yeah, I don't think it's an argument. I think it's just misunderstands what presuppositional ism is.

Presuppositional ism is not like some weird wonky. It's it's a world it's engaged in critiquing worldviews.

How is that weird? You might disagree with it. You might think, well, I don't think that, for example, the Christian transcendental argument works, blah, blah, blah, blah.

But that's not the same as saying it's a sleight of hand. You know what I'm saying? You know, he goes on to say,

I've heard Steve McRae call it dishonest. Yeah. A method can't be dishonest.

OK, someone can use the method dishonestly, and surely the person who developed the method wasn't intentionally trying to be dishonest.

So I would say to Steve McRae, offer me an example of how presuppositional ism is dishonest.

And when he offers an example, then I would make the distinction between presuppositional ism as a method and presuppositional is a specific presuppositionalist who may or may not be using it dishonestly.

Right. Is it is it just can I say that classical apologetics is dishonest?

That's silly, right? Maybe I disagree. Maybe one disagrees with the cosmological argument or the teleological argument or the moral argument.

But I'm not going to call it dishonest. I see people think that those arguments are good. They present their premises.

They try their best to defend the premises. And there's going to be but to just call it dishonest, you know, it's silly.

Yeah, it's very, very naive. So I'm not calling Steve McRae naive, but maybe

I am in this sense to say that it's dishonest really is not to make a distinction between the way people use a method and what's entailed in the method itself.

OK, I hope that's that's helpful. Let's see here. Henry asks, was

Van Til the first to use the term ontological Trinity? Probably not. I'm not sure, but probably not.

OK, within Christian theology, we make a distinction between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity, for example.

I don't think that was that was started by Van Til. OK, you can read you can read of the difference between ontological

Trinity and the economic Trinity within a systematic theology textbook. So, for example, the ontological

Trinity deals with God's nature, his being ontology, right? He is a triune being.

OK, so ontological Trinity is basically explaining what the Trinity is metaphysically.

OK, and the economic Trinity deals with the economy of the three persons, how the three persons within the

Trinity function and what are their tasks? You know, for example, the ontological

Trinity might be defined as God as one being who exists as three co -eternal persons, father, son, holy spirit, whereas the economic

Trinity might be something like, well, the father predestines the people for the son. The son redeems the people and the

Holy Spirit, you know, seals them for the day of redemption. You see, one deals with the nature of the

Trinity itself, the ontological Trinity, and the other deals with how the persons of the Trinity function within within their triunity.

OK, what tasks they have. OK, no one can come to the sun unless the father draws.

So the father draws people to the sun and the sun has his task and the Holy Spirit has his task.

OK, that's the economic Trinity. So there's a difference between ontological and economic Trinity. So I don't think just even talking about it out loud, hear myself out loud,

I don't think Van Til invented that term. But I think he uses that term to highlight that the ontological

Trinity is a metaphysical reality. OK, he's talking about the nature of reality itself.

OK, so that God is the basis of all things, the triune God is the basis for all things and his revelation.

OK. All right. Any other questions? These are good questions. OK, let's see here. Did it did it did it to do?

I got to scroll through to make sure I'm not missing anything. Let's see here. I got that one.

Slight a hand question. OK. Oh, yes.

For clarification. So Chris clarifies is I've sort of heard that common grace is ultimately for the sake of the elect with unbelievers benefiting as a consequence.

I'm not speaking. Oh, I see. Yeah, I would say that that's true in a sense. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry for that misunderstanding there.

Chris Cutler says I finally finished the Presbyterian philosopher. Thanks for the recommendation.

I really enjoyed it. I'm looking forward to reading up on Clark's thoughts on traditional logic versus modern modern logic.

Yeah, very good. Do I have that here? Let me see. Let's see if I could find it.

There we go. There we go. Well, usually it takes me longer to find a book, so I'll turn around and try to find a book.

This is a book by. Douglas Dahmer, who

I had on my show, if you if you're interested in Gordon Clark, I highly recommend folks look up Gordon, you know,

Gordon Clark revealed apologetics. I think it's called Gordon Clark, the other presuppositional list.

OK. And I have Douglas Dahmer on there, a really great guy. I absolutely love

Gordon Clark. I disagree with Clark on some key issues. I'm not a Clarkian, but I very much enjoy reading his works.

He is much clearer in terms of his communication skills. He's very logical and rigorous in the way that he writes.

So it's very clear. So but again, I'm thinking of doing a video comparing

Van Til and Clark in the future. So, yeah, I'm glad you enjoyed it. That's awesome. Very good.

Richie Torres, thank you so much for your ten dollar super chat. I really appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Let's see here. G .A. Norberg says, is this book the easiest from Van Til?

Yes, absolutely. At least it's one of the easiest. So you have this one, which

I think is if you're going to dive into his writings, this is the place to start. However, there is,

I suppose, an easier work in his little pamphlet entitled Why I Believe in God.

And it is at least the only only thing I'm aware of in which you see the presuppositional method played out in a hypothetical scenario.

If you're interested in that, you can look up why I believe in God. I think I might have a pamphlet here.

But if you have Greg Bonson's Van Til's apologetic readings and analysis,

I think the entire text of that pamphlet is in that in that book. So I think you could probably find it for free online.

So if you type in Cornelius Van Til, why I believe in God, you can kind of read through that. It's really good and super easy to understand.

It's I think the only example where Van Til writes and he gives a hypothetical kind of conversation between a believer and unbeliever, and you can kind of see what he's doing in terms of a presuppositional method, very practical.

I'd highly, highly recommend folks check that out. All right. Good question. All right.

Let's see here. Yeah.

Henry says here, when I've read Van Til on Common Grace, I saw that he focused a lot on God restraining wickedness.

Is that a common view on common grace? I don't know if it's common. I would hold to that. I think that God is restraining wickedness all the time.

And that is an aspect because think about it. It would not be very gracious of God to not restrain wickedness because then wickedness would run rampant and we would be as bad as we can be.

In that case, you wouldn't even be able to walk outside your house without being, you know, without having your life in danger.

Right. God does restrain evil. And I do think that that is a feature of God's common grace.

Now, again, I've read bits and pieces of Common Grace by Van Til. But if he holds to that position that I've just expressed,

I would be in full agreement with it. Yeah. Ernest Gomez says, what book do you recommend for new

Christians apart from the Bible? To be perfectly honest, either get yourself a catechism to walk through to learn the basics of the

Christian faith, or I highly recommend a systematic theology. Now, systematic theology sounds all technical and like, oh,

I'm just a new Christian. I think new Christians interested in these sorts of things should get themselves a good systematic theology and read through portions of it.

Remember, systematic theologies are super thick, but they're not meant to be read from cover to cover.

And the sections are actually pretty, pretty small. And so I highly recommend a good systematic theology.

I for beginners, my and I don't agree with everything he has to say, but I really do love

Wayne Grudem systematic theology. I think I have I have it here. This monstrosity do not be intimidated.

It is not meant to be read from beginning to end, and it's not technical. And the text is actually pretty readable and it's really well laid out.

Perfect. You can it'll it'll start with me. Let me do this here. Maybe I should do a separate video on just walking through my favorite systematic theologies.

I don't know. I don't know if you guys you guys would find that interesting. But what

I like about Wayne Grudem is if you go to the beginning of a chapter.

So I've just randomly chosen a chapter here. So God in three persons, the Trinity chapter 14. And there's a question here at the at the top of the page.

I don't know if you can see that. OK, there's the question right here. It says, how can

God be three persons yet one? And then, of course, he kind of just summarizes what the Trinity is.

And then it says here. On that part, the main subheading, their explanation and scriptural basis, and then he just kind of walks through the explanation of the

Trinity, the scriptural basis for the Trinity and summarizes it for you. And that's it. You can read it like in 10 minutes, not even.

And then before you move on to like the next section. So I'd highly recommend folks check out Wayne Grudem. Someone also suggested

R .C. Sproul's Essential Truths of the Christian Faith. I agree. Yeah, there's a lot of information out there for people who want to just kind of jump in without getting bogged down with all the overly technical theological terminology.

All right. All right. Here's a Tony Torpa says, where is Michael Butler, who used to give speeches with Greg Bonson?

Is he still alive or has or has he been taken up? Have you tried to get him for an interview? All right.

Number one, trying to find Michael Butler is like trying to find Bigfoot. He is still alive.

I don't know where he is, although I do have some connections of people who might know where he is.

But I don't know. I have tried to reach out, but my trail has grown cold.

He didn't just give speeches with Greg Bonson. He was actually kind of his understudy of sorts.

And so he studied actually under Greg Bonson. And they both did a lecture series together, of course, with Bonson's oversight on the topic of transcendental arguments, which you can listen to those lectures, which

I highly recommend on Sermon Audio or Apologia Studios dot com.

There's a whole section there where you can listen to all of Bonson's lectures and so forth. And yeah, he gives a series of talks on transcendental arguments.

And then Michael Butler gives a few of them as well. And then, of course, what's helpful is Bonson offers his commentary on what

Michael Butler says. So a lot of helpful information there. There's also a book that can be ordered.

I highly recommend it's basically a transcript of those lectures. The Objective Proof for Christianity, you can purchase that book on American Vision, American Vision dot org.

And it was edited, I think, edited or something or other by my friend Joshua Pillows, who's been on this channel before.

So highly recommend the Objective Proof for Christianity. OK, great, great stuff.

Good. All right. Let's see here. What can you say?

I like a do the cha -cha in Frame's voice. No, I can't say that.

However, I remember you remind me. The first time I met John Frame was at Reform Theological Seminary in Orlando.

My family and I, we happen to be visiting some friends and the seminary was right around the corner.

This was years ago. And I called the seminary and I was able to go there and meet him in his office.

And I remember walking into his office. Couldn't even see his face. His desk was covered with a bunch of books like a mountain of books.

All I saw was his little feet underneath the desk. And then when I first saw him the first time, he goes, Oh, well, um, nice to meet you,

Elias. Oh, I'm happy for you. I'm happy that we were able to get together, Elias.

Oh, what's on what's on your mind? You know, he would talk like that. So he had a very distinct way of sounding.

I love John Frame, by the way. But but, you know, he has a certain sound to him. So, yeah,

I suppose I like a I like a do the cha -cha -cha.

Maybe hopefully that was somewhere in the ballpark. Sorry if that sounds nothing like him. Yes. G .A.

Norberg suggest Robert Raymond's systematic theology. Yep. I have that here as well. This one

I heard was good on recommendation from Dr. James White. OK, I highly recommend this one.

The categories of theology are laid out in the structure of the Westminster Confession of Faith. It's really actually this one's a really good systematic theology.

Highly recommend Robert Raymond's new systematic theology.

All right. Henry says very off topic. What are your views on Sabbath observation?

If too far off, feel free to ignore. What are my views on Sabbath observation?

I don't have a problem with someone wanting to observe Sabbath. However, I do have a problem with someone who decides not to observe it in the same way as someone else.

And then, of course, someone calling that sin. So, yeah, so I would say to be very careful for those kind of extreme views.

But I do think that there's nothing wrong with observing the Sabbath. Yeah, not at all. OK. Chris Cutler says, how would you reconcile

Jason Lyle's contention that general revelation is non propositional with James Anderson's argument that the laws of logic are propositional?

Yeah, so there is no contradiction. Jason Lyle is correct. General revelation is non propositional.

So when we look out in nature, there are no propositions being stated. OK. However, you need to make a distinction between logic, ontologically speaking, and the laws of logic which are stated in propositions.

OK, a lot of people conflate this. All right. There is a difference between logic, ontologically speaking, like metaphysically, what is logic?

And then the laws of logic are the words and the propositions we use to state the principles themselves.

So we want to make a distinction between the principles that are stated and the thing of which those principles refer to.

OK. The laws of law, they're the laws of logic. The laws of logic are not logic themselves.

Right. I think that's an important thing to keep in mind. So I don't think there is necessarily a I don't think

James Anderson I mean, I can't speak for him, but I don't think he would say that general revelation is propositional.

Proposition is a statement that is either true or false. Nature doesn't make statements in that literal sense.

So I don't think there's any conflict here. OK. I hope that makes sense.

To do what are your thoughts on a new covenant theology? Sorry, this is not a realm that I am very much involved in.

I don't know what new covenant theology is, so I would not be able to answer that.

Now, covenant covenant theology in general. Yeah, I'm not a dispensationalist. So I do think that the primary way in which

God deals with man throughout history has been through covenant. You can follow that on through throughout the scriptures.

However, I would take issue with my Presbyterian brethren. OK. I'm getting another text here.

Yeah, I would I would take exception as coming from a reformed Baptist position holding to covenant theology,

I would not have a one to one correspondence with, say, a Presbyterian understanding in terms of understanding how that relates to infant baptism in the covenant in that respect.

But with the phrase, because it seems like a kind of a technical term here, the new covenant theology, I'm not familiar with.

So sorry about that. GA Norberg says, I doubt James Anderson would say general revelation is propositional.

Yeah, I don't think he I don't think he would. I mean, let's let's look up. Let me look at a dictionary definition.

So a proposition definition. Let's see here.

Yeah. OK, so according to the dictionary here that I have, a proposition is a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion.

OK. Or you could, you know, obviously define it the way I define it to a statement that is either true or false, a proposition as well.

Yeah, I don't think that he would say that natural general revelation is propositional.

It's not nature doesn't speak. OK, although God creates the equipment through which we understand nature and nature can speak in a sense, but not in a propositional sense.

So the heavens declare the glory of God. The heavens don't declare the glory of God as one declares a message, you know, verbally.

Right. But there's kind of a poetic aspect here where there's a sense in which when you look at nature, you know there, you know, you you behold

God's glory in some sense. But there's no proposition that the that nature itself is is making.

Let's see here. Is there not a sense in which the laws of logic are part of general revelation?

I'm not sure. But I do think it's general. General revelation is the way in which God reveals himself to all people and all people utilize all people with proper cognitive faculties will utilize the laws of logic.

I would say the laws of logic are an aspect of general revelation as well. And they're necessary to comprehend special revelation and so forth.

Yeah. Let's see here. To do. Henry says, do you believe creation outside of angels and people can sin?

Did Christ rebuke the storm and curse tree for a moral failure? No. So I don't think that a storm.

Can sin, if that's what you're asking, right? A storm like weather patterns are amoral.

They're not immoral. OK, it is neither right or wrong for wind to blow.

OK. And the tree trees do not have moral capacities.

So so no. So I believe that angels can sin because they are rational agents that can obey or disobey

God, whereas weather patterns don't obey God or disobey God in like a moral sense.

Although there is a sense in which the storm obeys God when God commands the storm to cease.

So I think there is an important distinction there. OK. All right. G .A. Norberg says, when will we get a revealed apologetics pre supper exclusive discord server?

That would be so cool. I do YouTube and I post on Facebook if I added another thing.

I don't know how much I'd be able to keep up with it and discord and clubhouse.

I haven't really had really good experiences on there. There's a lot of trolls in what

I call the underbelly of the Internet, which is discord and clubhouse. I'm so sorry. I have poked my head in there and listened to stuff and there's been a lot of helpful stuff.

But there's just a lot of trolling on those platforms. And so I don't think that it's wrong to be on there.

I mean, there are people that need to be there and speak the truth there. But I can only deal with what I'm able to handle.

It's a lot just to handle a YouTube channel, much less than also go on to discord and then go on to these other platforms and things like that.

So unfortunately, not anytime soon. But hey, you never know. You never know. All right.

Oh, I'll still I'm still down to take some more questions. If there are any questions, we'll see. I'll give you maybe 30, 30, 40 seconds.

It's a very sad time right now because my coffee is cold.

I see you notice the cup is different. I have not been using my my special cup that keeps my coffee hot.

That was my bad, my bad. That's so sad. All right.

If there are any questions, feel free. Otherwise, we'll wrap things up. Let's see here.

OK, so G .A. Norberg says, is it a sin to be classical or evidential in method with being neutral?

Yes, there is a sense in which neutral being knowingly neutral can be sinful.

Because it is contrary to scripture. Now, does that mean a classical apology, apologists going to hell?

No. Does that mean classical apologetics can't be used of God? No. Is it a sin for someone to be presuppositional?

Well, I mean, not inherently, but I think that a presuppositional is can sin in the way they do presuppositional apologetics.

Right. The reality is that God is using broken sticks to accomplish tasks. Right. He can strike a blow with a broken stick.

I just think that the presuppositional method is less is I want to say less broken.

I think it is the biblical position, so I can't say that. But I think when we allow for categories of neutrality and autonomy knowingly, right, knowing what the

Bible says, but still adopting a methodology that is inconsistent, I would say that in a sense that can be sinful.

Now, I'm not going to go around and call every classicalist and evidential. Oh, you're sinning right now. I don't know the person's heart, but I think the method is inconsistent.

And so I think that's something to point out. And we do it lovingly. Right. You know, presuppositionalist aren't perfect. And I'm sure there are problems with certain aspects of how presuppositionalism has been expressed and things like that.

But I'd be very careful with how I would say that. But if you were to put me in a corner, is it a sin to be neutral in our thinking?

Yeah, I think it is. I think it is. Is it a sin to promote autonomy and the self -sufficiency of the human intellect in a way that it's placed over the authority of God?

Yeah, I think that's sinful as well. Do all evidentialist and classicalist think they're doing that?

No. Some people think like, I don't think I'm doing those things. I don't think that's inherent within the classical evidential method.

And then you have other people who say, yeah, those are inherent within the method. And I think there's nothing wrong with that. And so, again, there's some nuance that needs to be taken into consideration.

But but, yeah, I would. Those are my thoughts on that question. I know a lot of people kind of run from from that question because it's a really controversial to say that.

But I mean, that's that's what I think. All right. Let's see here. All right.

Let's see what we have here. Can you describe.

A brute fact. Yeah. OK, so, yeah, so in philosophy, a brute fact is a fact that cannot be explained by any more fundamental facts.

It simply is the case without further justification or reason behind it. So brute facts are taken to be in philosophy, self -explanatory and are often contrasted with something like contingent facts, which do have explanations or unnecessary facts, which must be true, you know, as philosophers say, in all possible worlds.

So it is a fact that is simply a fact. It is it doesn't come with any pre definition.

It just is. Now, Vantill, I think, again, rightly,

I'll put this up on the screen here. G .A. Norberg has it right. Brute facts are mute facts. So when someone asserts something as a brute fact,

I would quote Vantill here, and I think he's correct that brute facts people will just explain, refer to things that simply are.

And then they'll use the thing that they take to be simply the case and then build their perspective from like, well, wait a minute.

Everything is interpreted within the context of a worldview. So facts don't speak for themselves. Brute fact is often referred to a fact that kind of just it's self -explanatory.

Doesn't need any foundation. It's just it just is. But Vantill pointed out that facts don't speak. Right. We must interpret a fact.

An interpretation requires a worldview context, in which case is inherent within that are certain presuppositions and bias that must be challenged when they are contrary to the word of God.

All right. Pardon. One second. It's a good question. Let's see here.

With respect to the classical evidential question, what if they do it unknowingly? Would that be a sin? Yeah, I don't

I don't know. I mean, I mean, I haven't done a study in the different categories of sin.

I suppose there are in unintentional sins, I suppose. Yeah. Sorry. I wish I could speak more to that.

It's a good question. Chris Cutler says, would you say that Gordon Clark's view of axioms and building up upon those in a coherent way would be considered foundationalism or coherence ism?

Um, well, it depends how you define your terms. I do think that Clark held to some form of of coherence ism.

Yeah. An axiom for him, too, was something that is by definition non demonstrable. You couldn't you couldn't demonstrate the truth of your axioms.

They are your starting points. And so he believed that Christianity was a coherent system and that its virtue was that it answered the hard philosophical questions in a way that non -Christian worldviews can't.

And so, yeah, that would be different than a Vantillian position, because I would make a distinction between what

I call a Vantillian presupposition and a Clarkian axiom. But then I'll save that for when

I do the video on Clark and Vantill. Let's see here. All right.

So too far gone says, hi, I called into the atheist experience yesterday and asked for justification of axioms to which they only gave justification in use, not the axiom itself.

Huh. OK, so when you OK, so everything boils down to how you define things, right?

So if an axiom is understood to be a starting principle that is non demonstrable,

OK, and why now let's talk a little bit about this. Why do people think axioms and why axioms understood as non demonstrables?

Because they're your fundamental first principles. So if you have a first principle over here, upon which everything else in your world is built, someone says, well, justify this axiom.

I'll be like, well, you can't because to justify the axiom, I need to appeal to something more fundamental.

But if I appeal to something down here, more fundamental than my axiom, the axiom isn't my axiom. This other thing would be my axiom.

So well, then justify this thing over here. Well, I can't because if I do, then I have to appeal to it. And then you add infinitum.

So if you start with an axiom and they say, well, an axiom is just, you know, you don't demonstrate axioms by definition.

OK, so OK. So if you have a starting principle, OK, and it's like and someone says, well, that's just my starting principle.

Well, how do you know it's true? Well, it's just my starting principle. You know, I would point out that axioms, you know, my axiom could beat up your axiom.

And what happens when someone has an axiom that's different than yours? How do we how do we distinguish? And you have some people say, well, we can't distinguish.

And hence you have what flows from that concept. If you can't distinguish between axioms, OK, especially if they're competing axioms, then that's going to have ramifications for your understanding of knowledge and truth and objectivity in these sorts of things.

So you have people who bite the bullet and say, yeah, we can. And so I would highlight the fact of competing axioms or the arbitrary nature of axioms.

You know, if I say, you know, God is my axiom. And you say some other, you know, what you call a brute fact is your fact, is your axiom, axiom, which view is more rational?

OK, could such a position call another position irrational simply because it starts with a different axiom?

Right. So I would highlight the arbitrary nature of it. I don't mind someone saying, well, I can't provide a justification by axiom because by definition, an axiom doesn't have a justification.

I mean, that, yeah, that's being consistent. They don't have that doesn't that doesn't give you a free pass, though, to say that your axiom is fine.

You know, what we're going to do is is critique the axiom and critique the things that are built upon the axiom.

So if you can show a weakness in the starting point, then you can show a weakness in the entire system. So so, yeah.

So when you ask for a justification for an axiom and they say, well, you know, they're going to give a justification for using it, not the axiom.

I think that's a good way to point out they didn't answer your question. Right. I know why we use axioms, but why should we think your axiom is true?

Do you know that your axiom is true? How do you know that you're? Well, it's just it's just self -evident.

OK, and what happens if someone says, well, God is just self -evident? All right, that's it.

It just becomes arbitrary at that point. You kind of destroy argumentation. Well, it's not self -evident because if it was self -evident, then everyone would believe it.

No, that's not necessarily true either. OK, because the thing that they hold to as self -evident,

I'm going to disagree that it's that it's that it's self -evident because I come from a different starting point. Right.

So it's important to ask those foundational questions. And based upon how they answer, you want to kind of proceed accordingly, right?

Ask those foundational questions and engage in the internal critique. Yeah. Did it to do,

Eli, it's definitely been a hard topic for me to say that those methods are sinful, unknowingly or knowingly. Yeah, it is.

It is hard. Here's what I can say, OK, asserting that we ought to be neutral and autonomous with respect to our method.

Then, yeah, I think there's a problem with that. But not everyone thinks that that's is it a sin if they don't know it?

Like, I don't know. That's it's a good question. Yeah, I'm not really sure. I'm not sure how to answer that.

Yeah. Let's see here. Yes, I pointed out to pointed that to say axioms are just are is arbitrary.

Yeah, that's a good it's a good point. And making this good point that that might and I would imagine that didn't didn't go over very well on the experience.

But if you pointed that out, you know, they can bite the bullet and be like, yeah, they just are, you know, that might have been hand waved.

Maybe they were like moved on to something else or they just said, hey, but we don't have to justify those things. But I wanted to keep something in mind too far gone in that saying something is the case, you know, it's just the way that it is doesn't make it.

So whether they accepted that or not as a valid point of response doesn't mean that your response wasn't good.

OK, so, yeah, I would point it out. They just are. That's arbitrary. Right. I would have pointed that out as well.

You know, GA Norberg says, wouldn't a justification of an axiomatic foundation just be the pragmatic outcome?

No, you don't justify or provide a rational basis simply for the outcome.

OK, appeals to pragmatism have their own problems as well. So I wouldn't think that's a

I think axioms, you don't justify axioms. You say isn't wouldn't a justification of an axiom be in the fill in the blank?

No, you don't provide justification for axioms. You can explain why you use an axiom, but to justify provide a justification for the truth of the axiom.

You don't because it's an axiom. By definition, there's nothing more fundamental to what would you appeal to?

OK, just saying pragmatic outcome doesn't really and doesn't really provide the justification for why it's true.

OK. Now, this is very different for presuppositional ism because we have ultimate starting points, but we believe the ultimate starting points are justified transcendentally, which is something that Clark would not have used.

OK. Yeah. Yeah. So too far gone.

So I was muted and booted after being told I was reading from a presub script. Ha ha. Thank you for your response. Yeah, I don't know the context of that conversation, but I do hear this a lot.

Presub script. I think that's so to be perfectly honest, people say that.

I think it's stupid. So when we have debates and we've talked about things a lot, are we not to plan out what we're going to say?

I do have preplanned things that I intend to say if an atheist were to say

A, B or C. Why is that wrong? If it's not an issue that you have a script, the issue is, is the content of the script, you know, true.

Right. If I parrot the transcendental argument, you boot me for using a transcendental argument.

Deal with the argument. Obviously, I I'm going to I'm not going to call on to an atheist experience show, not thinking about what

I'm going to say or have certain things that I'm anticipating. I mean, everybody has a script. Not everyone always shoots from the hip.

I think it's such a it's just a silly, you know, the presub script. You know, everyone has a script unless everyone's always shooting from the hip.

You know, you know, if I believe that God provides a foundation for logic. Yeah, I'm going to have certain things that I will say when someone disagrees with that in discussion.

I'm not going to have to create new thoughts. Ex nihilo. Every time I get into a discussion with someone,

I think it's silly. Let's see here. Chris Cutler says, can we start a fundraiser to try to make a

Jason Lyle versus and T .D. Oh, Neil deGrasse

Tyson. Yeah, I would love I would love to see that. That would be pretty dope. Yeah, if someone knows a guy,

I'd love to host it, too. I think I'd be a fair moderator. And I think that'd be a fun discussion.

Yeah. I don't know if it's a fundraiser. I mean, I don't know how much he I mean, does he charge to pop on someone's

YouTube channel and have a discussion? Maybe he does. I'm not sure. Yeah. Let's see here.

Yeah. So Henry points out here. It sounds like trading, treating God as an axiom compared to other axioms means that you aren't arguing for the impossibility of the contrary, just that it's a better axiom.

That's correct. That is correct. So when you're arguing like a Clarkian, you're saying the Christian axiom is better than the non -Christian axiom.

When you're arguing like a Vantillion, you're saying the Christian, the Christian starting point is better than the non -Christian starting point.

And it is the only starting point that one could that one must start with in order to have rationality and intelligible experience.

That's right. And how does how is it demonstrated by the impossibility of the contrary? Reject it and you're reduced to absurdity.

And anything you do say that does make sense is going to presuppose categories that only make sense within the

Christian worldview. Yeah, that is correct. Let's see here. Yeah. So I would love the debate between Neil deGrasse,

Neil deGrasse and and Jason Lyle. They were pretty cool. All right. Well, we're at one hour and 16 minutes.

Who knows? Maybe I'll go live tomorrow. I have no idea. I apologize for the bad planning.

I kind of just pop up when I have the time, but I hope that this has been useful. I apologize if I didn't answer your questions to anyone's to your satisfaction, but I've tried my best.

And, you know, there you go. That's what happens when you're shooting from the hip. Right. I don't know what people are going to ask. And so I have to just kind of there are certain things that I would say if someone were to ask you my responses.

There you go. You call it a script. OK. OK. Can't help you there. Anyway. That is it for this episode, unless a question magically popped in the.

Yeah, thank you. You're welcome. It is my pleasure. I love doing this and I love the questions and the support.

I'm really excited if I can. Let's see here. If I go on my YouTube channel here in another window.

Let's see. We are almost. Almost. At 10 ,000.

So right now, the subscribers, I have nine thousand seven hundred and something doesn't show the full number subscribers.

So we're almost we're almost at 10 ,000. I'm that's pretty exciting. I'm super excited about that. So thank you for the support, whether it's financially, whether through prayer or just listening in and commenting, things like that.

I greatly appreciate all of you. And so until next time, I'm not sure what will come first.

Will the summary of chapter three be first or an interview? I have no idea, but I will definitely let folks know as soon as I'm able.

You guys can share this content and get the word out. If there are other folks, you know, who would want to listen in on, you know what