Sola Scriptura & the Apologetic Connection: Why it Matters!

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Eli Ayala, and I'm really excited about this topic today that I think you guys will find useful and fascinating.

And so in this video, I want to explore the relationship between presuppositionalism and the principle of sola scriptura, okay?

These are two super important concepts. These topics are pillars of Reformed theology and,

I would argue, Reformed apologetics as well, and so today I want to explore the connection between presuppositionalism and sola scriptura.

Now there's a lot going on going around on the internet for and against sola scriptura.

Roman Catholics and Protestants and Eastern Orthodox folks are constantly going back and forth in various contexts, especially in the online platform.

And so the point of this video is not necessarily to defend sola scriptura.

I think it can be defended and it ought to be defended, but what I want to talk about today is the relationship between sola scriptura and presuppositionalism.

So that's we're going to be covering today, and I hope that you find the content here useful. As you guys know,

I cover a lot on this channel about apologetic methodology, but we will kind of be expanding off into some practical application in future videos.

But if you're interested in issues of methodology and things like that, I think this video you will find very helpful, okay?

So what is the connection between presuppositionalism and sola scriptura?

Now to begin, I think it's critical to establish a foundational principle that I've emphasized many times on this channel, and that is that our apologetic methodology must flow from our theology, okay?

And this is not just my practical recommendation for you, okay? It is a theological necessity, okay?

It is an issue of consistency. The way we defend the faith must be consistent with the faith that we're defending.

And so as I often say, and I remember, I think I heard this first from Dr. Scott Olyphant at Westminster Theological Seminary, he says that apologetics is

Christian theology applied to unbelief. Christian theology applied to unbelief. I like that, because it highlights the theological nature of apologetics.

Sometimes people tend to separate apologetics from theology, okay? I've heard some apologists and theologians suggest that we affirm certain things theologically on the authority of God's Word, but when we're doing apologetics we can't just accept those things, right?

And I think that's wrong -headed. I think that our apologetic is rooted in a biblical theology, apologetics itself is theological, you cannot separate those two categories.

I think it's very important that we see these issues from a holistic perspective, okay?

Now, from the Reformed perspective, the connection between presuppositionalism and sola scriptura—and when

I say Reformed, I'm speaking specifically of those who hold to presuppositional methodology that are within the

Reformed tradition—I am very aware that there are folks who try to utilize a presuppositional approach, but do not identify as Reformed.

You even have, in the online sphere, people who are Eastern Orthodox who try to use presuppositionalism or Roman Catholic.

I'm talking about those who are within the Reformed tradition, right there in line with someone like Cornelius Van Til or Greg Bonson, Lane Tipton, anyone along those lines who are very self -conscious of the connection between the apologetic methodology that we use and the theology that undergirds that, okay?

So I think the connection between presuppositionalism and sola scriptura is clear. Presuppositionalism is the consistent application of Reformed theology to the discipline of apologetics.

I'm going to say that again, that's very important, okay? Presuppositional apologetics, I would argue, is the consistent application of Reformed theology to the discipline of apologetics.

It reflects a Reformed doctrine of God, a Reformed doctrine of man, and a biblical understanding of the impact of sin on human reasoning, what theologians call the noetic effects of sin, a very important concept theologically, and these doctrines shape not only our theology but also our method of engaging with unbelievers.

What I believe about the nature of unbelieving thought is informed by my theology, isn't that right?

When the Apostle Paul speaks of the darkened mind and the vain reasoning of the unbeliever, that is an important feature of scriptural teaching that I can't just cast aside when

I'm actually interacting with someone who the Bible describes as who is engaging in vain reasoning or darkened understanding or suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, okay?

So these are really important concepts that are very much connected to one another, alright?

Now let's situate this within the broader framework of Protestantism, okay? As a

Reformed Christian myself, I fall within the Protestant tradition, and so Protestantism is really a broad category.

But within it, I would argue, and Van Til would argue, and those within those who are in line with the position that I'm in in terms of Reformed theology specifically,

I would argue that the most biblical, consistent expression of Protestantism is

Reformed theology, and more specifically, Calvinism. I am an unashamed Calvinist, I hold to the five points of Calvinism.

Of course Calvinism does not limit itself to areas and spheres of soteriology, the doctrine of salvation, but I think that Calvinism is an accurate reflection of what the

Bible teaches. And I know that there are people who disagree with me in that regard, and that's fine, I'm not of the position that you're only a true

Christian if you're a Calvinist, that's not my position at all. I think that these are important, vitally important topics, but topics that Christians can disagree over.

I think they should be debated, I think they should be discussed, but I wish that they weren't done so in such the intense manner that we see it often in debates and things like that.

But nevertheless, this whole issue matters because we're talking about presuppositional apologetics.

Presuppositional apologetics is not merely for me and for those who hold to a consistent application of this method.

It's not merely one apologetic methodology among many options or many tools, okay?

I think that it is the method that flows most naturally and consistently from a

Reformed understanding of God and man, a Calvinistic understanding of salvation, they're all connected, and it flows from a view that has a very high perspective, a high view on Scripture's authority, okay?

I place a great emphasis upon the authority of the Word of God, okay?

And we'll kind of explore that in a little bit. Cornelius Van Til, who's considered the father of presuppositional apologetics, saw this connection clearly, the connection between his theology and the method.

He intentionally developed his apologetic method from a biblical and Reformed framework, and his goal was to defend the faith in a way that honored the authority of God's Word and the sufficiency of Scripture as our ultimate standard.

And so this brings us to the topic, then, of sola scriptura, which is not just a principle of Protestant theology, it's not just out there as kind of one little element out there within Protestant theology, it is a foundational concept that undergirds, more specifically, the presuppositional method.

Of course, there are applications and understandings of sola scriptura that go beyond apologetics, that's just one element, but that's what we're going to be talking about today.

Now, how should we understand sola scriptura? And this is where some of the debate happens, and a lot of the mistakes that people make in interacting with this topic is not understanding what the principle actually teaches, okay?

I see this in a very similar fashion, that when I hear skeptics bring objections against Christianity, in my experience the majority of those objections come from misunderstandings of the

Christian faith. In like fashion, I think a lot of the objections against sola scriptura are based upon misunderstandings of it.

Now that's not always the case, there are people who understand what the doctrine is but they just disagree with it, but I'm talking about the folks who don't understand it and then from that lack of understanding argue in a fallacious manner against it, okay?

So what is sola scriptura? So the doctrine, or the principle of sola scriptura, some might want to refer to it as a principle as opposed to a doctrine, the principle of sola scriptura asserts that Scripture alone is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the

Church, okay? Now, it does not, and this is so important, it does not deny the importance or the role of Church tradition or human reason or anything along those lines, but rather places

Scripture above these as the final and infallible authority, okay?

And this principle was a cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation, right? Distinguishing it from Roman Catholicism, which we would argue elevated Church tradition and the magisterium to a level equal with or above the

Scriptures themselves, okay? So what we're saying then, when we're defining sola scriptura, is that it is an affirmation, not a denial of other authorities, but an affirmation that the

Scripture, the theanustas, the breathed -out words of God, are the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the

Church, okay? And so this is not to say that we reject other forms of authority.

It is not to say that Protestants who hold to this principle reject Church tradition, or anything along those lines.

What is rejected, well, here's the thing. For proponents of sola scriptura, we believe that because the

Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice for the Church, that everything, tradition included, must be tested against Scripture, okay?

So if I'm going to affirm a tradition, I'm going to affirm it because it is in accordance with Scripture, and that's very, very important.

Now, what does this have to do with presuppositional apologetics, then? So simply put, sola scriptura provides the theological foundation for the presuppositional method, okay?

Van Til, for example, described the apologetics as the defense or the vindication of the

Christian philosophy of life, and by this he meant that we defend not just isolated truths of Christianity, but an entire worldview built upon the foundation of Scripture, and within this worldview,

Scripture's authority is not a secondary or tangential issue, it is vitally central, okay?

And so when we talk about the Christian worldview, that includes our presuppositions and the interconnected relationship between the beliefs that we hold, and that includes how we understand everything, every fact, every fact of human experience, every aspect of reality is informed by the

Christian worldview, and that includes our understanding of the nature of authority, okay, or the authority of Scripture, alright?

So let's consider then how Van Til approached this. In his writings, he emphasized that Scripture is not merely a source of information about God, but is itself the speech of God.

Isn't that right? I mean, the Scripture that comes to mind is Matthew 22, verse 31, where Jesus says, have you not read what

God said? Okay, notice that Jesus here equates the written

Word of Scripture with the spoken words of God, and this equivalence underscores the divine authority of Scripture.

And so it's not just a record of God's revelation, it is God's revelation, okay?

So it's very important when we're talking about Christian theology, when we're talking about presuppositionalism, when we're talking about the importance of authority and the role of Scripture, it's really vitally important that we understand what

Scripture is. You see, the principle of sola scriptura is not established by simply quoting certain

Bible verses, it is predicated upon the very idea of what Scripture is as the divine speech of God.

That is so critical, okay? Now of course we obviously want to argue scripturally for sola scriptura, but it also is based upon what the nature of Scripture is as divine speech.

Now, presuppositional apologetic methodology, called presuppositionalism, places a strong emphasis on the authority of God's Word, which naturally extends to the authority of Scripture as God's Word.

And so, think in terms of, if we're thinking in terms of authority, think a good Scripture that comes to mind that I think is useful is

Hebrews chapter 6 verse 13, where God swears by himself to Abraham because there is no higher authority, okay?

In the same way, Scripture does not appeal to an authority outside of itself to validate its truth, okay?

It is, we would call Scripture, it is self -authenticating, okay? Because it is the very

Word of God. And what do we mean by self -authenticating? Because God is the greatest authority, to establish its authority we do not appeal to something more authoritative than it, okay?

We take it on its own authority. Now of course we don't stop there. People say, well wait a minute, you know, you're just saying the

Bible is the Word of God and that's why it's true. Yes, the Bible is the Word of God, and it makes it true because it is

God -speaking, God does not lie, these sorts of things. But in terms of offering argumentation,

I mean, there's more to it. Obviously we're not simply saying the Bible's true and that's it, okay? Although we're accused of doing that oftentimes.

It's very interesting. People say that presuppositionalists just assert the Bible's truth and that's it, and then

I will bend over backwards to tell people that's not what we're saying. We're not simply saying the Bible's true and end of story, okay?

And then I'll explain how we go about justifying that fact, and then people will continue to repeat the same assertion.

Presuppositionalism is simply asserting the Bible's true, you know. Let him who has ears hear, right?

Some people don't have the ears to hear and it makes it difficult to communicate with those folks, but nevertheless we keep chugging along and we keep defending the faith and answering objections and these sorts of things, and we hope that, you know, our words do not fall on deaf ears, okay?

Dr. Greg Bonson was a renowned Christian apologist, philosopher, and seminary professor, and his life's work is now at your fingertips with Bonson U.

Bonson U aims to bring seminary -level education to every Christian anytime, anywhere, absolutely free.

Gain access to over 140 courses covering theology, apologetics, eschatology, and law, featuring sermons, seminary lectures, and more from the legendary

Dr. Greg Bonson. Now, if you sign up today at apologiestudios .com and join over 13 ,000 users already benefiting from this incredible resource, you will not regret it.

And soon, they're expanding with Bonson U Plus and Bonson U Live, bringing fresh supplemental learning and real -time engagement.

Again, go to apologiestudios .com and start your journey today. Now, so we place a great emphasis upon the authority of God's Word because of what

God's Word is. It is His speech, okay? And this is why the presuppositionalist begins with the authority of Scripture as the ultimate presupposition.

When engaging with unbelievers, we don't attempt to prove the Bible's authority by appealing, as I said before, by some other—we don't appeal to some other higher standard of logic, science, or evidence, or anything along those lines.

Instead, we argue that these very tools—you know, logic, science, evidence, all these things—are only intelligible.

You could only make sense out of those concepts within the framework of a biblical worldview. And without the foundation of Scripture, without the foundation of God's revelation, these disciplines lose their coherence, and they lose their cogency, okay?

And basically what we're saying, if I can use kind of the presuppositional lingo, we are saying that God, the

Triune God, who's revealed Himself both in general and special revelation, which of course, special revelation including the written

Word of God, okay? God and His Word are the necessary preconditions for intelligible experience.

In other words, God must exist and His Word must be true in order for us to make sense out of anything.

And I gave you a list there of logic, science, you could fill in anything, history, philosophy, all of these things require the

Christian backdrop, the Christian context, in order to make sense out of those ideas.

For example, if someone were to say, I don't believe the Bible is true, you know,

I trust science, okay? I'm thinking of that scene from Nacho Libre where Esqueleto, Nacho's partner, he says,

I do not believe in God, I believe in science, okay? Now of course it's just a movie, it's just meant to be funny, but people reason that way, okay?

And you might hear something like this. So when someone says, I don't believe the Bible is true because I trust in science, a presuppositionalist is gonna respond by showing that the very intelligibility of science itself depends on the

Christian worldview revealed in Scripture. Isn't that right? Science presupposes what?

Well, it presupposes a whole host of things, but it presupposes things like the uniformity of nature, that the future will be like the past, that we could expect the future to be like the past because God's providence and God created the world in an orderly fashion, okay?

Science presupposes the reliability of human cognition, the existence of objective moral values, and things like this, logical laws, all of these things are presupposed in the scientific endeavor, and we argue that they're all grounded in the character of God and His revelation in Scripture.

And without that foundation, you can't have those things in any consistent way. Now, if you're thinking, wait a minute,

Eli, you said that science presupposes objective morality, well, yes. When you do science and you are comparing results, the assumption and the common understanding is that those who are reporting their findings are doing so in an honest fashion.

Isn't that right? You have to assume honesty, because one scientist over here is not necessarily doing everything the other scientist is doing there.

Now, you do have a bunch of crosshairs and people working together, that's fine, but there has to be integrity and honesty in the reporting, otherwise things can get messed up pretty quickly.

So moral values are assumed in a wide range of things that we do. So I think that's an important point to keep in mind.

Now, when we think in terms of the principle of Sola Scriptura in this regard, again,

Sola Scriptura is not merely, you know, some theological abstraction, right? It has profound apologetic implications.

Scripture provides the authoritative framework from within which we can make sense of the world, make sense out of reason, make sense out of logic, make sense out of science, and how to make sense out of engaging people in a meaningful way.

Meaningfulness requires the Christian worldview, all right? Now, Vantill's definition,

Cornelius Vantill's definition of apologetics, and I always refer to this on page one of his

Christian apologetics, he says that apologetics is the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life over against the non -Christian philosophy of life, or worldview, okay?

Vantill's definition of apologetics as a defense of the Christian philosophy of life highlights, and this is so important, the interconnectedness of our theological commitments as Christians, okay?

The Christian worldview, as he defined it, includes a proper understanding of the

Scripture's nature and authority. And so, in other words, you cannot separate the presuppositional method from a high view of Scripture.

You can't do it, okay? An essential feature of presuppositionalism is having a high view of God's Word, because we believe it is the divine speech.

It is that backdrop that defines our entire reasoning process, it defines every fact, as I like to refer to God as the

Father of the facts. Now, for instance, when we argue for the Christian worldview, we're simultaneously arguing for the unique status of Scripture as divine speech, because that's part of the

Christian worldview. That is what it means to be consistent, right? If I'm arguing for the Christian worldview, that includes a particular belief about the nature of Scripture, okay?

Scripture is not just one piece of a larger puzzle, it is the foundation, it is foundational to our system of the

Christian worldview. Without it, the Christian worldview wouldn't make sense. We would lack the necessary preconditions of intelligibility if God did not reveal

Himself, okay? Now, again, this is why presuppositionalism is so closely linked to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

Both concepts affirm the centrality and the sufficiency of Scripture, and Scripture's ability to help us understand reality helps us defend the faith and helps us to live the

Christian life, okay? Now, let's kind of tie this together in a practical way, okay?

If we can make some practical application here. So, when engaging with skeptics, you know, the presuppositionalist does not compromise—this is so important—does not compromise the authority of Scripture.

And so, for example, if the atheist were to come along and say, well, I don't believe the Bible because it's full of contradictions, the presuppositionalist is not going to abandon

Scripture to appeal to neutral ground with this particular atheist in question. Instead, we're going to challenge the atheist's ability to even make sense of concepts like contradiction, truth, or reason apart from the biblical worldview.

If you're going to reject the biblical worldview, okay, we're not simply going to grant you reason.

Now, pardon, I can't prevent the unbeliever from using reasoning, his reasoning, but I want to point out that the very reasoning that he's using can't make sense if what he says as an atheist is true about the nature of the world.

Or when the skeptic challenges the historicity of some biblical event, right? We as Christians and presuppositionalists specifically, we do not engage, you know, attempts to discredit the

Bible historically, we don't engage those folks in some neutral and autonomous, you know, historical analysis.

Rather, we challenge the unbeliever to make cogent sense out of the meaningfulness of history and historical study itself, okay?

In other words, if you're gonna reject God, you need to give an account and a justification for the tools that you're using to attack

God, okay? We're not gonna just grant it to you. Now, obviously, you can't help but use these things, but I'm gonna ask you, how do you make sense of those things in your worldview?

And here's something you want to be very careful of. Some people will try to sidestep this issue, they'll say something along the lines of, well, there goes the presuppositionalist trying to make us doubt reality itself, right?

We'll be accused of simply rehashing kind of the old -school, you know, Greek skeptic arguments, okay?

Back in ancient Greece, you had the skeptical school of philosophy where, you know, they would doubt everything and argue every point, whatever.

We're not doing that for the sake of doing it, okay? When the presuppositionalist looks at the atheist and says, well, how do you know that to be true, okay?

Or could you be wrong about that? That's not a simple word game. Now, again, there are gonna be people in my comment section saying, it's a word game, and maybe you had an experience with a presuppositionalist who just repeated that question over and over and over and over again until the point where you just wanted to jump out the window.

Maybe that's your experience, um, and I'm sorry if that's been your experience, but for me, when I ask, how do you know?

It is not a tool, a debate tool or tactic. I'm literally asking you to show me from your perspective how you make sense out of the things that you take for granted.

Now, it might be annoying for someone to not simply grant you the things that you think are just obvious, but when you deny

God, then we're dealing with fundamental foundational issues such that we have to bring up those basic questions, okay?

And I don't know why people get upset about this, the how do you know question is an essential and unavoidable question to ask when you're debating things as fundamental as one's worldview perspective, okay?

Um, you know, I've had conversations with people where they will try to give me their explanation and their justification and I'll disagree and we'll have this meaningful interaction, but it boggles my mind when people get annoyed at the question.

Oh, how do you, what do you mean? How do I know? Everybody knows that, right? Again, people just take things for granted.

Okay. As the presuppositionalist, right? We are functioning as the dental expert.

We are drilling into the tooth with the desire to hit the nerve. We want to hit that point where the unbeliever feels the force of rejecting a

Christian worldview. That's right, you're going to have to now provide a basis for everything you're saying, we're not simply going to grant it to you, right?

I don't just grant you some historical fact, I want you to know how you make sense out of history in general. I don't just grant you some logical fact,

I want you to give a justification for why you trust logic, okay? I'm not gonna just grant you some moral point,

I want you to make sense out of objective morality itself, right? So basically we're trying to strike at the foundation, okay?

And that's what we as presuppositionalists want to do, not simply to be annoying, although it can be annoying sometimes, but we want to really have the unbeliever, you know, pay the bills on their claims, and at the same time, and this is so important, we as Christians need to be willing to pay the bills on our claims as well.

We want to move away from the simple cliche assertion, you know, when, you know, presuppositionalists, we're known for, you know, certain phrases like, you know, by what standard?

Which, by the way, is an entirely appropriate question to ask, by the way, okay?

Don't let people, because it's become cliche and, you know, people, when you say that, people kind of automatically think, oh, this guy's a presuppositionalist.

Don't let people get away with that, though, okay? By what standard is a perfectly appropriate question.

You know, someone might say, if I were to say, you know, by what standard, and then someone's like, well, there you go with your presub script again, I'd be like, all right, cool, yes,

I have a script. In other words, I plan on what, you know, I plan for the things that I'm asking you.

I am intentionally asking these questions because I want to go somewhere, okay? So now that we got that out of the way, right, you can pat yourself on the back,

I have a script, there's certain things I want to say, and there's certain places and directions in the conversation I want to go, now answer the question.

By what standard? Entirely appropriate. However, we want to be careful of simply asserting the cliches, okay?

Not only do we ask the unbeliever to account for intelligible experience, logic, science, history, mathematics, these sorts of things, but we as Christians need to be able to provide our justification for those things as well.

Because, you see, the presuppositional approach is not simply an approach that we use to tear down unbelieving thought.

Because once we tear down unbelieving thought, it needs to be replaced with something else. And so we need to be able to give a positive defense of the

Christian worldview. A positive defense as to why we think the Christian worldview can do the things that we claim it can do philosophically, theologically, in terms of accounting for metaphysics and epistemology and these sorts of things.

We need to be willing to go into the details of that, okay? Now when we do that, are we going to convince everyone of our position?

Of course not, okay? And this is why Dr. Greg Bonson brought this out multiple times in various lectures that he gave.

I mean, I've said it multiple times on this channel as well, that there is a vast difference between proving something to someone and persuading them of what you're saying.

Proof and persuasion are not the same thing. I could very very well prove the existence of God, I can prove that Christianity is true, that's not the same as being...that's

not the same as persuading the individual, okay? That's the job of the Holy Spirit, right? I want to be persuasive,

I want to be faithful to the Word of God, I want to give a powerful apologetic, but ultimately the result,

I'm gonna have to trust that that's gonna be the work of God in that person's heart. I am simply an obedient vessel to proclaim the

Gospel and to give an answer for those who ask me for the reason for the hope that's within me, okay? So keeping that in balance, knowing that the difference between proving something and persuading someone, very very important.

Alright, so what's up with the practical application of all this then? So the practical implications of presuppositionalism in sola scriptura in the life of a believer

I think are really significant, okay? You know, basically impacting how one approaches

Scripture, engages in apologetics, lives out the Christian life in every sphere of life. These principles are not, you know, these vague abstract theological concepts, they have real -world consequences for the believer's understanding of authority, reasoning, and even our daily, you know, our day -to -day conduct, okay?

And so let's kind of explore that here, okay? When we consider presuppositionalism as a methodology and the principle of sola scriptura and their shared view of the authority of Scripture, that has practical implications.

Think in terms of decision -making, right? The doctrine of sola scriptura directs believers to prioritize

Scripture above personal opinions, cultural trends, or human traditions in all areas of life.

Whether you're dealing with ethical dilemmas, spiritual questions, or daily decisions, or whatever, the believer looks first to Scripture for guidance.

That's a super important point to keep in mind, okay? When we don't think along these lines, we tend to elevate human opinion or popular opinion above the

Word of God. But when we are confronted with challenges, I think the proper posture that the

Christian should have is, well, what does the Word of God have to say about this, right? Search the Scriptures to see how it addresses some issue.

If we're having to make an important decision, what does the Word of God say about this? Now, you know, the

Bible doesn't always give us the specific answer to every question that we can feasibly ask, but it definitely gives us principles that we can follow that will help us walk in wisdom when making difficult decisions, okay?

Again, understanding the authority of Scripture, both in presuppositionalism and sola scriptura, it also has implications for the issue of discernment.

Believers learn to evaluate teachings, evaluate doctrines and practices by measuring them against what?

The Word of God, okay? This helps avoid false teaching and promotes biblically faithful doctrine and a biblically faithful walk before the

Lord, okay? It also helps build confidence when we understand the role of the authority of God's Word in our lives.

Trusting Scripture as the ultimate authority really helps equip believers with confidence, okay?

That their faith is grounded in the sure, unchanging Word of God. Guys, listen to this.

The ground upon which we stand is the firm rock of God's Word. And I'm not saying that just to sound pious and, no, there he goes, he's going into preachy mode.

It's true! Intellectually, philosophically, we are standing on firm ground because we can trust that when

God commands us to always be ready to give a reason for the hope that's within us, He's going to equip us with the tools needed to do that.

And so if we stand on God's Word, we are grounded in solid biblical doctrine, okay?

And we are thinking in terms of a philosophy of life, not in this kind of piecemeal thing where we defend this, point to the exclusion of it.

No, no, no, no. Our worldview informs everything that we believe individually about anything, okay?

We are defending the Christian faith holistically, and we're defending it in such a way that acknowledges the important role of the authority of God's Word.

So these are very, very important concepts. Now presuppositionalism also teaches that all reasoning, all understanding, all wisdom begin with God's revelation, okay?

And so this, again, understanding these principles in light of God's authority and the authority of His Word and so forth, really helps us to think biblically, right?

Believers are encouraged to filter their worldview through the lens of Scripture, okay?

Pretty much ensuring that their beliefs about the world, humanity, morality, salvation, all these things align with God's truth, okay?

It also helps us to be informed about the nature of humility in light of all those things, okay?

A presuppositional framework reminds believers that their understanding is finite, right? We have to depend on God for what we know.

That idea cultivates humility and trust in God's wisdom rather than in human intellect alone.

Christians can confidently address cultural and philosophical challenges knowing that biblical presuppositions provide the only coherent foundation for understanding reality, ethics, truth, science, philosophy, and everything, okay?

God is the source of wisdom and knowledge. By His grace He gives it to us. By His grace, by regenerating our minds, changing our hearts, changing our natures, we're able to apprehend the world the way that God desires for us to understand the world.

And that not only helps us as Christians, you know, live the life that we're called to live in a faithful fashion, it also equips us with powerful tools for the apologetic task as well, okay?

So another important point, I think, when we understand the role of the authority of God's Word, that can help us have, you know, boldness in evangelism and apologetics, right?

Presuppositional apologetics really focuses, again, on the authority of God's Word and the futility, as the

Bible describes this, the futility of unbelieving worldviews, right?

Again, this leads to practical confidence in sharing and defending the faith, okay?

Believers can proclaim the gospel boldly knowing that it's not their own arguments or persuasion, but the authority of Scripture and the work of the

Holy Spirit that transforms hearts. That is one of the most peaceful things that you could ever come to grips with, okay?

Because when we interact with people, it is very nerve -wracking. We often, you know, the Bible says that we live by faith, not by sight, but so often we live by sight, not by faith.

We evaluate the success or lack thereof of our apologetic and evangelistic encounters based upon the reaction, the response that we get from the person with whom we are interacting with, and that's just not the way things are supposed to be.

The way we perceive that interaction, again, must be understood from within a biblical perspective, and the

Bible teaches us that we ought not look simply for those things, right? We preach the gospel, we're ready in season and out of season, and we are faithful, and we trust

God for the results, all right? So, both sola scriptura and presuppositionalism focus, again,

I'm going to repeat this, it's so important, on the centrality of God's Word in shaping the believer's understanding of who

God is, and how he's to be worshipped and interacted with, and so on, okay? Because the

Bible speaks to those things as well, right? Believers are careful, and they need to be careful, to ensure that their worship, okay, not just apologetics, their worship aligns with God's commands rather than human innovation or preferences, okay?

This is so important that our worship must be informed by Scripture, our apologetics must be informed by Scripture, our understanding of the material world must be impacted by what the

Bible has to say, okay? All of these things, super, super important and vital for a healthy

Christian walk in a way that goes far beyond the apologetic interaction, okay?

We need to, when we take presuppositionalism and sola scriptura and we understand, you know, their shared view of the authority of Scripture, okay, it helps us come to grips with the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture for the

Christian life, okay, apologetics included, right? Sola scriptura teaches that Scripture is sufficient for teaching, for rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, as 2nd

Timothy 3 .16 -17 says. Now again, notice what I didn't say. I'm not saying that 2nd Timothy 3 .16

-17 is a proof text for sola scriptura, although it is a very relevant text in that discussion.

But sola scriptura, pointing to the Scripture's sufficiency to equip the believer, okay, that's a related issue, okay?

We can trust that Scripture is sufficient to equip us to do the things that we need to do. Same thing within presuppositionalism.

I don't need to get, although I'm not against this, I don't need to get a PhD to be an effective defender of the faith, okay?

For the Bible commands everyone to be ready to give a reason for the hope that's within them. And so that is, as Dr.

Bonson said, that is for the scholar and Sophie, if you're Sophie the Washwoman, okay?

The Bible equips us with the tools we need to meaningfully interact with those who ask us for the reason for the hope that is within us.