The Secret Behind William Lane Craig's Greatness! | LIVE Debate Teacher Reacts

All right! Thank you so much! Yeah! There we go.

Thank you! Thank you for joining me on this video. We are live, and that's why

I stumbled my way through that intro. So, we are live. We are celebrating all of you continuing to join me on this mission to live effectively for Jesus Christ in today's culture.

My name is Nate, and this is Wise Disciples. So, one of the things that I'm here to do is very specifically help you to think critically about communication, whether debate or otherwise.

And that's where I draw from my background as a debate teacher to help you raise the level of discourse wherever you are, all for the sake of Christ and His Kingdom.

Let's talk about what's so great about William Lane Craig.

And I think what's so great about William Lane Craig is a few things. And what I want to do in order to answer that question is just walk through a particular opening statement of William Lane Craig's.

And we're going to do this fully live. So, you're going to hear every mistake that I've made and things that I normally cut out and are way better edited, but that's okay.

And what's interesting, too, is I did the whole Christopher Hitchens thing. I just did

Christopher Hitchens last week. What's so great about Christopher Hitchens? The secret sauce behind Christopher Hitchens and what made him so great.

And now I'm circling back around on William Lane Craig. If you go back into the history of Debate Teacher Reacts videos, the first debate

I did was William Lane Craig versus Christopher Hitchens. And so I find this fascinating. It's almost like I'm circling back around and, you know,

I'm focusing on them again. It's like revisiting in a weird way. I feel like I'm traveling through time.

I feel like Marty McFly in Back to the Future Part Two, and we're going to the Enchantment Under the Sea dance in 1955 all over again.

So, look, let's get into the DeLorean. Let's go back to William Lane Craig.

But this time, let's take a look at William Lane Craig versus Andrew Pyle.

I think this is going to be incredibly informative. Let's go ahead and do it right now.

Let me tell you how it's all going to pan out. We're going to have several rounds of debate from the two main speakers, four to be precise, one of 18 minutes, one of 11 minutes, one of seven minutes, and one of five.

So there's four engagements that we can look forward to. So, once again, look at the title of the debate here, everybody.

Well, actually, you can't see it, but if you go to the debate itself, I think I left a link in the notes, it says,

Does the Christian God Exist? As far as I know, I'm the only one saying this. I think the title of this debate and the title of debates just like these should be worded differently.

Well, let me back up. In a given debate, there are various burdens that both interlocutors shoulder.

Very often, the question of the burden of proof comes up. Who has the burden of proof, right? When you title the debate in such a way that the resolution is not stated in the form of a proposition, okay, in the form of a declarative statement with a clear claim within the proposition itself, then who has the burden of proof becomes unclear.

Why? Why do I say that? Because the burden of proof always rests upon the side that advocates for change.

And so the proposition should be worded in such a manner that the affirmative will have to shoulder that burden.

Well, guess what? That's not the title of this debate. The title of this debate is in the form of a question,

Does the Christian God Exist? When you make a debate center on what's called an interrogative, now it sounds like both interlocutors need to answer that question, right?

Which means both interlocutors need to make their own case for their own answer to this question.

And maybe that's what the audience wants to see. Maybe that's what you want to see. I think that would be fun to watch personally.

But what happens when one of the interlocutors stands up and says, You know what?

I don't have to shoulder the burden of proof. The other guy does. Which very often happens in debates, just as much as, you know, regular conversations when you interact with people, particularly on Facebook for some reason.

Atheists say this all the time to Christians. Well, what happens is one guy won't answer the topic question.

He'll just sit there, and he'll force the other guy to answer the question, which means that he's not engaging with the topic as it was presented.

You see that? So I'm not a fan of debate titles like this. This is not how a formal debate title would be stated at the outset.

But nevertheless, here we are. Dr. Craig begins with his opening statement.

Let's go ahead and take a look. Thank you very much.

I'm delighted to be here, and I'm grateful for the invitation to participate in the debate this evening.

And I'm also delighted to be sharing the podium with Dr. Pyle tonight. I really hope that our discussion this evening will be a practical benefit to you as you work through these very important issues on your own.

Right. So just like Christopher Hitchens in the last video, Dr. Craig is faced with what every debater must face, how to begin, right?

What does your introduction look like? As a debater, you have several options open to you.

You can tell a story. You can provide an illustration. You can raise the stakes by talking about how important this issue is for the audience.

I think a couple of non -negotiables that are standard for debaters are, number one, thank the venue for having you, right?

You know, maybe thank the moderator as well. Definitely thank your interlocutor for joining you on stage just to keep things collegial, right?

You do all of these things because the first question that you need to think through as you begin a debate is, how can

I get this audience to start trusting me? The Aristotelian way of saying it is, how can

I quickly develop my ethos for these folks? And the answer is in the ways that I've listed.

Story, illustration, thank everybody, be collegial, tell a joke, right?

A good joke that lands well and makes everyone laugh, that's a chef's kiss right there.

Let's begin by defining our terms. By the Christian God, I mean the

God who has revealed himself decisively in Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not going to be defending the view of every church council or biblical author.

When I use the word God, it is God as revealed by Jesus that is to be understood.

Now, so real quick, by the way, this is live, so thank you Matt Bell, thank you

J to the G, thank you Christian, thank you Tam Chris, thank you everybody who's watching. This is live, we're doing this live,

I'm going to take your questions in a moment. I almost titled this episode, William Lane Craig's Debate Skills Under the

X -Ray, because what I feel like I'm doing here tonight is running his opening speech through a figurative

X -Ray machine to discover the bones of his speech, the structure that makes up his speech.

And so, we just talked about the introduction. Well, now, Craig shifts to define terms.

And by the way, you're supposed to do that, okay? So if you're taking notes, I should have said that at the outset.

This is probably one of those videos where you might want to think about taking notes, or go back and watch this video again a couple times, right?

If you're taking notes, here are the first two things that go into a great opening speech. First is what's called the exordium, okay?

That's the introduction. That's where you are to catch the audience's attention, you are to build your ethos, you are to preview what your speech is about.

But then, the second thing is what's called the narratio. That's where you define terms, you give key facts, maybe you provide some basis for the debate tonight, right?

Give some context or something like that. That's what Craig just did here. He defined the key phrase in the title of the debate, okay?

The definition of the Christian God is Jesus Christ. Okay, great. Let's see if he defines any more terms.

In order to answer the question before us this evening, we've got to address two further questions. First, what good reasons are there to think that God exists?

And second, what good reasons are there to think that God does not exist? Now, I'll leave it up to Dr.

Pyle to present the arguments against God's existence and then respond to them in my next speech.

For now, I want to sketch five arguments which provide good reason to think that God does exist.

Okay, so I don't know if you missed that. That was a gangster move right there, okay?

So I'm going to talk about it. But look, it looks like no more definition of terms, okay? Maybe you could have made the argument that, you know what, maybe we could have also defined the word exist, right?

Does the Christian God exist? Maybe we could define that, what that means in the title. Maybe not, I don't know. But now we see

Dr. Craig laying a framework for the debate. Okay, audience, you're here for a debate.

Well, in order for us to think through this debate, we need to answer two questions. This is what Dr. Craig just did, right? Number one, what good reasons do we have to think that God does exist?

And what good reasons do we have to think that God does not exist? And then he says,

Dr. Pyle needs to answer the second question, which suggests to the audience that if Pyle does not give reasons why

God does not exist, then he hasn't done his job on the debate stage. And you know what? Dr. Craig is absolutely correct about this.

Why? Because when the title of your debate is, does the Christian God exist? Then it looks like both interlocutors need to answer the question and make their own case.

So good on Dr. Craig for setting up Dr. Pyle here.

Okay, now you'll have to watch the whole debate to see whether or not Dr. Pyle follows Dr. Craig's framework, but that was pretty cool.

Number one, then, the origin of the universe implies the existence of a transcendent creator.

Have you ever asked yourself where the universe came from? Why anything at all exists?

Typically, atheists have said that the universe is just eternal and uncaused.

But there are good reasons, both philosophically and scientifically, to doubt that this is the case.

Okay, so again, if you're taking notes here, Dr. Craig shifts now from the narratio and laying a framework to what is now called the partitio.

And so if you've just joined us on the live stream, I'm going to circle back around and try to give you these terms a little bit later.

But these are all, by the way, super old debate terms for the various parts of an opening statement in a debate.

And I recognize that as I use these words, I'm probably later going to die of pretentiousness.

But what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to refer to these parts of the opening statement in ways that you can go and study further, you know, later on if you want

Okay, so the other way of saying these words is basically you need to start off with an introduction, okay?

Then you need to get into some definition of terms. Then you need to lay a good framework for the audience, right?

And now partitio, which is basically you're going to outline for the audience the rest of what you're about to say, okay?

This outline tends to be brief because the next thing you're going to do is you're going to make your prima facie case, all right?

You're going to provide your specific contentions for why you affirm the resolution or the proposition of the debate.

So again, you outline what you're about to say, then you make your case. When Dr.

Craig typically does this, he usually has about five contentions or so, you know?

So in other words, he makes about five arguments for the affirmation of the resolution. So he's starting to get into it right now.

Let's see what happens. Philosophically, the idea of an infinite past seems absurd.

If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite.

But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self -contradictions.

For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self -contradictory answers.

This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality.

But that entails that the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't just go back forever.

Rather, the universe must have begun to exist. Okay, so argument number one, right?

You're tracking this? The origin of the universe implies the existence of a creator. The universe cannot be infinite to the past.

Why? Well, philosophically, infinity is absurd. It leads to self -contradictions.

So the past events of our universe must be finite, leading to a beginning. He's setting up the

KCA, the Kalam Cosmological Argument. And there should be some space here to provide some direct quotations from experts in this field or provide some other kinds of proofs along this line.

I've said this before, but it really does help your ethos or your credibility if you can quote experts who are more friendly to your interlocutor.

Okay, not only does it help you to develop your own ethos, it also helps to undermine your interlocutor's ethos as well.

Everything, by the way, so far is textbook. It's going incredibly smoothly.

Watching Dr. Craig so far, even his opponents have recognized this, is like watching a master.

I hope y 'all are taking notes. This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics.

In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the

Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing.

For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves come into being at the

Big Bang. As the physicist P .C .W. Davies explains, the coming into being of the universe as discussed in modern science is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming into being of all physical things from nothing.

Okay, pop quiz. Who is P .C .W. Davies? Anyone? Is this person a

Christian? No. He doesn't believe in God, and yet here's his quote coming from Dr.

Craig. All physical things came into being from nothing. So, good on Dr.

Craig. He's doing exactly what you should be doing as a debater. Let's keep Now, of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning.

But none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the

Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003, Arvind Board, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning.

Yeah, who are these crazy Christians that Dr. Craig is quoting from, right?

What denomination are these loony Christian scientists from? They're not Christians, guys! And yet they helped

Dr. Craig to develop his first contention, and that's exactly what you should be doing too on the debate stage.

Vilenkin emphasizes, and I quote, with the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe.

There is no escape. They have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes, a proponent of the

Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.

Yeah, right. So Anthony Kenny, is he a Christian? As far as I can tell, no.

So you see how this goes, right? Should you only find quotes from folks who are friendly to your interlocutor?

No, that's not necessary. But if you can, at the very least, balance out your quotes and evidences from sources that, again, are friendly to your interlocutor's position, right?

If they were all thrown a house party, your sources would go hang out with your interlocutor on the other side of the room, right, and stay away from you.

Then you're developing your ethos. At the very least, you're also undermining your interlocutor's ability to just dismiss your claims as only coming from your side, the

Christian side. You see that, right? This helps you as a debater. Surely that doesn't make sense.

Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist?

Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

We can summarize our argument thus far as follows. One, whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Here it is. Two, the universe began to exist. Three, therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now, as the cause of space and time, this being must be an uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial being of unfathomable power.

Moreover, I think it must be personal as well. Why? Because this cause must be beyond space and time.

Therefore, it cannot be physical or material. Now, there are only two kinds of things that fit that description.

Either abstract objects, like numbers, or else an intelligent mind.

But abstract objects can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the cause of the universe is a transcendent personal mind.

And thus we're brought not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal creator.

Okay, so two things here. First, best practices in debate dictate that you utilize multiple proofs in your time on stage.

Why is that? Well, so that your affirmation of the resolution—if you think of it as like the roof of a house, you know, the roof is strongly supported with enough walls underneath to hold it up, okay?

The walls of your house are proofs. Your stance on the resolution is the roof, and your goal is to ensure that that roof does not collapse due to there being insufficient proofs to hold it up, okay?

And so here we see Dr. Craig utilizing two types of reasoning just now, inductive and deductive, okay?

The deductive part is the Kalam cosmological argument proper. That's a deductive argument.

Not only that, he's also quoting from authority as well. All of this, again, is designed to provide sufficient proofs to support his stance.

Number two, the fine -tuning of the universe for intelligent life points to a designer of the cosmos.

In recent decades, scientists have been stunned by the discovery that our universe is fine -tuned for the existence of intelligent life with a precision and complexity that literally defy human comprehension.

For example, if the weak force or the force of gravity were altered by as little as one part out of 10 to the 100th power, the universe would not have been life -permitting.

Now, there are only three possible explanations of this extraordinary fine -tuning, either physical necessity, chance, or design.

Now, it can't be due to physical necessity, because the constants and quantities in question are independent of the laws of nature.

So, Dr. Craig, we're tracking this in real time, okay? Dr. Craig has moved on now to the fine -tuning argument for the existence of God.

What's interesting about this is, the way I learned this is, a debater should list out their contentions in a certain order, okay?

The order is, you start with the arguments that are not as strong, you start off with those, and then you work your way down to where you end with your strongest argument, your strongest contention.

So, if you have five contentions, then you start with the weakest one on the top, and then you end number five with the most significant one.

Now, why is that the case? Well, the audience is usually not taking notes. They're there to just sit there and listen, and even if they are, they can't keep up with everything that's being said, especially more technical debates, lots of technical terminology.

So, they're going to struggle remembering every word you said on the stage, so therefore, end with the strongest argument, okay?

Because that's what they'll remember when you walk away. Well, Dr. Craig, it seems, is not doing that.

It's funny, I asked him once about his favorite argument to use in the apologetics arena, and he said, oh, hands down the

Kalam, right? So, then I take it that he thinks that's the strongest argument, and yet he started off then with his strongest argument.

It's an interesting strategy. I suppose you could file this under stylistic choice, maybe.

In fact, string theory predicts that there are some 10 to the 500th power different universes compatible with nature's laws.

So, could the fine -tuning be due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the probabilities that all the constants and quantities would fall, by chance alone, into the life -permitting range is vanishingly small.

The odds against the fine -tunings occurring by accident are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced.

Right. So, here's something else interesting, okay? I hope you don't mind me interrupting so much.

Again, if you're taking notes, I strongly encourage you to write this down, because this belongs in the category of rhetoric, okay?

What is Dr. Craig communicating right here? That the fine -tuning of the universe cannot be due to chance, right?

Why not? Well, because the chances of this kind of specialized fine -tuning that we discover in our universe, it's not only so small, it's vanishingly small.

Did you catch that? That little line that he said just there? It's not just that the odds against fine -tuning are so great, they're incomprehensibly great.

This hyperbolic way of communicating is key. So, when you want to communicate in this particular way, it lends itself to what you want to try to say to the audience in a memorable way.

Which, by the way, the numbers do bear this out. So, it's not like Dr. Craig is exaggerating by any stretch. So, again, in terms of walking the balance between logic and rhetoric as a debater, every good debater must walk that balance, well,

Dr. Craig is walking that balance. As a matter of fact, I would argue that he could probably use more rhetorical language, a little bit more, to communicate in a memorable way here.

Of course, there is such a thing as overusing rhetorical language to the point where the audience gets fatigued by it, but Dr.

Craig is using these things sparingly, in my opinion, and it really does help him to drive home the point. In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists an infinite number of randomly ordered universes composing a sort of world ensemble or multiverse of which our universe is but a part.

Somewhere in this infinite world ensemble, finely tuned universes will appear by chance alone, and we happen to be one such world.

There are, however, at least two major failings of the world ensemble hypothesis.

First, there is no evidence that such a world ensemble exists. No one knows if there are other worlds.

Moreover, recall that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved that any universe in a state of continuous cosmic expansion cannot be infinite in the past.

Their theorem applies to the multiverse too. Therefore, since the past is finite, only a finite number of other worlds can have been generated by now, so that there is no guarantee that a finely tuned world will have appeared in the ensemble.

Second, if our universe is just a random member of an infinite world ensemble, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe than we in fact observe.

Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that it is inconceivably more probable that our solar system would suddenly form by a random collision of particles than that a finely tuned universe should exist.

Penrose calls it utter chicken feed by comparison. So, if our universe were just a random member of a world ensemble, it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing a universe no larger than our solar system.

Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis.

On atheism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no world ensemble.

So here's an observation for you. By the way, Matt Bell is asking, you know, throw some questions into the live stream, absolutely do it, and I'll try to answer your questions as we go along here.

Here's an observation for you. You ready? Why is Dr. Craig spending so much time taking the gas out of alternative theories to fine -tuning?

Right? Chance, multiverse, etc. Why? Because, first and foremost, he's taking away the force of refutation from his opponent.

If you think that your interlocutor is going to argue against you in key ways when they get up and it's their turn to speak — and by the way, you better be sure, because if you're wrong, then you're wasting time, right?

— but if you suspect that they're going to make some arguments and you anticipate their objections in your opening statement, what you've done, besides refuting your opponent to a degree, is that you've laid the framework for the audience to hear your opponent try to refute you later on.

Okay? So in this case, right, you might say, well, you know, my opponent is going to get up and he's going to tell you about the multiverse.

But remember, when you hear the multiverse, there is no evidence for it, right?

Also, remember, when you hear the multiverse from my opponent, just remember this. If it were true, the universe should be much smaller than it is, or whatever

Dr. Craig just said right there, okay? Therefore, he cannot support his claims about the multiverse. Now, think about this.

The moment Dr. Pyle gets up and tries to argue for the multiverse, the audience should remember Dr. Craig's defeaters, and so the force of the refutation won't be there in theory, right?

Now, does that work 100 % on the audience? No. But, you know, more often than not, it does. And it's definitely—it's a wise strategy for a wise debater, okay?

Just remember this, because there's a warning in here. Time is against you on the debate stage, okay?

So if you're going to do this, you're going to anticipate your opponent's objections. You better make sure it's worth your time to do it.

That's all I've got to say. Thus, the last ring of defense of the alternative to chance—of chance, rather—collapses.

So, we may argue as follows. One, the fine -tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

Two, the fine -tuning is not due to either physical necessity or chance. Three, therefore, it is due to design.

Thus, the fine -tuning of the universe implies the existence of a designer of the cosmos. Number three, objective moral values are plausibly grounded in God.

If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. By objective moral values,

I mean values which are valid and binding, whether anybody believes in them or not. Many atheists agree that if God does not exist, then moral values are not objective in this way.

Michael Ruse, a noted philosopher of science, writes, The position of the modern evolutionist is that morality is a biological adaptation, no less than our hands and feet and teeth.

Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.

I appreciate that when somebody says, Love thy neighbor as thyself, they think they are referring above and beyond themselves.

Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory.

Okay. By the way, forgive me. I sped him up a little bit because...anyway.

So, again, if you're keeping track, Dr. Craig started out with the origin of the universe and the

Kalam cosmological argument. Then he talked about how fine -tuning points to a designer of the cosmos.

Now he's bringing up objective moral values in the moral argument. That's where this is headed. All of this is meant to make the case that the

Christian God does exist. How? Because the Christian God is the best explanation for each of these contentions.

So this is an abductive way of getting to the conclusion. All of this, by the way, belongs in the category of what's called confirmatio.

Okay. So, again, let's talk about the bare bones of a debate. We're talking about what is the secret sauce that William Lane Craig—that makes him so wonderful.

Well, he's hitting everything that he should do on the debate stage.

He's doing everything. He's not missing anything. Okay. So maybe that's one way to answer it, and I'll answer it more at the end.

But, again, if you run his opening statement through the x -ray and you see the bones, then what you're going to find is the introduction, then the definition of key terms and facts, then laying a good framework for the audience, then outlining the rest of his speech, which was very brief, and now making the case, providing the contentions.

This is all—the making the case part—under the category of what's called confirmatio.

It means to prove your case. Like Professor Roos, I just don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, the herd morality evolved by Homo sapiens is objective.

On the atheistic view, some action—say, rape—may not be socially advantageous, and so in the course of human development has become taboo.

But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone.

But the problem is that objective values do exist. So I remember Dr. Craig's debate against Sam Harris.

I think I reacted to that debate with Sam Harris—one of the most viewed William Lane Craig debates out there—and

Dr. Harris said essentially the same at the end of his book, The Moral Landscape. I think he said something like, you know, there is no significant difference between a sinner and a saint.

I suppose Harris is saying the same thing that Dr. Roos is saying, which, boy, guys, that is a tough pill to swallow if you're a materialist, right?

That there is no such thing as objective good and objective evil. That runs counter to everything your intuition and experience tells you as a human being, and yet that's the pill that you have to swallow in order to be consistent.

By the way, Michael Roos, not a Christian. So once again, Dr. Craig points out what nonbelievers are saying, and then he further establishes his ethos while doing it.

Let me take a couple questions here. One of them from Lil Dude.

Thank you. In William Lane Craig's ontological argument, he compared his refutation to a perfectly good pizza and stated that a perfectly good pizza could not exist logically.

Could you expand? I don't know.

I don't know the answer to that. I've not heard that interaction. I don't know what he means by that.

I really couldn't tell you. What I can tell you is any pizza that has no pineapple on it is perfectly good.

Chantal Morin, how can I apply these debate principles in a one -on -one conversation with someone?

That is a great question, Chantal. Somebody else asked a question before I went live, and so I want to answer both of those questions,

Chantal, at the end. Chantal. So stick with me, and I'm going to circle back around, and I promise I'll answer that question.

I know there's a couple other questions, but let's keep going. And deep down, we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world.

Actions like rape, cruelty, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behavior.

They're moral abominations. Ruse himself admits the man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says two plus two equals five.

Some things, at least, are really wrong. Similarly, love, equality, and self -sacrifice are really good.

Hence, we may argue as follows. One, if God does not exist, then objective values do not exist.

Two, objective values do exist, from which it follows logically and inescapably. Three, therefore,

God exists. So notice again, it's not just quoting authority that he's doing.

He's also providing deductive arguments for his contentions. Okay, so this leads me to a question that Matt Bell asked.

I want to throw that in here as well. Matt Bell asks—it's a very good question—what's a very effective tactic that William Lane Craig uses that you would like to see other debaters use more often?

It is utilizing different kinds of proofs to strengthen your case.

So again, I mentioned this before, but there are different kinds of proofs. One of them is quoting authority, right?

Utilizing quotes from experts in their field, but particularly quotes from people who are not—they are not on your side on this, you know?

They're on the interlocutor's side. But then also inductive arguments. Deductive arguments.

What I can't remember—and I'm sure debaters have done this before, and I'm just—I'm probably not remembering because I'm 44 years old, but I can't remember the last debater that's done this so well, and I think this is one of the things that William Lane Craig does very well, is he utilizes different kinds of proofs, okay?

So it's not just that he's going to make some inductive arguments for the existence of God, right? That he's going to make some kind of a cumulative case where the inference to the best explanation is that God exists.

Interspersed with the things that he's saying, he's also going to provide you a deductive argument. So the Kalam cosmological argument is deductive.

Did he do the moral argument? The moral argument is a deductive argument, right? So it's not just those things.

It's also the deductive arguments. It's also the quoting from authority. I don't see a lot of debaters do that,

Matt. And so that's what I would say is key. It strengthens your case.

It provides work for the other side. Dr. Pyle has his work cut out for him. When he gets up on stage, when it's his turn to give his opener and then provide rebuttals for Dr.

Craig, he's got a lot of work ahead of him, and this is why. So this is great.

By the way, I'm not saying Dr. Pyle can't refute the things that Dr.

Craig is saying. It's just going to take a lot of work. So anyway, let's keep going. Number four, the historical facts concerning the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus imply

God's existence. The historical person, Jesus of Nazareth, was a remarkable individual.

New Testament critics have reached something of a consensus that the historical Jesus came on the scene with an unprecedented sense of divine authority, the authority to stand and speak in God's place.

He claimed that in himself the kingdom of God had come. And as visible demonstrations of this fact, he carried out a ministry of miracle working and exorcisms.

But his supreme confirmation of his radical claims was his resurrection from the dead. If Jesus did rise from the dead, then it would seem that we have a divine miracle on our hands and thus evidence for the existence of God.

Now, most people would probably think that the resurrection of Jesus is something you just believe in by faith or not.

But there are actually three established facts recognized by the majority of New Testament historians today, which

I believe are best explained by the resurrection of Jesus. Fact number one, on the Sunday following his crucifixion,

Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. According to Yaacob Kahn, Happy Easter, y 'all.

Okay, you guys using this in your conversations? Are you utilizing the minimal facts of the resurrection in your conversations leading up to Easter?

Here we go, right? An Austrian specialist in resurrection studies, by far most scholars hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements about the empty tomb.

Fact number two, on separate occasions different individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death.

According to the prominent New Testament critic Gautam Lüdemann, it may be taken as historically certain that the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which

Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ. These appearances were witnessed not only by believers but also by unbelievers, skeptics, and even enemies.

Fact number three, the original... So I hope that you're starting to see the answer to the question.

Again, the whole reason for this video, and we're walking through this live and I'm tripping over myself and, you know, making mistakes along the way, is we're trying to figure out what is

Dr. Craig's secret to being a great debater? And the answer is he goes by the numbers, down the line, and does everything a good debater needs to do.

He's listing his contentions. He's throwing in both inductive and deductive reasoning. He's anticipating objections from his interlocutor.

He's quoting from authority. But when he does so, they're usually from atheists and non -believers who are experts in the relevant field of study.

Okay? More than that, he started off well. Okay? So he laid a good framework, ensuring that burden of proof does not rest singularly on his shoulders, but also on Dr.

Pyle's shoulders! That is a beautiful, delicious meal of an opening speech, because everything you're looking for is on the plate.

And that's his secret. He puts it all on the plate. He doesn't hold anything back.

...original disciples suddenly came to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, despite having every predisposition to the contrary.

Jews had no belief in a dying, much less rising, Messiah. And Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone's rising from the dead before the end of the world.

Nevertheless, the original disciples came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief.

N .T. Wright, an eminent New Testament scholar, concludes, that is why, as a historian, I cannot explain the rise of early

Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him. Ooh, but wait a sec!

N .T. Wright is a Christian! What is Dr. Craig doing there? Well, he's already laid down a ton of quotations from non -believers that he's absolutely allowed to bring in someone from the

Christian side, especially if it serves his purpose. Of course he should do that. So that's not out of bounds.

Like I said, it's a balance of trying to find people who are not friendly to the

Christian worldview, or whatever your stance is on a resolution or on a debate stage, and also finding people who are experts in their field.

N .T. Wright is an expert. He's a historian on the resurrection, so this is all appropriate.

Dr. Craig is really good at this kind of stuff. Attempts to explain away these three great facts, like the disciples stole the body or Jesus wasn't really dead, have been universally rejected by contemporary scholarship.

Therefore, it seems to me, the Christian is amply justified in believing that Jesus rose from the dead and was who he claimed to be.

But that entails that God exists. Finally, number five, you can experience God personally.

This isn't really an argument for God's existence. Rather, it's the claim that you can know that God exists wholly apart from arguments, simply by immediately experiencing him.

This was the way people in the Bible knew God. As Professor John Hicks says, to them God was not an idea adopted by the mind, but an experienced reality which gave significance to their lives.

If you're sincerely seeking God, then I believe that God will make his existence evident to you.

We mustn't so concentrate on the external proofs that we fail to hear the inner voice of God speaking to our own hearts.

So in conclusion, if Dr. Pyle wants us to believe... Okay. I don't know what that is doing right there.

Point number five, contention number five, I don't know what that is meant to do.

The inner testimony of the work of the Holy Spirit is evidence for God's existence. One of these things is not like the other, right?

My first thought is, well, and I just don't know if this is a charitable take on Dr.

Craig or not, but my first thought is, you know, sometimes interlocutors will introduce something into the debate, like right in the opening speech, that is not important, may not even be correct, may be an intentional error, so that their opponent will consume valuable time refuting it and let the main contentions go unchallenged.

Okay? I don't know if what Dr. Craig is—if that's what he's doing right here, but I will say this.

I don't know what this fifth contention is here for. I say that because I don't know how Dr. Pyle is supposed to engage this fifth contention in a meaningful sense.

Okay? So the video is about how Dr. Craig shines and what his secret to debating is.

Maybe this is Dr. Craig trolling his opponent. I mean, I—or maybe he really thinks this is a legitimate point to make in his opening speech.

I don't think it is, so from my perspective, like if I had a ballot in my hand and I was flowing this debate as a judge,

I would absolutely put a question mark on this fifth contention. We're almost done. I'll circle back and try to answer some questions.

Stick with me. Otherwise, then he must first tear down all five of the reasons that I've presented and in their place establish a case of his own to prove that God does not exist.

Unless and until he does that, then I think we should agree that theism is the more plausible worldview.

Okay. Very good. All righty.

So there we see the conclusion, or what's called the peroratio, okay, where you—this is where you just wrap up your arguments, you re -emphasize your points, you lay the framework one more time.

Okay? I strongly encourage you, if you are a debater and you want to get on the debate stage—I get emails, I don't know how many, about just about every month from people who are like, man,

I want to get into debates. I've been watching your Debate Teacher React series, they're really helpful. Listen, if that's your goal, the key—like if you're thinking of hierarchy, what is more important than something else?

Well, I would argue, you know, you need to do all of it, right? But the key to winning, more often than not, it really does come down to laying a good framework.

For those of you who have been with me for a while, you're probably tired of me saying this, but it's true, guys. It's true.

So lay the framework in your conclusion, and then you just give a strong concluding statement.

Again, stories are very helpful with this kind of stuff, illustrations, these things do help. Dr. Craig didn't do any of those things, he probably just ran out of time, and so kept it concise and to the point.

That's totally fine. Okay? So let's turn the corner here.

This is the final lap, all right? Thank you for those of you that are with me. I'm going to answer your questions. But let's put these pieces together, and I hope that you've been keeping track, okay?

What's so great about William Lane Craig's debate skills? There's a lot to say, but I would focus on two areas in my answer, okay?

First, he knows each of the component pieces that go into debate, okay?

And he's very skilled at laying out those component pieces. In opening statements, those component pieces are, one more time, intro, definition of key terms and facts, laying a good framework, outlining your speech, listing your contentions clearly, and conclusion.

And I hope that you picked up on this, but each of those particular things are designed for the audience.

They're designed to be remembered by an audience who is not taking notes, typically, and they're probably not going to keep up with every single word that you're saying.

So you have to speak clearly. Notice how Dr. Craig, I had to speed him up, because he was speaking so slowly.

But that's key. Why? Because he wants to be remembered. He wants his audience to remember the things that he's saying.

And so that's it. Intro, all of those things, are designed for the audience to remember you, to remember what you're saying.

And laying the framework is one of those things where if they adopt your framework and they remember it, it's over for your opponent.

It just is. And each of those pieces were clearly on display in Dr. Craig's opener, he filled them out well with multiple proofs to support his position.

Here's the other thing. So number two, Dr. Craig, and this comes with wisdom and over time, okay?

So there's nothing else. You don't learn this, right? You just have to keep doing it, and then it just kind of sinks in.

Dr. Craig makes good decisions on the debate stage, okay? For example, he immediately recognized that there was no clear burden of proof in the debate.

And so he ensured that his opponent would shoulder his own burden when his turn comes. And this is all part of laying that framework, okay?

Also, when it came time to cite quotations, almost all of them came from sources friendly to his interlocutor, which again, helps develop his own ethos.

Your opponent cannot just bat away with a wave of the hand the citations that you are using because they're coming from people who are not in agreement with you on your stance on the resolution, okay?

He also anticipated his opponent's objections in order to take away the force of refutation when it's

Dr. Pyle's turn to get up and speak. Now, he didn't spend a ton of time anticipating objections.

It's almost like he just kind of sprinkled it like a seasoning on top of his contentions. You know, these little critiques here and there, right?

All of this really strengthened his case and set him up well for Dr. Pyle's eventual rebuttals.

Hopefully, this exercise was helpful for you. And now it's time for me to sort of talk to you all.

What did you think? What is the secret sauce to Dr. Craig's debate abilities? Let me know in the comments and we'll discuss.

I'm going to try to go back up to some of these questions. And just in the last several minutes I got here,

I'll try to answer questions for you. Boy, Matt, you're right. If you can just tag me,

I think that's helpful for me to see some of these questions. Because I'm trying to see.

So Zach Feature says, if the audience is the judge and if the audience is unaware of unexpected debate structure skills, would that take away from Craig's greatness that might explain

Hitchens' focus on emotive rhetoric? So yeah, you're onto something here, Zach. Yeah, well, let me back up.

In formal debates, and I've talked about this, there's this tension that I have in doing this kind of an exercise, which is trying to squash formal rules down on top of debates that are not as formal.

It's interesting, because I was talking to William Lane Craig about this, and I sort of alluded to my opinion, which is that theology and apologetics debates are not exactly formal enough, in my opinion.

And he sort of came back at me, and it was very friendly, but he was like, no, they're actually very formal, you know? And I'm not going to do a

William Lane Craig impersonation, but they're very formal, and they're timed, and all this stuff.

And he's right, but you can't just take the rules of judging in the world that I used to live in, doing this kind of a thing in the public school circuit, and just squash it down on what we just saw, because there's a tension that's involved here.

And so yeah, there are no judges. When you go and you hear, oh, James White is debating

Brandon Robertson in some church in Houston, well, I'm just going to go there and sit. You're the judge. You're the audience member. You don't know these things.

So yeah, not knowing structure, not knowing skills, it kind of does take away the greatness if...so

let me back up. The reason why Craig is so good is that he speaks in a manner that you don't need to know the structure, okay?

So from the audience's perspective, my goal is just to keep up, right? Especially with William Lane Craig.

Come on. Like, how many degrees does he have, right? I'm just trying to keep up, okay? Well, Dr. Craig is going to speak very slowly for me.

He's going to help me in that way. Dr. Craig is also going to speak, and he's not going to use the $1 .50 philosophical terms—not too many of them—for me.

He's going to speak more clearly to help me, right? He's going to tell stories and illustrations to help me remember, okay?

He's going to lay a framework out for me so that I can remember the things that he's saying, okay?

Yes, that actually is the format and structure of a good debate from a good debater, but also, you don't need to know the form—it's like watching a movie, you know?

You don't need to be a critic from the New York Times to enjoy a good movie, you know?

At some level, you just enjoy it, okay? A critic can actually expose the things that go into good filmmaking, but you don't need to know that, and that's,

I think, how Dr. Craig is so beloved by so many people, including atheists—atheists recognized, man, this guy's got the juice.

Let's go back up here. It seems like there's a conversation about Craig's fifth contention.

Yeah, so I don't—it looks like somebody was saying that he's moving—so

Zach says he's moving from the cosmic to the personal in his argumentation. Okay, oh, you have an earlier comment.

I love dead air, guys. I love silence and dead air. I don't. I'm sorry,

Zach, I can't find—I can't find the earlier comment. But, you know, did

I hit everybody's questions? What is your go -to method—oh, Average Galore.

AVG Galore. What is your go -to method for Bible and exegesis? Okay, this is totally—let's shift now and make a left turn here.

I have a Bible study plan that I developed when I was a pastor at my local church here in Las Vegas. I can share it with you,

Average Galore. So here's what I encourage you to do. Hit me up on the email, so hello at wisedisciple .org,

and I will give you my—it's a PDF, you can just look at it and use it. It's a five -day Bible reading plan.

I think it's—I'm obviously biased—I think it's going to help you because it's designed to get you to plumb the depths of the rich of the truths of Scripture, the richness of the truths of Scripture.

Because, you know, let's face it, a lot of Bible reading plans, you know, they want you to go for distance.

My Bible reading plan is to go for depth, okay? If there's this interesting encounter that you can have with God by the power of His Holy Spirit, by reading

His Word—and what I mean by that is the Word comes to bear on your life in a very particular way for something that you're dealing with right at the very moment that you happen to open up the

Bible and read that passage—then my Bible plan is going to help, okay? So I encourage you to go email me and I'll send it to you.

I mean, in terms of exegesis, I mean, you know, you learn these things in school. I think there's a great book that Gordon Fee wrote about exegesis proper.

I think it's literally just called Exegesis. I think it's open to the layman. Like, you don't need to be a seminarian to read that book and get something out of it, so I encourage you to check out

Gordon Fee's book on exegesis. There's actually another book, too, that was very helpful, sort of a more layman -style book.

I think it's called Grasping God's Word. I think I have it back here on my bookshelf.

Grasping God's Word by Gordon Fee. Oh, somebody can fact -check me.

I think it's Gordon Fee and somebody else. So, two authors there, but those books will really help you.

I learned exegesis by sitting with my mentor and spending time with him in a pastoral intern program for 12 months, and he taught me how to preach.

And the way that he preached and broke things down in terms of outlines was, it tracked along—I got any pastors in the room here?

It tracked along Brian Chappelle's sermonic expository outline way of preaching, of exegesis.

So anyway, thank you for the question. Oh, here we go, Zach. Craig seems to be moving from the big picture to the personal origins of the universe, fine -tuning morality.

Could that be the logic? Um, so I'm not—I guess I would have to watch the entire debate again.

I'm right now missing, like, what happens next in terms of what Dr. Pyle does, you know, with his opening statement and, of course, the rebuttals.

There was no cross -examination, as far as I remember, in this kind of a debate, but there could be some logic behind, you know, the internal witness of the

Holy Spirit. I mean, this sounds—maybe he wants to do a Plantinga kind of a thing. I just—I don't know.

Like, when you hit all of these objective evidences, right? Kalam, you know, fine -tuning, and then you go, also, the internal witness of the

Holy Spirit, it just—it just seems, like, out of place. So, I could be wrong.

I should probably go back and watch the whole debate, and then I guess we'll determine that.

Zach, you can tell me, you know, should that be in there or not? Yeah, Afflicted, thank you. Grasping God's Word by Duvall and Hayes.

There it is. Thank you. Yeah, that's the book. It's an amazing book. Nobody needs to go to seminary to read that book, and it will absolutely bless you.

Thank you, Afflicted. Okay, let me—I got a few minutes left, so let me—I got some questions in from the community tab.

So, a couple days ago, I was saying, hey, let's do a live stream to celebrate 8 ,000 subscribers or 7 ,000 or wherever we are.

By the way, so blessed, you guys, to have you with me and to just be on this journey. I mean,

I never would have thought when I made the first Debate Teacher Reacts that we would be here. So, thank you, guys. Appreciate you quite a bit, quite a bit.

Let me go to the first question here. So, Jimmy asks this question, what makes a debate worthwhile?

Is Christian apologetics too reliant on the public debate format?

Okay, wow, that's an interesting question. Yeah, a debate is worthwhile when both interlocutors come to provide the best case from their position on a particular resolution, okay?

I was just talking to Cameron Bertuzzi about this on his channel, so—and he asked me a very similar question, and I said that debates, when done well, promote truth -seeking, which is what we all should be after, right?

Christian, non -Christian, whatever. Follow the truth wherever it leads, amen? So, I think good debates foster that kind of spirit, and then bad debates are—well, they're just bad, okay?

So, you know, I think a good example of a worthwhile debate is—oh, is it

Trent Horn versus Ben—what's that guy's name? Watson?

Is it Ben Watson? Ben Wat -something? Wat -key? I don't know. I didn't see the entire debate, granted, but what

I did see, it seemed to retain that spirit that I'm talking about. Cameron said that it looks like Trent Horn and Dr.

W, they exchanged their opening statements and some of the other segments of their debate ahead of time so that they could actually really get at their differences provide true clash.

Great! I think that's amazing. I think it's an amazing idea. I think more debates should be like that.

I think you'll get a lot of value out of it, you know? Worthwhile debates typically are between two philosophers, okay?

People who are scholarly and have academic credentials. Why? Well, because that's typically the recipe for careful thought and academic rigor, is to be going through a

PhD program, you know? Does apologetics rely too much on debate?

That's a good question. I don't think so. When I think of Christian apologetics, I immediately think of the

Christian apologetics organizations like Stand to Reason, Reasonable Faith, Cold Case Christianity, you know,

Reasons to Believe, Cross -Examined, you know, Alpha and Omega Ministries. And while most of the individuals involved in those ministries have not debated—or, no, they have debated—I think

Jim Wallace has not debated—I get the sense that their primary materials are not found in debate, but they're found in the written books that they write, the resources, the blogs, the podcasts, the videos that they make on their website, right?

And then the apologetics events that they put on. So I've been lately traveling around with, you know, tracking

Stand to Reason as they go and put on the reality events all around the country. Those have been excellent, excellent.

Stand to Reason does a really great job with that. Romy Urock asks a question.

Nate, as a—I lost it. I'm a professional. Nate, as someone who lives in Vegas, do you think it's okay for Christians to go to the casino?

Obviously, Keno must be a sin. Well, but what about Blackjack? Eating at their buffet is restaurants going to shows.

What do you think? Okay. Well, the short answer is, it's okay for Christians to go to a casino, okay?

In the same way that it's okay for a Christian to have some wine or to drink a beer, okay?

The problem comes in when excess takes over and the desire to make gambling an idol in your life takes over, okay?

If you notice, the Bible doesn't teach that gambling is a sin. But you know what is a sin?

Love of money, the idea of getting rich quick. That leads to tremendous disaster in the

Scripture. So for a lot of Christian folks, gambling is just going to be off -limits because the temptation is way too high for them.

I don't personally gamble at all. It's funny because I used to be a Blackjack dealer. I used to be a poker dealer on the strip in Las Vegas.

So if we're talking about past careers, this was when I was unsaved. I worked at Bally's, and I worked at Paris as a card dealer, and I also dealt roulette.

But I saw what that looks like from the dealer's perspective behind the chips, and it's just so unappealing to me that I have zero desire to gamble, okay?

So I would say, where there is no injunction against gambling, you have liberty. But be very careful to let your liberty cause you to stumble.

It's the same advice with drinking alcohol, I suppose. As far as eating buffets, I sincerely hope that there will be buffets in heaven.

I'm a huge—come on now. I'm Polynesian. I love to eat. I'm a huge fan of buffets.

But again, there it is again. Gluttony is a sin. I don't know if you've noticed, but I've slimmed down a tad since doing the

DebateTeacherReacts videos from a couple years ago. You want to know why? In COVID—well, it sounds like I'm making an excuse.

I enjoyed myself. Let me just put it that way, okay? But guess what? I had to come to grips with that.

Gluttony is a sin. In my case, that's the explanation for why

I looked like I was stung by a thousand bees. So be very careful, because we're talking about buffets.

Be very careful that variety, which is what buffets provide you, does not turn into gluttony.

And for a lot of Christians, come on. They have a problem with gluttony, okay?

I used to go to a church here in Las Vegas. They called it Calvary Chapel, but you know what they called it as a nickname?

Calorie Chapel, you know? Because we always would eat food and get together and, you know, anyway.

So maybe some Christians need to refrain from eating at buffets, right? Shows—most of the shows on the

Strip are garbage anyway, right? Both content -wise, they're just boring and awful, but also just garbage in terms of appropriate for Christians.

I will say this. There is a great show. I hope it's still on the Strip. I haven't thought about it in years, but some of my

Polynesian friends danced in this show for years. It's called The O Show. Anybody in the live stream, you've been to The O Show?

You can tell me or not. It's a Cirque du Soleil show, and they have a fire knife routine. So I'm Samoan.

For those of you that don't know, I'm Samoan, right? I'm half Samoan, and I'm part Arabic and a mixture of other things.

But apparently, if you put that mixture together, it makes a Filipino because everybody thinks that I'm Filipino.

Nope. So anyway, the Samoan—the fire knife routine comes out of the island of Samoa.

If you've been to a luau, we call it the siva 'afi. It's a rite of passage for us. So to dance the fire is something that a lot of us

Samoans know how to do. Maybe that's another video for another time. You know, I can get back here and do the haka for you or something on the next episode.

Anyway, let's go to another question. D -Pain. D -Pain asks this question.

What would you say the difference between milk and meat is in Scripture? Yeah, that's a great question.

Do we graduate to levels of understanding, or is it more application -related?

Okay. Okay. So there are two verses, D -Pain, that come to mind immediately along these lines.

1 Corinthians 3 2. All right? And if you have your

Bible—D -Pain, are you here? If you have your Bible, you can turn there. 1 Corinthians 3 2.

And this is what Paul says there, okay? I gave you milk to drink, not solid food.

For you were not yet able to receive it. Indeed, even now, you are still not able, for you are still fleshly.

Okay? The question is, what is Paul talking about? Well, it's unclear. Okay? Now, Peter does something similar.

So again, go with me in your Bible super quick. You didn't know this was going to be a Bible study.

Amen. Go to 1 Peter 2. All right? 1

Peter 2. This is a great question, D -Pain, thank you. 1 Peter 2. This is what

Peter says. Like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the

Word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, if you have tasted the kindness of the

Lord. Okay. What is Peter talking about? Well, it's a little unclear, but I think that we get a sense from the

Scripture of a few things. Number one, milk grows a baby in Christ, and so then probably milk is the simple gospel message, which actually isn't so simple, right?

You know, we never outgrow the gospel, we grow more and more into the gospel. Amen? Somebody can amen me there.

And I think it's funny, because the reason why I went to Paul first, and I think this also happens in Hebrews, before I went to Peter, is that I think the idea of milk from the

Scripture has gotten a bit of a bad rap, okay? But milk does a body good, all right?

And Peter shows us that, you know, he doesn't have a stigma attached to drinking milk in 1

Peter 2, okay? The implication, though, is that we need to grow up into holiness, which is what

Peter just gets done saying in 1 Peter 1, okay? So I think the point here is,

D. Payne, drink the milk of the gospel, grow up into more solid food, as you realize how that gospel transforms how you live day to day, okay?

A good picture of this, I think, is Paul in Romans chapter 6. So I used to memorize the entire chapter,

Romans chapter 6, with my dGroup, my discipleship group, and now I'm not fresh on it anymore. We're moved on to something else.

But Paul says in Romans chapter 6, consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus, okay?

Well, that's the gospel coming to bear on a person's life, amen? But that coming to bear aspect of living is what kills your sin.

You got to see the formula in Romans chapter 6. Actually, let me go there. I'm trying to do it from memory.

Romans chapter 6, I think it's like verse 12—or no, sorry, verse 11. Consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Watch the formula here, because what Paul's going to do is he's going to talk about the sanctification process in verse 12.

Watch this, verse 12. Therefore, do not let sin reign in your mortal body, so that you obey its lusts.

Do not go on presenting your members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, okay?

How do we do that? How do we present our members to God? How do we not present our members to sin as instruments of unrighteousness and not let sin reign in our mortal bodies?

We take the gospel, and we let it come to bear on our specific sins, right?

We consider ourselves dead to sin—that's the gospel—but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

So we take the gospel, we let it come to bear on our specific sins, and when we do that, milk turns to meat.

That's how I understand the Bible when it talks about this kind of stuff. I could be wrong, but—oh, and also,

D. Payne, you said, semi -related, does the Bible purposefully leave some areas, like eschatology, for example, ambiguous, or do they all have clear answers in the

Scripture? Oh boy. This is a whole other livestream, D.

Payne. The answer is, the Bible, while being very clear on a lot of issues, is just not on a wide swath of other issues.

It is clear that God is not interested in clearing everything up for us as Christians while we still live on this earth.

You know how I know that? Because we're still arguing about eschatology, D. Payne. We're still arguing about soteriology and all the other ologies, right?

And that's because the Bible in certain places is just not clear. God doesn't want us to have some kind of clear, concise statement that just wraps everything up with a nice, tidy bow.

And I would say that He doesn't do that because the lack of clarity gives us an opportunity to trust

Him. As I've gotten older—see, I've been through school, I got my theology degree, and I sort of went through stages where I'm like,

I got it! I got it! It's this! I can explain everything. But as I've gotten older,

I think I've really started to appreciate where the Bible doesn't really spell things out.

Actually, in a lot of cases, the Bible will give you two sort of categories that you absolutely need to affirm and hold to, but then it provides this tension, and it just leaves you with it.

And you know what you're supposed to do with that? With these two areas that provide tension? You're supposed to go, praise God. Praise God.

I don't understand it, but I trust Him. Praise God. Now, is that a popular apologetics thing to say?

No. But you know what? It's the truth, okay? There's this weird tension that happens with us

Americans and Westerners in the 21st century. We want to be like Greeks, we want to get our logical answers to questions.

The reality is, God is not interested in answering every single one of your questions. What He's tremendously interested in is redeeming

His creation and establishing His Kingdom here on Earth. And that's why everyone on this planet needs to know

Jesus Christ and what He accomplished on the cross. Everyone's very soul is at stake. Let me go to the last question here.

Taimei. Taimei. Taimei? Okay, yeah. Hey there, Nate. How do we engage in meaningful conversations with people in a society wherein simply disagreeing with them, or the current societal norm, is considered offensive, rude, and even downright hateful?

So, thank you. This ties back to a question that somebody had asked me way earlier.

Chantal, was that you? But it's the same question. This is a great question, okay?

Also, they said, I've personally lost several close friends simply for posting Bible passages and arguments for God's existence on Facebook.

Okay. Taimei, here's your answer. Don't treat your interactions like you're in a debate, okay?

Here's another interesting tension. I've sat here now as a former debate teacher, and I've spent an hour with you talking about debates and how to get better at debates.

And now, here's what I want you to do. I want you to take that and throw that out the window when you're in regular conversations with people, like your next -door neighbor or people on Facebook, okay?

Don't treat your interactions like you're in a debate. Why? Because everything is so contentious right now.

It's so contentious. Do not go into your conversations with people like you are a debate interlocutor.

You are going to ruin any kind of plan or purpose that you had.

Instead, treat your interactions like you're on a first date. Not a debate, a first date.

That rhymes. I'm a poet now. I'm a poet. But it's true. I have a whole series on this channel dedicated to unpacking this.

And one of these days, I'm going to get around... Elisa, where are you at? Elisa? I'm going to get around to making more videos related to it.

But the bottom line is, the typical paradigm of communication is a dumpster fire. And you know this time, eh?

Because you're asking the question, right? And we all know this, so I'm not telling you something you don't know. In a two -person conversation, person number one is understood, is just supposed to say a bunch of words, make a bunch of speeches, and it's understood that person number two is just supposed to sit back, be quiet, and listen.

Well then, vice versa. Then it's person number two's turn to speak, make a lot of speeches.

It's person number one's turn to just be quiet and listen, right? And a lot of people in conversations, they'll start conversations off by saying, well, you know what your problem is, right?

Is anybody in the live stream, do you start off your conversations this way? You know what the problem is, okay?

That's my father growing up. Well, you know what the problem is, son. Here's the thing. People are not really listening all that much in this kind of a dynamic of conversation.

While person number one is speaking, person number two might just be thinking about what they're going to say next, and so they're not really listening, which leads to making a lot of speeches, a lot of words, talking past each other, and if you're lucky, getting into an argument.

And I mean lucky in the sarcastic sense, okay? And I think all of this really ultimately reveals we've just forgotten how to be in relationship with each other, ladies and gentlemen.

That's why I advocate for a way of communicating, especially right at the outset, when you initially meet people, where you lead the conversations with gentle cross -examination.

You're asking questions in love, and I call it first -date evangelism. And the reason why

I advocate for this—by the way, everyone who goes to the training—I just got back from teaching this in Oklahoma a couple weeks ago—everyone who goes to the training loves it, says it's a game -changer for them.

Why? Because—oh my gosh, write this down. I'm not your pastor, but write this down.

There's a difference between telling someone they're wrong and asking them in love to explain why they're right.

Did you hear what I just said? Let me say it again. There's a difference between telling someone they're wrong and asking them in love to explain why they're right.

And that very difference is often the magical formula to changing someone's mind and getting them to listen to what you have to say.

How do you engage folks today? Be tremendously interested in them. Don't immediately cringe when you discover that they're a sinner, okay?

Newsflash, everyone is, right? Lean into them instead. Develop a rapport. Develop a relationship with them.

Put the focus on them and hear their story. And not in a manipulative sense, but just because you're a good, decent human being.

If you're—tie mate, if you're a follower of Jesus Christ, you're already supposed to be doing this anyway, guys, right?

This isn't manipulation. This is just being a normal human being. But as you get to learn about somebody, they start telling you stories about themselves, you're going to notice their worldview start to spill out of their mouth.

And when that happens, ask them leading questions about the things that you're hearing to expose their errors.

But you do it with great love and great respect for them. And you take your time. You play the long game. That's how it's done today, tie mate.

Take a look at my First Aid Evangelism series on the channel, and I hope it blesses you tremendously. Ladies and gentlemen, we have been at this for an hour and 20 minutes.

Oh, Chantal, thank you. What's the takeaway? Thank you. I am so pleased. I did a lot of mistakes on this thing, on this live stream thing.

I might have to splice some of this out. But I'm so glad that you're with me. Zach, Equip in the

Kingdom, Chantal, Alyssa, Zach Feature, all of you, thank you so much.

Matt, Bell, couldn't have done it without you guys. I'm so grateful. I'm so grateful for you all.

I'm grateful for we're nearing 8 ,000 subscribes. Let's keep going, guys. Let's keep going.

If you have any ideas about future videos, if you want me to break down other debaters in the way that I did tonight, let me know in the comments.