Ask Me Anything Presup!

All right, welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I am Eli Ayala, your host.

I feel like I'm doing like a radio show. I think I think in terms of radio I've never done radio But I think in terms of radio just because I'm in front of a mic and so I apologize if I sound a little radio ish, but I guess it's just I Don't know.

Anyway, well, um, I am Happy to Let me fix that.

Let me see if I can fix this. Yeah, I have a little old tag there this is not a pre promo video, but It's all good

Yeah, so I am happy to be on tonight I was super tired and was totally doubting whether I was going to do a live stream today, but I figured you know

You know, why not? Didn't have a specific topic in mind, but I figured if folks were interested in asking any questions about Presuppositional apologetics or anything.

I know it says ask anything about Presupp, but if you have any questions about theology philosophy

Apologetic methodology or just general apologetic questions. I would like to encourage folks to Send your questions in the chat

Now if people are just watching and they are not sending questions in the chat, then

I'll just blab but it's much more interesting when folks have questions and we can kind of We can kind of talk a little bit about those things

So I am very very happy by the way with a lot of the questions. I have been receiving just through personal email

I've been very encouraged to to hear folks. Let me just Get something here real quick I'm being

I feel very encouraged of hearing folks who have come to adopt

The presuppositional method after having watched you know and listened to the podcast and things like that So I'm very excited that revealed apologetics is is really accomplishing one of its goals

Of course, the main goal is to glorify God right in everything that we do which of course the emphasis here is apologetics, but one of the reasons why

I One of the reasons why I'm doing this apart from that main central feature of honoring

God in the area of apologetics is that as a presuppositional apologist who believes that the methodology is scriptural and is the

Apologetic method that people should use if you're a Christian you believe the Bible to be the Word of God We hold it as our ultimate authority

I wanted to promote this kind of apologetic methodology and to the best of my ability explain it in a way that is clear practical intellectually

Powerful and hopefully I I'm able to do that. I mean I I'm also learning as well.

So You know, it's a difficult task But at the same time I'm very happy with a lot of the fruit that that's come about I've had some interesting personal

Interactions with folks who have been enjoying just listening to the content and and hopefully being able to unpack some of these popular

Misunderstandings. Okay, there's when I flip through Facebook and I hear I read what people have to say about Presuppositionalism or you know when someone says presuppositionalists say a

B and C and I'm reading I'm like no What it's totally not what we say. So there's a lot of confusion

So one of my goals is to help clarify and in the process I'm learning what

I appreciate about the listeners is that many of the questions that they ask I look forward to Reading questions that I really haven't thought about before because this is also a learning process for myself

I mean, I've studied the methodology for quite some time But I mean there are aspects of it that I need to flesh out in my own mind so that I could explain it

Better and defend it better and things like that. So I very much appreciate Questions. Okay.

Now I do see some questions coming in this that's wonderful We'll wait just a few more moments before I take some of them.

I don't want If I happen to go through the questions so quickly I don't want it to steal the thunder and then we're kind of done

So, um, I do want to give a shout out. Okay for those of you guys who have

For those of you guys who have been following kind of the the

Revealed apologetics website and the precept you precept University the online class that I'll be teaching and I've been offering

I have been super excited with the response. We already have signups For precept you we have a couple of folks signing up for the basic and a bunch of people signing up for the premium

So I'm looking forward to having a decent size class. There's still Slots available.

So if you guys want to sign up and take an online course with me I'll be your instructor and we'll get into some of the deeper issues of precept methodology you can do that by visiting reveals apologetics comm right now and Sign up right there on the website so you can do that if that's something that you are interested in now

What I do want to really say is thank you there are a lot of people who have been supporting the ministry who have been who've been signing up as I said and are just really

Excited about what's going on with the real reveals apologetics. It's a big deal I've never had a website before so we're just super happy that the website is up and so I just want to give a shout out and say thank you for those who have supported

Even just behind the scenes helping out with the website and things like that So I'm greatly greatly appreciative and very very humbled by just the generosity of some people.

So, thank you. Thank you. Thank you All right, well this particular episode is entitled ask me anything

So literally this is an opportunity for you to literally ask me anything now

Step number one of apologetics or you want to be a good apologist, right? There's something you need to learn to do

All right. This is a secret that only those who have Have gone through seminary and survived the you know survived at the end of the day, right?

Is that you need to be able to learn? How to say I don't know when someone asks a question, okay when we do apologetics there tends to be in a weird kind of way a kind of Intellectual pride that can accompany that and so we try to answer all questions

Even though sometimes we might not know the answer We kind of just spit out answers because we don't want to look like we're you know a deer in headlight

So so I'll let you know right now I'll be the first to admit when I don't know the answer to a question and I'm actually hoping that someone asks a question tonight that I don't know because that gives me something to Give you something to study.

Okay, so hopefully I won't get stumped today and look like an idiot, but Anything could happen.

It's 2021, right? So, all right, so Let's take a look at some of these questions here.

Well, we'll go through some of the comments to some people saying some nice things here Okay, here we have we have a question by Wes Phillips He asks if we can't reason people to God because of the noetic effects of sin isn't tag also an attempt to reason people to God, okay now the noetic effects of sin pertains to the effects of sin upon the mind of man so when we argue presupposition

Lee and we argue utilizing a transcendental argument, you'll often hear the phrase that You know, if if God did not exist knowledge would be impossible

I'd have got if Christianity wasn't true. You wouldn't know anything. And so if that's true, then why are we arguing with the unbeliever?

Well, if you can't know anything, then what's the point of giving him arguments? Well, the point is that because the

Bible's true from the presupposition list worldview perspective Even though it's true that he's his mind is affected by sin he still has a knowledge of God that he is suppressing and Between the believer and unbeliever that there is the point of contact

I am appealing to the image of the knowledge of God in that man. And how is this expressed?

Okay, when the unbeliever rejects the Christian worldview He rejects the only worldview context in which intelligibility and knowledge is possible

However, he does have knowledge He does have intelligibility why not because his worldviews true

But because the Christian worldviews true and he's borrowing from principles that only make sense within the

Christian perspective And so even in that suppression I can speak to him in a sense that he can understand

Because he is made in the image of God and he has a knowledge of God that Allows him to make sense out of the things he's using to actually argue against God.

Okay, so so we're not saying as presupposition list that because The unbeliever rejects the

Christian worldview that he doesn't know anything We believe he knows something but he doesn't know them because his worldview context is true

If his worldview were true, he wouldn't actually know the things that he knows But because his worldview is not true and the

Christian worldview is true the things that he does know He's actually borrowing from the Christian worldview perspective.

Okay, so we can speak to the unbeliever and And have confidence that he is able to understand what we're saying.

Also, we are not reasoning people to God This is very key okay, the question here is if we can't reason people to God because of the noetic effects of sin isn't tag also an attempt to Reason people to God.

No, that's a false false assumption in the question Okay, remember what is what is the important item of the

Christian worldview that all men already have a knowledge of God? Okay, so we're not reasoning people to God we are exposing the fact that they actually know

God Okay, and they are suppressing that knowledge and we demonstrate that by showing that in their rejection

They're actually assuming things that only make sense if God exists if the Christian worldview perspective is true remember from a presuppositional perspective because we believe

That God is the ultimate foundation for reasoning the ultimate foundation for knowledge right that God's revelation provides for us this context for a coherent worldview that can that can have the grounds for logic for knowledge for intelligible experience

And because he's our highest authority Hebrews 613 even God when he promises to Abraham He swears by himself because there's no one else higher than he is to swear by right because he is the metaphysical ultimate

Okay We do not Reason people to a

God that they don't know he is our foundation We take God's revelation into consideration when engaging the unbeliever and on God's authority

God has told us the nature of the unbeliever And so we engage the unbeliever in a way that assumes what

God has told us about him And what does what does the Word of God tell us about the unbeliever? Well, he has a knowledge of God He's suppressing that okay, of course the unbeliever is gonna deny that and in the context

I don't necessarily say this to the unbeliever like you really know God and I'm gonna you know it's an assumption that I have because of the divine authority of the

Bible if that's what it teaches and then my job is the Apologist is to expose that he actually has a knowledge of God So for us because God is metaphysical ultimate

God is not so much a conclusion to an argument But rather he is the metaphysical starting point upon which if he is rejected

You couldn't reason at all. You see so God is not the end of the argument God is the beginning of the argument and we're saying reject it and you've lost knowledge.

You've lost intelligible experience things like that okay, so I hope that answers the the question and It's a good question.

Good question. All right, and by the way, if I if I answer a question you think it's insufficient It's not like people are breaking down the doors to ask why

I mean there's just a couple of questions here Feel free to follow up and ask another question. Maybe I can clarify. Okay, look at this.

You see I'm so tired I tried to drink my coffee and the the hole is on the other side. There we go.

That's awkward Hmm All right, so let's remove that bad boy

Okay. Thank you. There's a good not a question. But good day. Good day to you. It is actually

What time is it here? It's actually 912 912 in the night over here. So actually good night to me.

So all right Uh Michael Hobbes asks why not

Lutheran so maybe he's asked me why I'm not a Lutheran Well quite simply

I'm not a Lutheran because I'm convinced that Calvinism is true Okay, so I'm I'm a

Calvinist and I hold to The reformed tradition with a more baptistic leaning so I do not hold to a an infant

Baptist infant baptism perspective So I differ from the Presbyterians and the Lutherans in that regard so again, my theology tends to be more reformed along Calvinistic lines and as a subcategory of that,

I'm also Baptistic in my in my orientation. So that's to say I hold to believers baptism not infant baptism okay, so there are other aspects there too, but without getting into the whole history of the differences between Calvinism reform

Baptist Calvin, you know Calvinistic Baptist and all the different variations there. So so yeah, all right slam

RN says I I'll enjoy listening in good. Well, I hope you are enjoying it.

Okay, Christopher says Hello, nice to meet you. I saw your interview with James White the other day.

I am now officially a fan of yours Well, thank you so much Christopher. That's really encouraging if you're talking about the episode

I had dr. White on to talk about Molin ism. I very much enjoyed that episode as well I've actually

I've actually bumped into dr. White multiple times. I'm here in New York. Dr. White is in Arizona but he actually is connected to some churches here in Long Island and he's come to Long Island multiple times and I remember listening to for the first time in person listening to listen listens to him do a talk on church history and It was pretty embarrassing

I was sitting in the front I had a bunch of you know, dr. White's books You know when you meet somebody like maybe they'll sign my books, you know

And as he's going through his talk I I accidentally dropped all of the books and it made a large sound and he looks down and he says, you know

Took a really long time for me to write those, you know He kind of called it called me out in the middle of the talk and I kind of felt a little embarrassed at the time

But that was the first time I've ever met dr. White and then I bumped into him at a pizzeria When he was on in Long Island, he probably won't remember if he ever watches this but that was that was interesting.

All right Let's see. Here. We have let's see All right.

So J wise asked a good question How much do you need to know about other religions to be able to use the precept approach on said religions?

Okay. Well, there's not a specific Like percentage right like in order to use

Presuppositional methodology against a Muslim you need to know at least 10 % of what

Islam teaches It's not the case. Here's the deal You're gonna want to know something about a religion.

I think the beauty of presuppositional methodology is That while it's wise for you to learn about what the other religious perspective believes

Using a precept methodology doesn't require you to know everything about what they believe you're the presuppositional line of argumentation and questioning

Really strikes at the foundation of a worldview. So when I do apologetics with someone there are three things

I keep in mind just three. Okay, and I want to know what this worldview perspective believes about these three and it's not a trick

It's not like I'm looking for these three things so that I could You know a trick the person that I'm debate a lot of people think precept methodology is kind of like You know,

I like use car salesman, right? We're quick and where we we talk and we try to ask these we're very deceptive

That's not what we're trying to do You know the quite the line of questioning that the precept wants to ask are the kinds of questions that get to the very

Foundation of a person's worldview and so there are three things that I keep in mind Okay, and they're the three foundations of every worldview whether it's a

Christian worldview Some variation of an atheistic worldview or Muslim worldview, whatever and those three things are metaphysics epistemology and ethics

Big old fancy words, but in my mind, I I think of those those things So metaphysics is a big old fancy word, which deals with one's theory of reality

What does this person believe about the nature of the world? Okay. Is this person a materialist? Is this person a

Mormon? You know, they're polytheistic. Is this person? You know a Hindu what do they believe about the nature of reality now epistemology

Which is another pillar of every worldview it deals with one's theory of knowledge How did what is their their theory about how one knows what they know?

okay, and notice that metaphysics one's view of reality and Epistemology one's view of knowledge is intricately connected

So what you believe about how we know actually assumes that the nature of reality is a certain way

And then of course you have ethics. How should one live their lives? Okay, and so I look at these three components of a worldview and I ask questions so as to learn what their metaphysic is

What their epistemology is now that doesn't require me to master Islam That doesn't require me to master some variation of atheism.

Okay, it's and and again It's not a secret like I'll ask the person like what do you believe about the nature of reality?

How you know what you know how you should live your lives these are foundational questions and once a person Shares that what you want to do from a presuppositional perspective is engage in an internal critique

Can I identify? something about what they believe about the nature of reality and can

I Identify what they believe about how one knows what they know and see if they conflict with each other

Because remember a metaphysics epistemology and ethics are Foundational so if a person's metaphysic their theory of reality

Does not comport with their epistemology their theory of how one knows what they know Then the world you can't be true because it's contradictory at its core at its foundational level

Okay, and so when you're speaking with a Muslim, you don't have to master Islam Just ask question honestly openly ask questions so that you can learn

More or less what they believe about these foundational issues and try and show the conflict

Between them. Okay, so so you don't need to master a lot of these perspectives, but you do want to ask Questions.

All right, and these questions are not questions being asked for the sake of asking questions, right? We're not just saying well, how do you know?

Well, how do you know? Well, how do you know? Well, how do you know how do you know and then the person's like I hate talking to you, you know By the way, how do you know question is a perfectly fine question to ask?

I totally disagree with people who say oh here we go again with the how do you not know? How do you know that that's a perfectly valid question and people don't like that then you know, then don't don't debate don't argue

How do you know is really that epistemological question? And of course Christians should welcome that question as well

So just as I'm looking for these three worldview cores in a person's perspective I want to welcome the unbeliever to ask those things of my position as well.

Again. We're not hiding anything Presuppositional apologetics is a worldview apologetics

And so I want to lay out my system. I want to lay out my perspective I want the unbeliever to lay out his perspective so that we can have clear lines of Communication.

We know that we're operating under two systems and that we can clearly Engage in worldview combat if you will and that's not a secret, you know nefarious strategy that would know that's

Literally what we want to do because that helps clarify the Conversation and allows us to show the strength of the

Christian worldview. Okay. All right, so I hope that makes sense And if it doesn't

I'm sorry All right, okay, I scrolled too quickly so there we go

All right. So so everyone we have a noob. We have a newbie. All right, Vern Hello Vern, how's it going?

He's probably just stumbling in he says what's precept He's probably literally just listening because he has no idea what precept is and he's like,

I don't even know what this is about Presupp is short for presuppositional apologetics

Presuppositional apologetics and it is an apologetic Methodology now if if you know what apologetics is it deals with the defense of the

Christian faith So Christian apologetics is the defense of the Christian faith Presuppositional apologetics is a specific kind of method of defending the

Christian faith and as you would imagine It is an is it is an apologetic methodology that focuses on presuppositions people's underlying assumptions the worldview assumptions that they bring to the debate to the argument when you have

Believer and unbeliever. Okay, and we try to show that The unbelievers presuppositions do not provide the necessary Foundations for things like knowledge science history or whatever and we try to show that the

Christian worldview does Okay, and as a worldview apologetic we also Highlight the fact that there is no neutrality between the believer and unbeliever.

So every fact that A person holds to right is understood within a worldview context

I'm a Christian so I see facts in relation to the Christian worldview The non -christian is a non -christian and so they see the facts in relation to the non -christian worldview

Which worldview actually could make intelligible a very the very concept of fact, right and we explore those foundational questions

So presuppositional apologetics is something along those lines. Of course, there are different ways to hash it out of course,

I would be I would be very mistaken to not also include that a presuppositional methodology is also in a more

Specific sense it is an apologetic methodology that I think takes the Superiority and the ultimacy of God and his revelation very seriously

And so when we argue about the Bible, we do not cast the Bible aside or cast

You know God and the triune God is revealed himself as good You don't cast that aside to talk about these kind of abstract

Notions and and and pretend that we can talk about facts that is independent of our worldview commitments our commitments to Christ We we argue the

Christian worldview as a system and we try to do so in a way that honors The authority and the

Lordship of Jesus Christ over our thinking. Okay, so I that's a very important aspect of the precept method as well

Okay. All right. Let's see here Do -do -do

Okay, that's a repeated question. Let's see here. That's all right.

And by the way if you have a question, that's not Specifically pertaining to presuppositional apologetics, that's completely fine.

Okay, it's not that serious, right? How dare you ask a different question a question of the of a theological?

Someone has a question about why I wasn't a Lutheran. That's not not a big deal If I could answer it, I'll try my best to answer it.

Okay. All right. Let's see here Do -do -do -do -do -do -do

Okay, Alyssa Scott asked the question if precept apologetics is worldview analysis

What's the difference between that and J Warner Wallace's inside the room outside the room technique in God's crime scene

Okay God's crime scene is a book written by J Warner Wallace a very good Christian apologist who does not engage in apologetics

With the same methodology that I do. Okay, if I remember correctly, I believe he is an evidentialist now

I he might be a classicalist. I think he's an evidentialist. So I apologize if I've gotten that wrong

But I'm not familiar with the inside outside room technique, but I can tell you that J Warner Wallace does present evidences in such a way that it is possible for people to simply follow the evidence where it leads

And I do have a problem with that in that it almost assumes that the evidence that we're discussing can be understood in a neutral fashion if you just lay aside your bias as best as you can

Surely you'll be led to the for me. I think that's that's kind of wrong -headed. Although it can be effective in some context

I do think it's wrong -headed because it does slip in that notion of the possibility of Neutrality, right that there are facts that we can just objectively look at and and like a detective just follow the evidence where it leads

I don't think that that is quite as simple as it sounds Because people have different worldview perspectives people are gonna interpret the evidence differently, right?

And I don't want to grant the fact that the unbeliever can make intelligible the notion of evidence independent of Christian assumptions because my argument is that his entire framework is

Wrong -headed and that's why he will never see facts for what they are Given his unbelieving assumptions.

Okay, so I would say that there's a difference there now would J Warner Wallace admit Yeah, you know

We got to be neutral probably not but what I have a problem with with a lot of these evidential kinds of techniques is that whether whether they whether it's

Purposeful purposeful or not the concept of neutrality and autonomy two very important concepts when we're talking about presuppositional methodology

Neutrality and autonomy slip in Right, they slip in we begin to talk as though one could be neutral with respect to the evidence

So so we just followed the evidence. I remember watching a debate. I think it was William Lane Craig he says, you know,

I think it was his debate with with Christopher Hitchens, which by the way, dr. Craig gave Christopher Hitchens a proper a proper beatdown and I can

I can say that as a presuppositionalist and dr Craig is a classical apologist. I thought Apart from our methodological differences,

I thought dr. Craig did excellent, especially grilling Christopher Hitchens in the cross the cross examination, but be that as it may

Dr. Craig said something at the beginning of his opening statement if I remember correctly He says that if I know Biola students that that they have done their best to check their bias at the door

You know this assumption that you can leave your biases outside and sit down and watch this debate in this

Objective, you know neutral fashion And I think that that's that's problematic. It's impossible.

I mean I to be neutral is a myth I mean, this is I think that this is something that is not only an unbiblical way of seeing how

The the differences between the unbeliever and believer are hashed out. I think it's actually impossible.

No one no one is neutral No one could leave their bias outside. I mean the very fact that we are worldview bound

We're gonna have biases by necessity. You can't escape that and so no one is really neutral so any methodology that seems to cater to a neutral mindset with regards to the

Interpretation of facts and evidence and things like that as a presupposition list I would I would take issue with now that being said

J Warner Wallace in my opinion is an excellent apologist And he and I do agree with the evidence.

I mean the evidences that he uses are good. They're good I would use many of his evidences right as a presupposition list.

I believe everything is evidence for God Okay, because God provides that necessary context to make something like evidence even make sense to begin with but be that as it may pertaining to the specific evidences that support the historicity of the

Bible the accuracy of the New Testament the evidence for the resurrection all of those things are Valuable pieces of information that can be used

As part of the case for Christianity So there's a sense in which I would encourage people to avail themselves of you know

The work of J Warner Wallace and and people like William Lane Craig well at the same time being cognizant of the fact that we need to be careful that when we are

When we are engaging an apologetic defense and engaging the unbeliever We don't do so in a way that allows these concepts of neutrality and autonomy to seep in Okay, so we want to keep that in mind.

It's it's with it's with a balance. Okay, I can endorse certain aspects of an apologist Apologetic work even though we don't follow the exact same method because there is some crossover.

There's some usefulness with regards to What these different methodologies have to offer one another yeah heck

I had dr. Gary Habermas on for an excellent episode and We talked about how a presuppositionalist could use some of the evidential arguments if it's placed within a consistent presuppositional

Framework. Okay now Dr. Gary Habermas is not a presuppositionalist But he saw the value in what presuppositionalists bring to the table and he also expressed what he wished

Presuppositionalists did a little more and I agree with him is deal with some of the specific evidences and and historical cases and things like that I think a presuppositionalist can learn from the other methodologies, even though we think they're wrong

All right, let's see here Mm -hmm.

All right. We have a question from Jeff Jeff asked please flesh out more on the circularity of presupp

Methodology. Yeah. Well, yeah, this is a common issue that comes up If I were to say that Christianity is true by the impossibility of the contrary

Assume the opposite then you couldn't make sense out of anything If he was like, wait a second, you're assuming Christianity is true in order to argue for the truth of Christianity Yes, that's right.

And in normal cases that would be fallacious But when you are dealing with ultimate authorities then by necessity

Circularity must be the case if I'm arguing that the Christian worldview is the necessary Preconditions for intelligible experience.

How could I prove that to you? Well not presupposing the truth of that statement, right?

If God is in fact the metaphysical ultimate and he is the necessary prerequisite for even knowledge

How can I argue in a way that doesn't assume that reality? To argue in a way that doesn't assume that reality is to already falsify the nature of my claim

Right. So when we're dealing with ultimates you have circularity by necessity and that's not always a bad thing when you're dealing with ultimates

This is something that's necessary. Okay, and I think it's problematic if you're If you do not hold to a foundation of which you know

Nothing greater is is beyond that then how do you even argue if you don't have a foundation? How do you argue?

Right when you make any statements, there's no there's no ultimate foundation or context out of which something, you know That's holding up, you know what you're saying where you're arguing for so when we're dealing with you know

Foundations there they're that they're foundational, right? And so there's nothing more ultimate than those things

So from our perspective we take God at his own word and as his own authority

I do not validate the authority of God by appealing to something more Authoritative than him to validate his authority you see how that works

So if I were to validate the authority of God by appealing to some other authority Then God is not the ultimate authority this other thing by which

I judge the authority of God would be authoritative You see so when you get to that foundational level circularity is really unavoidable and as Christians Um, I have no problem with that.

God is my authority He is the context the foundation that gives meaning to everything that I do right not just apologetics

But just life in general, right? And so I embrace the Word of God Because it is the

Word of God, right? I take God at his word when he says something I believe it if someone says well,

I don't believe it and you shouldn't just take it Well, listen, if God is God, how else would I validate his word?

Right. God doesn't appeal to anything more foundational than some external standards say well

My word is authoritative because look look at this other than many gizmo No, God has because of who he is.

He has the authority to speak In a self attesting fashion. Okay, and so my commitment to Christ Requires me to take

God at his word and when I engage with unbelievers, I don't sacrifice that I don't set that aside I engage

Putting my planting my feet on the self attesting Word of God, right? And that's why when we speak of say for example

Presuppositional apologetic Epistemology our theory of knowledge. I would say that our theory of knowledge is

Revelational, okay that we start with the authority of God and we argue that if you reject that authority you reject the worldview

That that is given to us by God's revelation Then you lack the proper context to make sense out of anything now again

That's the claim that has to be fleshed out Of course within the context of interaction between the believer and the unbeliever.

Okay. All right. Good question Do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do -do.

Okay, Christopher asked the question Anyway a question that anyways, right?

That's the way the question of you guys Anyway, you could could you explain or he says you could explain the difference between classical apologetics and evidential apologetics

Is that a question? Anyway, you could Anyway, you could explain. Okay, I guess

I think I know what he's saying So explain the difference between classical apologetics and evidential apologetics Yep Classical apologetics is called classical apologetics because it has been the classical way that apologetics has been done surprise surprise, right?

And the classical apologetic methodology is a two -step apologetic approach Okay and the two -step approach takes this form the first step is to establish the existence of a theistic

God and this is typically done Through the utilization of what we call the traditional proofs

So a classical apologist would use things like the cosmological argument the teleological argument the moral argument things like that and once the existence of You know, the theistic

God is established through these arguments then they focus in a little more on The specificity of this

God often appealing to things like the historical evidence for the resurrection Okay And so you have this kind of one to you know

One -punch two -punch approach theistic God exists. The theistic God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, right?

It's like God exists. Jesus God rose Jesus from the dead. So that's the one -two punch of classical apologetics, okay

Evidential apologetics tends to focus on you know, the resurrection as well and miracles and things like that.

It's a more empirically based apologetic approach and the classical Method is very similar to the evidential method

But it's more rationalistic and that it uses more sometimes more abstract argumentation You see so part of the traditional arguments also includes arguments like the ontological argument things like that.

So Yeah, so they're those key differences there, but they're similar in some regard And then of course the presupp is like the redheaded stepchild, right?

It's completely different than then a lot of the other methods But again, there's some crossover right the presupposition list can appeal to evidence as a presupposition list myself.

I have nothing wrong I have no problem rather in using the cosmological argument or anything like that.

So, okay. I hope that makes sense All right Nick says in a brief conversation with an unbeliever

What is the best way to present why we presuppose the Bible to be the

Word of God? Yeah, that's that's a good question And I like I like how you phrased the question in a brief conversation and again when you

When you take a look for example at someone like myself or you know, you go over to some other

Christian You know apologetics YouTube channel and you watch a debate on YouTube. They tend to be very technical

They tend to be very philosophical and sometimes they're helpful. Don't get me wrong I mean, I've learned a lot from listening to debates, but sometimes

We need to remember that these highfalutin debates that take place on YouTube and the Internet is

Not what most believers are going to deal with when they're sharing their faith with say a family member or someone in school

Or something like that. Okay, and so what I like about Nick's kind of framing of his question is He says in a brief conversation.

What does this look like in the context of a conversation with someone and Really? I think at this point when we speak of Let me ask so what is the best way to present why we presuppose the

Bible to be the Word of God? Yeah, I think Briefly and concisely explaining the nature of the authority of God in the context of our relationship with him

I mean God is God. There's no one greater than than God. What else would I appeal to to validate

God? God has revealed himself to me. I know that God exists. I'm in relationship with God. You see there's that existential aspect

This is why it's important to keep these two things distinct is

That there is a difference between how we know God exists and how we show that God exists, right?

I know God exists because the inner witness of the Holy Spirit you've heard this other apologists have said this I agree with this

Okay, and we have a relationship with God But in light of my relationship with God and understanding who

God is I believe him when he speaks to me in his word Right. I take him at his word and I express to the person

Okay that because God is God and because I'm in relationship with God I trust him, right there's nothing wrong with appealing to your living real relationship with God and What role of the the authority of the

Bible plays in that right? and so we presuppose God because I believe God when he tells me that the beginning of Knowledge is the fear of the

Lord. I believe God when he tells me that all wisdom and knowledge is hidden in Christ I believe

God when it says has not God made foolish the wisdom of I believe him I take him at his word and I stand on that to not stand on that would be foolish

Right, and I would say that in the context of a conversation and you again the conversation can go anywhere at that point

It depends how the person is gonna respond. Okay, that only took a girl. It took like a minute, right? Why do you presuppose the the

God of the Bible? Well, because I take God at his word I have a relationship with him. I trust him and I find that when

I don't stand on God's Word There are certain things that happen as a result, you know For example when

I don't stand on God's Word, I begin to lose a proper context to even understand

I don't even understand what it means to Have meaningful knowledge to have meaningful coherency in my life without God's Word I couldn't imagine what it would be like to live without God's Word and without God in my life

You see there's that evangelistic flair to it And this is important because when you're doing apologetics, you cannot separate apologetics from evangelism

Especially when you're doing the kind of the brief conversation thing. You need to bring these things together There's nothing wrong with sharing your testimony and the reality of your relationship with God But at the same time that's not all we've got the person is yeah, but how do we know?

If you presuppose the Bible, how do you know your presupposition is correct and we can kind of walk through with that person

Well, let's talk about what happens when we don't presuppose God's Word You know, you don't presuppose

God's Word, right? So tell me how do you get knowledge? Where do you make sense? How do you make sense out of science?

You know you ask him these questions and then he now has to account for the things that he thinks you don't need God for And then there you're off you're off running in the conversation.

Okay, but again, it can it can take different different turns at that point Okay, all right, let's see here

Thank you, whoever gave a super chat, I think someone gave a super chat. I'm sorry if I lost it. There we go Roger Vincent gave a super chat.

Thank you so much Roger. That was very very thoughtful of you. Thank you so much I appreciate that very much.

All right. Let me see. I don't want to skip any questions here. That's me But I do it put it to do good more questions came in.

Let's see Okay, I do apologize I use StreamYard, which

I really love this format But it requires me to scroll through the comments a little by little so let me do this here

Okay Jeff asks the question I heard about Gordon Clark being the other

Presuppositionalist what are your thoughts about him? And what makes him different from Bantill? Yeah first.

I highly recommend Gordon Clark I'm gonna if you give me a second, okay, wait right there all right, okay,

I Highly respect Gordon Clark Gordon Clark was a Calvinistic philosopher

And yes, he is often called the other presuppositionalist and he wrote this beast. Okay, and this is a history of philosophy textbook

Entitled Bailey's to Dewey in which he surveys the history of philosophy and really

Gives us a good overview of The weaknesses of the various philosophical systems.

He was very sharp Logically rigorous philosopher and he was understood to be a kind of presuppositional

Philosopher apologist so I highly recommend his works don't agree with him ultimately but that again that doesn't mean

I can't learn from the guy I've learned a lot from Gordon Clark and to be perfectly honest if I can give kind of a superficial difference between Gordon Clark and Bantill is

That Gordon Clark is much more fun to read than Bantill I love

Bantill But his writing was really challenging when you read Bantill it's kind of like wait

What is he saying and you kind of really have to read it again? It's just because English wasn't his primary language and he kind of writes in a very clunky way

Gordon Clark when I read Gordon Clark, it is so clear He's so logical and rational that just in terms of reading experience

He's just an enjoyable read and he's got a lot of good things to say so that's kind of a surface level but what's the difference between Gordon Clark and Bantill with regards to their apologetics and I would imagine that's probably what you're asking

Gordon Clark had no problem identifying himself as a fideist and as a

Christian rationalist and what that means is that he believed that to build a worldview you had to start with certain axioms

Which were these? these foundational presuppositions upon which you build the rest of your worldview and so anyone could pick any axiom and so you pick an axiom and You build a worldview from there now

He believed the Christian worldview was the most coherent worldview And so he started with the axiom the

Bible is the Word of God and he said that from that axiom he can build a coherent Worldview system.

Okay. Now, what's the difference between that and say someone like Bantill? well as a fideist and as a philosopher who held to kind of this idea of axioms

Gordon Clark understood axioms as a foundation that could not be proven.

You can't prove an axiom Right because to prove a foundational principle you'd have to appeal to something else to validate that principle

But you can't do that because the very moment you appeal to something other than your axiom to demonstrate your axiom

Your axiom is no longer your axiom The thing that you are appealing to validate the axiom is your axiom and that's that's wrongheaded.

That doesn't make sense so he believed that you You choose an axiom and the axiom is kind of like a dogmatic axiom

You either you take that as a given and from there you build a coherent worldview and Gordon Clark believed that the

Christian Axiom the Bible is the Word of God was the best axiom because not only could you build a coherent worldview

But it also answered all of the problems of philosophy better than any other competing perspective okay, and in that sense he was very rigorous in critiquing other perspectives and their inability to To answer the difficult questions of philosophy to have coherency and things like that and in that regard

Gordon Clark is very helpful when with with dealing with the internal critique of other worldview perspectives in that regard

I would highly encourage people to read Dr. Clark there now the difference between van

Till and Clark is that unlike Clark Who believed you cannot demonstrate the truth of your axiom?

Van Till believed you could and he wouldn't call it an axiom He called it a presupposition and what he meant by that was kind of your ultimate starting point and he believed you could

Demonstrate the truth of your starting point. Whereas Gordon Clark believed you couldn't okay and the way in which you

Validate your starting point is Not by appealing to something external to your starting point and your ultimate foundation to validate that foundation

He believed that you can demonstrate the objective truth of your ultimate presupposition your foundation by appealing to its transcendental

Necessity, okay So you would say you can prove it in this sense deny it and you have to presuppose that that foundation while you're denying it

Okay, and that's called a transcendental proof Transcendental proof seeks to ask the question.

What are the necessary? Preconditions what must be the case in order for something like knowledge to be possible

Intelligibility to be possible. What must be the case for something like science to be workable, right?

It asks those fundamental questions and van Till believed that the Christian worldview was demonstrated to be true

That in its denial you had to presuppose it even to deny it. Okay, and of course that needs to be worked out more within the

Discussions, dr. Greg Bonson clarified some points there and you have people continuing to kind of draw that out in different in different ways

But that's the key difference between their apologetics van Till believed Christianity was objectively provable.

You can prove your foundation Whereas Gordon Clark said you dogmatically take your axiom you build a worldview and Christianity's axiom is

Better and more consistent than all the other competitors out there. So there's a difference there, right? So I hope that makes sense.

All right Okay, let's see here do do do do do do do do do

Yes, what a great question. So just ask can you explain presuppositional ism in simple terms?

Okay Yes, okay, by the way, I could explain it biblically in Simple terms and and when

I mean by simple terms of people who don't hold to presuppositional apologetics will be like, yeah But what about what I'm not talking about that?

I'm saying in terms of just understanding. What is the gist of the presuppositional method? Okay, first,

I'm gonna give you how van Till simply Summarized his methodology and then

I'm just gonna give you kind of a scriptural principle that I think captures What presuppositional ism is really trying to get at?

Okay. All right van Till Bonson said this in a lecture He says if someone asked you in the middle of the night and they called you up on the phone and they said

What is the meaning of van Till give it to me in one small nugget right now so that I could understand it he said that you can summarize the entirety of van

Till's method in this one phrase anti -theism presupposes the ism anti -theism presupposes the ism basically

Even in trying to reject the ism you have to presuppose the ism because in your rejection

You have to utilize things that only make sense if Christian the ism is the case

Okay, and he would try to demonstrate that through logic and history and philosophy things like that So you can kind of flesh that out, but in summary anti -theism presupposes the ism now

Biblically speaking for me when someone says what's presuppositional apologetics all about the one passage of Scripture that comes to mind is that passage in Psalms Where David says in his light we see light

Just think about that in his light we see light It is only in the light of God's revelation

Can I see and understand anything at all? That's basically the principle right? I trust

God I Trust him. I know God I have a relationship with God and in light of who he is in light of how he's revealed things

I have me I can see things and understand things. So in a very elementary way in his light we see light and I do not pretend that we can see without the light of God So when

I engage in apologetics with people I do it in a way Assuming that only in the light of God.

Can we see anything else? That's very very simple. Now. I have a friend who

Knew Dr. Vantill and We went out to lunch. This was a couple years ago, and I asked him

I was like, you know, tell me what Vantill was about You know if you can describe Vantill and what kind of person what was he like and and this friend of mine he's an older pastor and He smiles takes a drink of his water and he says, you know when

I think of Vantill, I think of Vantill described himself as a child

In his father's house a child in his father's house. In other words Vantill as an intellectual giant that he was

When it really boiled down to you get past all the philosophical terminology and all these debates he really just trusted

God and That trust seeped in to his apologetics

Right. I trust God when I when I argue for the truth of Christianity. I stand on God's Word I trust

I trust him right we take God at his word he says that Vantill it was like a child living in God's world in his father's world and Even with you know his his learning and all the sophistication that he had when it really boiled down to it, he just He just saw

God as his father and just trusted him when God says listen The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the

Lord. He believed it right these principles are then employed in Different ways sometimes more in a more sophisticated fashion and sometimes in a more simplistic fashion right in his light

We see light. I can't possibly understand anything in the world without God. I don't Depending on your context we flesh that out with people, right?

So that's how I would I would define presuppositional apologetics in Simple terms.

All right. Hope that makes sense. All right, I'm gonna take one more sip of my coffee and And let people know if you're just coming on the revealed apologetics website is up And the first blog article is up to I wrote an article called toilet apologetics

Okay, it's I mean a toilet theology. Sorry, and you could read it for yourself But basically it's just kind of my little word of advice for people who try to study theology and apologetics

And don't have a lot of time So I hope you guys check that out at revealed apologetics calm Also, if anyone's interested in learning and going a little deeper in the presuppositional methodology

You guys can visit the website revealed apologetics calm and sign up on presupp you

To take online course where I'll be your instructor and we'll unpack a lot of these things and you'll have opportunity weekly to Really engage the lectures that I'll be sending out and to discuss with other students and we can brainstorm

Roleplay do all sorts of things you guys can sign up for that if you're interested that's available Right now as we speak, so let me take one more sip.

There we go I'm a teacher. So when I teach in the middle of the day, I'm talking all day and then when

I do YouTube I'm talking all night. So my voice is like So I do apologize if I sound a little raspy

Okay, let's see here There we go good, yeah,

I like this So Jeff says we know God exists because he's made us to know himself his creation and ourselves.

That's right. That's right um, that's right along with what John Calvin was getting at when he says that knowledge of self in Is simultaneous with knowledge of God, right?

To know oneself is to know God in the sense that it is only in light of God that it is even possible to know

Ourselves, right our very consciousness is itself revelatory of the one in whose image we were created.

So Great point there Jeff. Thank you. Okay. Okay.

Jay is asking. What book is that behind you that you have multiple copies of oh Jay you're just like me when

I'm when I'm watching a YouTube channel and I see someone sitting, you know in front of books I'm like, what kind of books is in their library?

I'm not sure which book you're is it is it this one? Let me see That one

I think it's that if you're if you're talking about this This is redemption

Redeemed and it's a Puritan defense of unlimited atonement okay, and someone who was a friend of my brother was part of the

The Society of Arminian philosophers and he gave me a copy and he also sent me a copy

So I have two copies now as I said, I am a Calvinist and I do not hold to unlimited atonement I do hold to limited atonement

And so but just because I have the books Doesn't mean I agree with everything that's behind me, right?

I have a book there on provenient grace and other things You know, I found myself though Studying more on I know this is blasphemous for someone who has all these books.

I find myself studying mostly on my phone Just reading but I just don't have time to sit and open a book

So a lot of these books I have studied in the past But I find myself just whipping out the Kindle on my phone taking notes on my phone and it's all organized there

So maybe one day one day I'll go completely phone and do something with these books.

Not all of them though. I really highly recommend this one This one's my favorite apologetics book.

Believe it or not. It's kind of hard to get I hear This is Vantill's apologetic readings and analysis and this is a kind of Greg Bonson's main

You know book is this thick one where he really unpacks Vantill's apologetic methodology and gives commentary things like that.

So highly recommend it if you can find it Okay, so we'll put that over there

All right. Let's see here Thank you for that question That's Not a question that's a comment, okay all right, so FTB maybe that stands for something.

I have no idea but He says Jay Dyer an Eastern Orthodox is using a precept argument without having a reformed theology

Would you encourage him or would you say only the reformed version is valid?

Well, I am NOT Eastern Orthodox to my understanding orthodoxy denies

What I would what I would understand as essential tenets of the Christian faith, which is one of which is justification by faith alone

So I would have issues theologically there with Eastern Orthodoxy If people are interested

I did interview Hank Hanegraaff in an early episode So I had Hank Hanegraaff come on the the

Bible answer man And and then I had dr. Tony Costa come on to do a two -part critique of that discussion

So we do talk a little bit about Eastern Orthodoxy there but Yeah, so when

Vantil was really working on the presuppositional method He really desired to develop an apologetic method that was not only grounded in Scripture But also flowed out of a consistently reformed theology now, of course

Vantil believed reformed theology was biblical, right? So to develop an apologetic that flows out of reformed theology would in essence for Vantil be an apologetic that flows out of Scripture Right.

So, um, that was kind of the the project that was on the mind of Vantil and so I would I would agree with Vantil that Presuppositionalism is a methodology that is consistent with reformed theology

Okay and so I think that there would be I think Eastern Orthodoxy would be an inappropriate theological context to use a presuppositional approach along Vantilian lines now

I do I have listened to a little bit of the stuff that Jay Dyer has put out and I actually like the way he uses tag.

I think his debate with Matt Dillahunty was great. I think he did an excellent job But of course we would have those different theological differences which may affect how we understand the consistent application of a presuppositional method so I would

I I would mean I Would encourage Jay to be reformed and then use the methodology more consistently, but Jay is a smart guy and He has expressed in previous

Episodes on his show that he doesn't think that presuppositional apologetics requires a reformed framework

And that will just be kind of a respectful disagreement at that point, which of course we would agree on multiple things But but yeah but the things that I have watched of Jay I do think that he uses the

Transcendental argument just as an argument within the context of the the the debating kind of thing I think he does an excellent job

So I've actually learned from some of the ways he's used it even though I disagree with some of those other those other areas

So, all right WFA what state are you in?

Oh, okay, China get my location, bro. I'm trying to remain anonymous man.

I'm just kidding. I'm in New York I'm in New York. I live on Long Island And Long Island is that little fish looking that little fish looking island right off the coast of the east coast of New York so I'm on Long Island, New York, so east coast and I Will be moving so that won't but we won't be here for too long.

But that's where I am now. I grew up here and Yeah, so Long Island, New York. Hope that satisfies your you know,

I don't know People I don't want people to know where I am, right? I'm just kidding. All right, let's see here Doot -doot -doot -doot -doot -doot -doot -doot.

So Jessica asks a question Also, what is your favorite systematic theology to read?

hmm now there is a difference between what my favorite systematic theology to read and like What systematic theology is like the best right?

Because there are certain books that I like to read because of the way they're written and for various purposes

I'm a teacher. So when I teach I like to read things that are not as Scholarly, I like when words can be when these theological concepts can be explained plainly so that I can convey that information to an audience

That it's appropriate for okay. Not that I have anything against scholarly systematic theologies But that's why

I am a big fan of Wayne Grudem because of the way that it's written And so when I'm teaching young people,

I like to use Grudem systematic theology Now what is the deficiency of using Grudem systematic theology and there are deficiencies and I by the way,

I love Dr. Grudem don't agree in every area, but I've actually interviewed. Dr.

Grudem some years back It's not on the YouTube channel, but I believe it might be on the podcast if you look in the earlier episodes but a deficiency of using something like a

Wayne a systematic theology by Wayne Grudem is that it it doesn't Give a lot of time to going through all of the other various understandings of different Theological issues it comes from an unashamedly reformed perspective

So in that case in that instance I appreciate what he has to say and I agree with a lot of what he has to say But if you're looking for a systematic theology that kind of gives a broad overview of the different theological

Understandings with regards to some theological topic and you probably want to look at a different systematic theology

So it really depends, you know people say what's the best Bible translation to use? Well, it depends what you're looking for if you're looking for devotional reading, you know

You might find one translation to be more beneficial than then say like the NASB or something like that If you're looking for more in -depth study, maybe a more literal translation might be better So it really depends same thing with a systematic theology.

Okay. Hope that makes sense All right, so Nick asks how about that Joel set a case you watch his debates his debate

Yes, I did watch his debate or listen to it rather and to be perfectly honest. I thought he did an excellent job

I thought I thought he hit it out of the park. He made his points clear and There wasn't too much.

I disagreed with I'm trying to think there might have been something that I was like Maybe I would have said something different, but I think it was something minor

So overall, I thought he did an excellent job. So folks should check that out Yeah, Joel said a case a great guy and definitely very humble guy.

I've spoken with him on the phone Oh, we even spoke a little bit as he was prepping for that debate Just a humble guy very smart guy and really loves the

Lord. So I'm very happy He did a great job folks to check out that that debate Maybe someone could put the debate in the link in the comments.

Someone could check that out. That'd be great All right, definitely use the precept method in an effective way.

I thought okay. Let's see here All right.

So Dennis McCullen McCullen that sounds so Scottish Dennis McCullen We stop

I have to stop with the access that I get I get carried away, so let me stop um, yeah, my book is coming along slowly, but surely but I have been writing here and there and Working on that every time every free moment that I get which is not a lot.

So I hope that folks are Our patient with me because I am very very busy.

So I will be teaching these online courses So I actually have to record the lectures. I have to write the notes and things like that I'm also a full -time teacher

And I I do youth ministry. So it has been really really difficult And so I'm trying my best but it is coming along.

So thank you for remembering and thank you for asking. So, all right What is this here?

Melissa says I'm so inspired by how you have followed. Ah I'm not sure what that means.

But thank you Sorry Okay Did it it it it do

Okay, so Brian asks with new classes coming up. Are you able to rewatch them any time?

Well, if you sign up for precept you you will get the link to the isolated YouTube Section where you can watch the videos that are not accessible to share or to give to other people because you're paying for them, right?

But once you pay for them, you could always have access to that link and you can watch them as often as you like You know say you you purchase the the course

You know you you go through the course and then like three years later you want to go back and get a refresher you can

Have access to those to those links and rewatch them. So so yeah, so definitely it's not just a one -shot deal

I remember it just a real quick if people sign up for the basic course I send out the lectures and you can work through it your own pace and have access to it anytime

Okay, so, you know that that's not an issue. So definitely be able to rewatch them anytime.

Okay Let's see here Okay Okay Vern asks how is denominationalism different from 1st

Corinthians 112 some of you are saying I'm a follower of Paul Others are saying I follow Apollos or I follow

Peter. I follow only Christ. Yeah denominations are not

Necessarily Because like oh I want to follow this person or I want to follow that person There are all sorts of reasons why denominations arise some of them don't even have anything to do with say following a particular person

Some of them are cultural reasons or geographic reasons or you know Cultural reasons why certain denominations develop and things like that I mean some of the theological differences of the areas of non -essentials, you know,

I don't I don't hold to infant baptism I'm not claiming to I hold to this person to that person

It's just that that's a non -essential theological topic that I don't agree with my fellow

Presbyterians Okay, so I'm I am a Baptist in that regard But it's not because I want to follow, you know, this person to that person.

It's just that on those non -essential issues I have a little disagreement there and that's okay and we can still have unity.

So don't think of denominationalism as Necessarily a Disunity and a chaos like some people like to make it's not necessarily the case

Because there is a unification and the unification of all true believers is

Affirming the essentials of the faith. Okay. Now if you're gonna ask the question, well, how do you know what's an essential?

Yeah, that's another topic and there's ways to discern what the essentials are But that will take us far off course, but I hope that makes sense

The nominationalism is not the same as that particular There's a different context in 1st

Corinthians 112 that I don't think necessarily applies to the existence of different denominations, okay

All right. Let's see here To Melissa says

I think you writing this book is making you a better communicator. Well, thank you. Thank you I also talk a lot.

So I Might just be a good communicator because they can't shut up. All right, that might that that is possible

Okay, let's see here Yeah, okay.

That's a good question All right, so WFA says help me to understand how because God we can know things okay, well put it this way

If I think I know something but I could be wrong about it. Do I really know it? This is important It's often been some some presuppositions.

I pointed out and I agree with this that if Omniscience exists somewhere then knowledge certain knowledge is possible

Okay, but if omniscience doesn't exist at all anything We think we know could be falsified by some future fact when it presents itself

You see so the belief in an all -knowing God who is not just all -knowing, but he's revelatory

He reveals he is all -knowing and reveals the nature of reality to us such that we could know it It makes sense then within the

Christian framework that we could know things Okay, that's actually part of an argument that you could make you can make a deductive argument flexing that point out for example you know if knowledge is possible, then

Then God exists knowledge is possible Therefore God exists you can flesh that out and talk about omniscience and revelation and worldview analysis there.

I think They are very much connected. So if there's an all -knowing God who knows all things and he's communicated to us then

Knowledge is not only possible. It makes sense within that sort of framework But let's say you don't believe that framework deny it.

So then how do you ground knowledge? There's no omniscience in a god -denying worldview and you are stuck within yourself unable to get outside your senses

You get all you get into all sorts of trouble with various forms of skepticism and things like that so It is definitely an important point that the existence of the all -knowing

God of Scripture is very much connected to the epistemological Assertion that we can know things that are objectively true about the nature of reality.

Okay. All right Let's see here. Do do do do do do go through some

Congress Right. Okay.

I'm gonna take a couple more questions and then I need to sign off and I it's a shame because now a lot

Of people sending a bunch of stuff and I don't want to lose my voice. Okay, so let me take one more question

No, I just answered a question from that person. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Let me see here Okay, does faith come by here?

Okay, we'll take this one here. So Wes asks the question. I this might actually be my last question.

I do apologize Let's see here, let me see

Maybe I can go through a couple more. Let me see. My voice is killing me Okay, all right,

I am losing my voice so I think I'm gonna take one more I do apologize Of course,

I'm an apologist. I have to apologize, right? Let's see here. I know corny dad joke. I apologize

All right. Okay. So does faith comes by here? Hearing the word of God mean

God changes people exclusively through the word and do you consider tag to be the word or?

Human argument deduced from the word. That's a great question. Hmm. I thought about that Let me see does faith come by hearing the word of God mean

God changes people exclusively through the word, um, I Think that when

God changes someone it necessarily includes the word but that doesn't mean that things apart from the word

Can't be used as part of the means that God draws someone to himself okay, so for example, you know, you obviously can't be saved without hearing the gospel, but You know

God can use arguments extra biblical arguments along with his word working together to To you know change the heart of the man, right?

So so I would say that the word is necessarily included in the salvific process But that doesn't mean that nothing else can be used you see what

I'm saying, so when we talk about tag I would say tag is Tag is in a logical form of argumentation that is drawn from principles of Scripture.

So again, you have to be very careful because the word transcendental is not found in the Bible, right? but the principles of the argument are

Namely that we take the authority of God that we we say that any other foundation other than God is foolishness, right?

So the principles are there although the language of transcendental is really the effect of someone like a

Christian philosopher interacting with other Philosophical schools and so we adopt the language of philosophy to talk about these biblical principles

And then we kind of apply biblical principles to argumentation And contextualize it to the people we're speaking to right so a tag argument may sound a little different although it's basically it might sound a little different if I'm talking to an idealistic philosopher as opposed to whether I'm talking to a

Jehovah's Witness Some of the arguments the same but I might cater the language to speak the language of the people. I'm speaking with Okay, so I hope that that's a good question.

I'll think I'll think a little more about that. But at any rate All right. Well, we are up to an hour and 11 minutes

I feel like I'm losing my voice and I so apologize because I do see there's a whole bunch of other questions.

I'm so sorry But I do appreciate you guys coming in and given given this a listen and supporting the ministry

Roger, thank you for that $5 super chat. I greatly appreciate it. I see Pine Creek is in there.

How's it going? Hope everything is well and So sorry, there's so many other questions, but I'm losing my voice.

So please have mercy on me. All right. Did you hear that? That was a real crack It was really really not good. All right, so at any rate

Once again just to throw out a reminder if anyone's interested in signing up for precept you you can do that right now people are already signing up Just visit revealed apologetics .com

and you can check out the precept you the signup page is right there on the above Column.

All right. Oh my goodness. I think I'm done. So I hope this was beneficial and useful to some people

I know I talk fast sometimes so I do apologize if I Became clumsy over my words, but try my best.