Subscribe to our RUclips channel for more content like this. To support Right Response Ministries, visit: rightresponseministries.com/donate/ Subscribe to Theology Applied full episodes below: Apple podcast: bit.ly/theologyapplied Spotify podcast: bit.ly/theologyappliedspotify If you live in the Austin area, Pastor Joel just started planting a brand new church called Covenant Bible Church in Hutto, Texas. He would love for you to come visit on a Sunday. Check out the church’s website for details: covenantbible.org/
Isn't presupp the point where Christians have accepted they haven't got a single scrap of credible evidence of your god and so need to resort to childish word games?
15:18 _"...although that may be an apparent paradox, it's not."_ Being paradoxical, nor being fallacious is the issue with circular justification. The issue with circular justification is that it is epistemically vacuous. It's an empty claim. There's nothing to support it other than the claim itself. That is to say, the issue lies with your inability to show the claim is sound, not that the argument is invalid.
Imagine being in a room with Christ. He says that P. But you hold your hand up in his face and say: "I'mm'a stop you right there, Christ. Just because you say that P, doesn't mean I'd be justified in believing that P. I need something more..."
@@Scott_Terry Yawn. Can you prove that? No. Can you demonstrate that? No. Can you back it up in any meaningful way? No. Remind me why I should care about your vacuous claims?
@@ajhieb So, if Christianity is true, all justification of beliefs (all "proofs") just reduce to the authoritative say-so of Christ. Demonstrate it? Yes. We demonstrate this whenever someone (like you) tries - and subsequently fails - to offer some alternative justification for any of your views. That none of you are ever able to do it is something we would expect if Christianity were true. As to why you ought to care? You're the one here, watching this video and trying to interact with presuppositionalists... maybe, instead, you ought to just sit by quietly and learn? But the minute you try to offer objections to our Faith, you get the horns...
Presuppositional apologetics is well worth the investment in study. Evidence must be evaluated by presuppositions. To put the evidential approach over against presupp is to 1. misunderstand the distinction. 2. To put logic & science as independent of God (bad idea). 3. leaves with probability only, where presupp leaves apodictic certainty. 4. (etc...)
@AnonYmous-yj9ib Correct- within a worldview. But there are particular presuppositions (worldview) you start with to identify (law of identity) and evaluate (law of contradiction, excluded middle) evidence (e.g. modus ponens). So, you need to start with the correct worldview which makes sense of laws of logic and everything else we experience and even experience itself. This is where internal critique is employed and Christianity alone makes sense of these necessary preconditions of thought because of the transcendent God of scripture.
@AnonYmous-yj9ib Yes- but not because they are created, but they are the product of his divine nature governing reality. "The name 'laws of thought' is also misleading, for what is important is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words, the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly.”- (The Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell pg.113)
@EleazarDuprees It seems anonymous just destroyed your argument and you ran away from him. Please tell me how your god justifies ANYTHING when you can't even show such a being EXISTS?
I appreciate the banter, but if you really think someone saying 'Christianity doesn't make sense' equals 'destroying an argument' then you weren't sincerely trying to understand to begin with. Seeing that we will all die it would be in your best interest to understand the gospel before your time arrives, possibly today. Christ is eternal God come as a man in the flesh to die for your sins and save you from eternal damnation. And he rose from the dead- the empty tomb is a historical fact. Believe on him and be saved.@@nickjones5435
Best example: endegenous retrovirises. Compare what any creationist source says about them against what any mainstream science publication says about them and how they account for the similarities between chimpanzees and humans.
Recommend listening to RC Sproul and Greg Bahnsen Debate this. I believe it’s available on RUclips. RC Sproul argues that you can argue for God from mediate (with medium/natural revaluation) and immediate (without medium/ word of God) revelation. While Bahnsen argues from the impossibility of the Contrary. That is simply that without a Biblical Worldview nothing makes sense.
@@BigCowboy777 _"The Bible is the self validating word of God. It needs no other authority."_ I am the self validating authority in my worldview. The only difference between my claim and your claim is that your claim falls in line with your preconceived ideas about the world so you blindly accept it.
It’s not circular logic because - “go read John Frame” 🤣. Great answer, considering he tries to change the circular charge in his answer. Circular logic is really simple and all logic is certainly not circular in this way.
Cornelius Van Til agreed that presuppositional was circular reasoning, i.e., start with God only to end with God, but didn't admit that it was a petitio principi...a logical fallacy in which a premise is assumed to be true without warrant or in which what is to be proved is implicitly taken for granted. The existence of God starts with man and ends with God (classical apologetics) To start with God would make God wholly other, and unknowable...
God has condescended to us in his wisdom and sovereignty to make himself known in Scripture. It’s not viciously circular because it provides the preconditions for intelligibility.
Unless you subscribe to today's postmodern ideals of "your truth and my truth", you believe there is only one definitive truth and standard. So by definition if your beliefs are not in line with the truth, then what you believe is false.
@@BigCowboy777 the Bible is the claim, not the evidence. Is presuppositionalism comforting? I bet it is. Denying one's interlocutor's ability to disagree must certainly come in handy. You never have to be wrong again!
@@dutchchatham1 You might try taking an introduction to philosophy course. There, you'll learn that someone (you, for example) isn't (intellectually) allowed to just swagger around in public, making audacious claims, without having an underlying account (and justification for them). To hand-wave away presuppositionalism, you need to hand-wave away the requirement of rationality all together. Is hand waving away the need to be rational comforting? I bet it is... :D
I have found that with a evidential approach works well with those who are already religious, and a presuppositional approach is the ONLY way to deal with an atheist.
This is definitely not true! Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel were both atheists or agnostic in the 70s. They both set about to disprove Jesus and the resurrection through historical data. But through the evidence, they both got saved. Of course, I don't discount that the Holy Spirit was working on their hearts. This is always true, regardless what method helps someone come to belief, it is the Holy Spirit that opens their eyes.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 you’re pointing out the MASSIVE exception, not the rule. And atheistic catechesis is MUCH stronger today than in the 70s due to public education and higher ed. Totally different playing field and entrenched presuppositions. It’s like if I said “you need to be 6’ or taller to play in the NBA” and you go, “not true! Spud Webb was 5’6” in the NBA in the 80s!”. Massive exception and totally different landscape
@@nathanielkeane8462 I have no idea which approach works more. I responding to you saying that evidential apologetics NEVER works. I personally believe that the Holy Spirit opens eyes. And he can use any way to do it. Jesus did miracles so that 'they might believe'. I have never seen a miracle, yet I believe. But for some, God uses miracles. Thomas needed to see Jesus to believe, but most Christians never saw Jesus. Paul also needed to see Jesus, even though he hadn't seen him until Christ ascended to heaven.
@@Scott_Terry Not surprising you're terrified to address the question head on. It's yet another philosophical tool that presups try to exploit in order to gain the upper hand in an interaction. Internalism is a theory of knowledge/justification that says that justification (and subsequently knowledge) derive from internal factors to a person. Externalism says that knowledge/justification relies on one or more factors outside of a person. Presups take an externalist position by saying that God is the justification for all knowledge claims. The offer no elaboration on this. There's no description of _how_ God manages to justify things, just that he _does_ by definition. So what was considered an unsolvable problem in epistemology (Agrippa's Trilemma) was magically solved just by making a baseless claim! Cool trick fellas! Go claim your Berggruen Prize! But it's not just picking a vacuous form of externalism that's the problem it's also that the presup apologist will also demand that his interlocutor provide an internalist justification for any/all claims and deny any attempts at externalism. They're simply counting on the fact that their interlocutors aren't familiar enough with the subject to catch the deception.
What do you think of the idea that unless one presupposes that the Bible is the word of God, one cannot have the tools that are needed to find out whether something is true?
There is another aspect of presuppositional apologetics that says that only the Christian worldview can account for logic, morals, and science. If the only the Christian worldview can account for those things, would this prove that the Bible is the word of God?
No. But neither does the presuppositionalist claim that it does. All justification in a Revelational Epistemology reduces down to the divine, self-attesting, authority of Christ. If Christ says that P, then I'm justified in believing that P - justified by virtue of Christ having said that P. Subsequently, this does give "P" a sort of transcendental-necessity status, such that anyone who denies P will be reduced to absurdity...but this accidental property of P (...its being transcendentally necessary) is not the ground for justifying one's belief in P (since it requires omniscience to say that P is transcendentally necessary and the presuppositionalist's belief that P is transcendentally necessary rests on the authority of Christ). So, while I wouldn't expect you to accept belief that P, based on my claim that P is transcendentally necessary, I am, nevertheless, motivated (by my worldview) to believe that P is transcendentally necessary and that your denial of P will lead to absurdity. (And, this is exactly what we find - empirically - when we in fact do see unbelieving positions reduced to absurdity time and time and time again).
@Rasskaz Forge You may think your father said or meant one thing when he really said or meant something else. But you wouldn't know because you haven't even read the words that he said, because you don't understand the language in which they were said.
@@11kravitzn I'm just practicing my presuppositional apologetics. "It's a circle, yes, but it's a virtuous circle!", as I once heard a pre-sup Christian respond in a debate.
I don’t think Joel does a good job explaining how non pressup methods logically conclude in a rejection of sola scriptura. I strongly disagree that it does
It's one of those things that's obvious when you take a step back and think about it. The Bible says that P, therefore, I'm justified in believing that P. If you say otherwise - as all non-presuppositional apologists do - then you're rejecting Scripture as the sole, final, authority. Something else is more "authoritative"... reason, logic, or empirical data, etc.
Reading these comments tell me that there is a good deal of misunderstanding of what the word of God says. I agree with Pastor Joel. I'm not at my desk and I hate typing on my miniscule phone' s keyboard. Will be back to explain what and why later. Ok, this is future Craig at my desk less than an hour later. Here are notes from the message out of I Thessalonians 4:8 done last Sunday, June 5th. Quote: "II Corinthians 1:21, 22 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. I John 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. The anointing is the inward persuasion of God that the Word you are hearing is true. I John 2:27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. It is the power of God to bend your will to what is true. The Holy Spirit is in your heart; God’s power is exercised by His Spirit. But this is not some mystical thing where the Holy Spirit speaks things to you in your spiritual ear, a teaching that He gives you directly and not to others. No, it is the anointing that teaches here, not the Holy Spirit. His anointing teaches you by the recognition in your heart of the truth of the Word of God. God said it, that settles it, and you believe it. The Spirit of God caused you to be born again, the Spirit of God energized faith within to trust the Word and believe. And that which you have already received from God now continues to act within you to discern truth from a lie, God’s Word from man’s word. This comes about from God the Spirit living within your heart. Let me give you an example to help you here. John 6:44-47 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life." So, I gave the above notes so show that as the Thessalonians had received the hearing of the Apostle Paul, the Prophet Sylvanus (Silas) and the Pastor Timothy as the Word of God and not the word of men (See Chapter 1) they were God-taught (literal). God-taught, God puts faith into our heart to believe the gospel. We believe not because we have proof from lesser sources but because the Spirit anointed us with believing the Word of the gospel we heard as the Word of God. Hope this helps.
It is impossible for the Bible to be the highest authority, because I need my eyes to see the Bible and my mind to understand it. If I were blind and stupid, then it would be impossible for me to treat the text of any book as having authority. The highest authorities are your eyes (or other senses) and your mind, because without those, you can understand nothing else.
“I know it clearly sounds like a contradiction and a logical fallacy, but it’s not. I won’t explain how it’s not, but trust me.” “Everyone who has studied reality and can’t find anything in it that matches my beliefs, well, it’s because the all secretly hate my invisible friend. That must be it.” Irrational. Textbook faulty reasoning. Pathetic. Unconvincing.
In other words, one should take the Bible's word for it. The Bible is the highest authority. If something else besides the Bible were to prove that the Bible is the word of God, then the Bible would not be the highest authority.
So, to the questioner, all doubts about inerrancy are answered simply by believing that the Bible is inerrant. Now, if that doesn't quiet those doubts, nothing will.
Are you willing to jump from a high place without a parachute if you simply believe sufficiently strongly that gravity has no effect on you? No, of course not. So why do you think believing sufficiently strongly somehow makes something true in the case of the Bible but in no other case?
@@diogeneslamp8004 The danger of treating belief and knowledge as synonyms is definitely a valid concern which is often ignored. To be fair though, if one "truly" believed that they were unaffected by gravity, then of course they would jump.
@@blueglassdave And reality would disabuse them of their misconceptions. This is why we trust our perceptions-particularly those enhanced by technological aids-at least provisionally: nature will eventually tell us if we’re wrong.
@@diogeneslamp8004 Possibly, assuming the person was open to analyzing new experiences on their own merit, which is fundamental in science but frequently avoided within religion, but the "true" believer may very well tell themselves that God was testing them that time so as to avoid having to challenge their belief, particularly if they're concerned that they would be challenging God by examining their faith in their own weightlessness.
Why will no pre-sup explain to me how my life would change if I woke up tomorrow realizing you guys are right about... uh... whatever the hell you say? Would I be happier? Would I be smarter? Would I be kinder or more generous? Would I make better decisions or be healed of my disability? C'mon, is there ANY good reason to consider buying what you guys are selling? Also, could you be wrong? If you're planning to respond with questions for me rather than some answers to my questions, don't bother. Congratulations, I'll just dismiss you as another nonsensical, addle minded clown. Good day.
For one thing, your life would change by the simple fact that you'd have woken up actually understanding presuppositionalism (instead of holding a childish and ridiculous caricature of it). You'd be able to immediately begin having fruitful conversations and interacting with people on videos like this one. Secondly: imagine a baby who grows up playing with a rattle in its crib. He associates the rattle with fun and love. Now, many years later, he's hiking a trail in the woods and hears a rattle again. ...but since this guy learned and understands presuppositionalism, it causes him to be aware of his assumptions and to question them. So instead of thinking "fun and love" when he hears the rattle-in-the-woods, he becomes cautious instead. "Why am I hearing this artificial noise that doesn't seem to blend in with all the other regular sounds of wind and leaves and bird-songs?" Being aware of his presuppositions may have saved his life in this situation...
@@Scott_Terry Wow, Scott, you are as pitifully bad at explaining things as every other person of your presuppositional ilk. I gained my "childish and ridiculous caricature" of presuppositionalism from people exactly like you. So, I will ask the question again, in a slightly different way: How would it benefit me to have a non-'childish and ridiculous caricature' of an understanding of presuppositional apologetics? So I can have fruitful conversations with more people like you? Seriously? I have had tens of thousands of fruitful conversations with people with no consideration made for any god. But, to want more fruitful conversations with you and your ilk, now that's just sad. Do you see now why people like me call your little cadre of like minded boyfriends a "circle-jerk"? Do you? Sorry, pal, you do you, but I'm just not into it. So, a little science: do you actually think the sound of a rattlesnake's tail is unnatural? You called it "unnatural". Just checkin'. Here's a question/analogy that makes a lot more sense: should the first native person who stepped in front of a musket ball not knowing it would tear they/them to shreds known it was not benign, such as a clap of thunder directly overhead? Possibly, certainly there may have been some natural skepticism, but ultimately, it was learned through experience and observation. Where can I find any experience or observation of a god (I ask again, and again . . . and again)? One more thing: I promise you I make no consideration for god . . . ever, yet somehow I can communicate in such a way as to elicit these responses from you. How can that be? If I notice no inspiration from a god, and you claim inspiration, or grounding, or whatever the f-all, from some god while demonstrating none, WHAT IS THE POINT OF GOD? If it is unconscious, again, what is the point, and why are you calling it god? Have a lovely day, Scott, . . . maybe keep some tissues on-hand just in case you feel "inspired" to pow wow with your little community of pre-sup brah's. I can imagine how emotional that can get.
@@kevinfancher3512 You're "just not into" rationally justifying your position or your claims. We can only do presuppositional apologetics with people who are concerned with being rational.
@@Scott_Terry Please inform me of a claim I've made that you would like me to rationalize. Thank you. So, congratulations. Now you're simply admitting it IS a circle-jerk. Bravo. 'You have to believe it before you can discuss it.' Brilliant, dude. 'WHAT CAUSED YOU TO BELIEVE IT? This is what we keep asking and what every one of you continues to dodge. This abject failure repeatedly points to apparent fact that presuppositional apologetics, as well as TAG, are bankrupt of justification . . . or that you guys also DO NOT UNDERSTAND this supposedly very important thing. Which is it? Put up or shut it! And before you ask . . . DON'T. Do not ask me to justify something that you also have no justification for, such as: how do you know you're not a brain in a vat? Of course, you wouldn't do something as stupid as that, would you?
Interesting video. Thank you. I’ve always found presupp difficult to illustrate. And it’s amazing the amount of apologists that employ it as the seminal method don’t seem to be very effective at explaining it or illustrating it and winning hearts and minds. With regard to evidence, if the Bible said something that was patently false how could we claim that it’s true because it says it is? Much of what the OT shared can’t be verified. Given that man has not found any inconsistencies with what we can prove, it bears the ring of truth. But to tell someone it’s true because it says it’s true is silly. How do you know it’s true would be the obvious question. And that requires evidence. I would simply ask them what in it can they prove as false.
The fact that you’re asking the question of truth proves the Bible is true. You’re showing the image of God in you by looking for what only God can provide. You can’t disprove or prove the Bible without first using the truth of the Bible. It is circular, but it is not a vicious circle like any ultimate standard that isn’t Scripture. It is the foundation for all human experience and knowledge, therefore, it’s circularity is necessary and valid
9 months later. Do you see how the other guy replied? They don't care about evidence or winning hearts. They just bludgeon you with assertions. They start with the premise that they're right and can't possibly be wrong. Arguments don't work that way, and no emotionally mature person thinks they do. Which leads me to believe that presuppositionalism attracts a certain kind of person that suffers from a pathological need to right. It's apologetics for the "nuh-uh" people.
@@jeremyjohnson4106Thats a total non sequitur. How can asking the question prove that the bible is true?? Isn't the bible patently and obviously false?
Great video, thanks. I'm still not convinced, of presuppositionalism, but I appreciate the clarity of this brother. The problem I see with the highest authority claim, is NOT that the Bible isn't the highest authority - I believe it is, however, in order for. person to believe that the Bible is the highest authority, like this gentleman, they (he) has to rely on a lesser, fallible, authority, i.e., Calvin, other presuppositionalists. I've read John Frame's and Van Til's arguments and find them still circular. Dr. David Haynes, a pastor and apologist in Quebec has shown using predicate logic that Presuppositionalism is, in fact, circular.
If you believe your argument is valid then prove it without using reason. All arguments are circular. What you have to assert otherwise is that man has an intellectual problem that needs to be solved rather than a moral problem that he needs to be disarmed from defending. You have to remove faith from apologetics and conversion by the Holy Spirit.
As much as it pains me Pastor Joel, I have to disagree with you here for a second time. The first being on infant baptism. The Apostle Paul appealed directly to eyewitness evidence in 1 Corinthians 15, and Peter did as well. That's where I almost always start my apologetic arguments, and I trust that in God's sovereignty He will save the person I'm talking to if it's part of His perfect will. Anyway, I appreciate you laying out the differences here in detail, but I still prefer the apologetic methods of Geisler and Turek, but I'm not opposed to using presup methods as well. I don't think they have to be in conflict.
I agree that they do not have to be in conflict. The evidence for the veracity of the Bible has actually been preserved by God Himself; He has preserved the manuscript evidence, for example which is overwhelming. I appreciate the presuppositional view also, and I would cite Romans 1. But even in Romans 1 Paul cites the revelation of God through His creation, which all mankind can see. Which is why no one without excuse.
@@jeannet7443how convenient. I guess we can just toss out the literal mountians of concrete evidence in direct opposition to the accounts in the bible. You convinced me. Im saved!
@@GrolskslorGconcrete evidence based on what? You have a moral problem that can only be solved by the Holy Spirit while you hide behind an intellectual problem.
it's superior because it makes theists finally admit that there no good evidence for god. Hence, to make their point, they have to come up with some terrible mental gymnastic that start with "let's start with the presupposition I'm right (god exists). If I'm right, then you (atheist) are wrong)". Amazing philosophy. Next level!
ok, so instead, we should start with you are right and therefore I am wrong, no. We look at the same evidence, the Christian says what an amazing world God has created, the atheist says what an amazing thing that happen to come about through random chance. The very crux of the argument is the presuppositions, until those presuppositions are proven wrong, no matter what, you are going to always see any evidence through those presuppositions.
@piage84 If you don't have something unfalsifiable, then on what basis can you make any truth claim. All truth claims would then be based on something falsifiable.
Hence why I am not a presuppositionalist. I am a Christian and hold to classical apologetics. You can most definitely prove God's existence through nature. Presuppositionalism is nonsensical and collapses in on itself. It's not a good representation of biblical theology or natural theology.
Question: Why is presuppositional apologetics superior to classical/evidence-based apologetics? Answer: It’s not. Presuppositional apologetics can be used for literally every other faith (either supernatural or materialist in nature) to the same effect. Presuppositionalists use circular reasoning and if they have problems with the Muslims using this train of thought to argue for the inerrancy of the Qu’ran, you should not use it for the Bible. It’s literally “The Bible is true.” “Why?” “Because the Bible is the Word of God.” “How do you know that?” “Because the Bible says it is true.”
Did you think while typing that comment? Oh you did huh, that proves Christian theism, because without God you couldn't think Only God provides a basis for things being intelligible and us being able to know anything. Without God you can't know anything or think - I've heard a presupper say that before and it's ridiculous, I don't even take presuppers seriously, they're illogical or ignorant or dishonest, it's the worst apologetics I've encountered so far
@17:50. That doesn’t make sense. If the pastor tells you that Jesus loves you, that is a fallible authority referencing an infallible authority. But are you saying you shouldn’t trust the fallible authority at that point? Fallible doesn’t mean is always wrong Joel. Stop using that word in that way
Jude 1:3: "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints," 2 Peter 1:16-21: "16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such a declaration as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory: “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased”- 18 and we ourselves heard this declaration made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." I realize this discussion addressed one person's doubt. I would tell Nathaniel that we have a faith that is also based in eye witness accounts as well as other evidence: manuscripts, archaeology, prophecy. The Bible is not myth, it is not a fairy tail, it isn't fiction. We know, for example, that the accounts in the Bible of events are reliable because with every turn of the archeologist's spade the Bible is proven to be true. Yes, God has preserved the evidence. The manuscript evidence proves that the Bible hasn't been changed over time, an accusation that is hurled from, for example, Muslims. Christians need to know how to answer these accusations. The resurrection was a supernatural event, with hundreds of (not just two or three) eye witnesses who attested to the risen Messiah. The fact that these eyewitnesses actually saw the physical, risen body of Jesus Christ is evidence that the resurrection happened. The Gospel writers included this information of eyewitnesses in their accounts. The apostles were willing to be persecuted and martyred because they had seen the risen Christ. "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 19:10 And then we have the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. Neither archaeology or prophecy validate the Islamic and Mormon narratives. God has not left us without evidence of the truth of the Bible. We don't need to abandon evidence-based apologetics. These tools are additional weapons in our arsenal to defend the faith. Many doubters have come to Christ by examining the evidence for the veracity of Scripture (Simon Greenleaf, for example). Using evidence that attests to the reliability of the Bible does not undermine presuppositional apologetics. We can and should use both. We can defend our faith from more than one direction.
Extra-Biblical sources can strengthen classical apologetics, but the authority of the Bible is not contingent upon them. The collection of documents in the NT corroborate each other. Therefore you have corroborating eye witness accounts coming from the ultimate authority, the Bible.
So the gist of this is to prioritize everything you assume is true over anything to the contrary that is clearly seen in objective reality. This approach can equally support literally any belief, regardless of any evidence for or against it. This is the definition of irrationality. The fact that apologetics has to stoop so low says everything about the likely truth of Christianity. Hilariously pathetic.
Ultimately every belief system is presuppositional when you boil it down. Everyone holds to a foundation of some kind. The atheist/naturalist presupposes (typically) that there is nothing beyond time, space, matter, and energy, that their senses can be trusted, and that we should use logic to make coherent arguments. However, they are assuming these starting points without a basis for WHY these should be assumed. Starting with the premise that there is nothing supernatural will of course lead to you rejecting anything that could possibly be beyond our natural world, so the argument is circular. The Christian says that it is possible for there to exist things beyond our natural world that have influence inside the world that we live in i.e. God. We have Scripture that describes the character of who God is, how He governs that world, and that we can trust our ability to analyze and use logic, as well as our senses being correct. What presuppositional apologetics then does is "internally critique" each system, assuming the presuppositions and assertions that each world view makes. Christianity remains coherent and consistent because it is able to ground everything in the triune God of Scripture. Atheism/naturalism fails to remain coherent because it is unable to justify WHY we can trust the initial assumptions to be true.
@@douglasmcnay644 “…they are assuming these starting points without a basis for WHY these should be assumed.” They are assumed provisionally, until such time as it is demonstrated that we shouldn’t trust them. Uncertainty is ok!
Not only is this argument entirely circular-the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true!-but the justification of personal revelation is incoherent because you don’t know if you can trust it! How could you? The presentation was entirely circular but only appeared not to be because the logical chain back to first principles wasn’t always drawn explicitly.
Presuppositional apologetics is like a 4 year old child trying to have a conversation with an adult about any topics. It's the dumbest form of apologetics possible as it's based on 2 silly foundations: - the atheist is lying (as they deep down know that god exists) - it only works for the Christian god Both these assumptions are factually false without both of those, there's no presuppositional apologetics
“The Bible is the only authority we can trust” - this is not 1689 LBC and I am skeptical what you are describing is even a Christian position. Self refuting contradiction and error. Mark and avoid
The contradiction of both classical and evidential method is that they are presupposing the validity of the scripture by using it to prove what Jesus said.By using the Bible to prove what Jesus said about the Bible.They are guilty of doing what they accuse the presuppositionalist of doing.😂😂
Scripture may be infallible but the interpretation (which requires an interpreter) is not. Scripture was assimilated by the Orthodox Church; see Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. So, would it make sense to say that the ones who translated and compiled Scripture turned out to be wrong?
When I questioned my faith, it was through evidential apologetics that strengthened my faith. I honestly don't understand presuppositional or classical apologetics. Many people I respect, use them, and have benefitted from it. So I don't attack it by any means.
It is not circular reasoning to say because the Bible tells me so. Who says the Holy Bible is one book? It's comprised of 66 books with over 40 different authors over the span of thousands of years!
It is precisely circular reasoning. The Bible is the claim; you can’t also use it as the evidence. The point is you want independent evidence to support your claim.
IF you could IRREFUTABLY then yes Christianity is tombed BUT we have IRREFUTABLE evidence that He rose from the dead. Christianity is based on Faith and relationship. On saying that everything hinges on Christ.
Nathaniel: Consider how Jesus spoke of the scripture. He never corrected it, he spoke of it as the word of God. And please spare me the nonsense that Jesus used the Septuagint.
I will not spare you that nonsense because it would have been one of his primary resources. IF we are assuming he was a preacher and not a revolutionary
I don't actually see why this is a debate. For a Christian who has and knows the voice of the Holy Spirit, yes God himself can confirm the truth of His word. But for the non-saved scholars that we would like to witness to, in our modern culture evidence can be extraordinarily useful. Even for me when I was already saved, hearing evidence based Apologetics cemented my belief in the absolute authority of God. And no, I'm not just going to listen to every whim of science, but I do find it amazing that Archeology and history continue to prove the Bible true and true again despite those very scientists trying to find evidence to the contrary. I also do not believe that God has a problem with us thinking this way. Romans 1:19,20 seems to indicate that we can use external sources to be held responsible for our doubt. And in Matthew 12:24-28 even Jesus himself alluded to the idea the devil cannot work against himself, so I don't see a problem with the argument of saying since the resurrection happened it must have God's stamp of approval.
You spent 15ish minutes bashing our God given reason/intellect, then on the last 5ish minutes you defend presuppositional apologetics by literally singing (17:31), "This I know, for the Bible tells me so". While telling us it's not circular, it just appears to be.
They are not, both should be used to help bring people to Christ. Stop dividing over dumb stuff and let’s focus on using all the tools God has given us.
And now there are differences between Christians in which apologetics are the "right" ones. Alas, both "presuppositional" and "classic" apologetics fail with the exact same frequency: always. It is nothing new that Christians can't agree on what "inerrant" means when it comes to their claims about their bible. Many times, a Christian will claim inerrancy, but only when it comes to the "original manuscripts", which don't exist. There is no way to show that there was ever an inerrant version of the bible. This is a baseless assumption made by the Christian in order to hide behind the "well, you can't prove there weren't" argument. That this god is supposedly perfect, and supposedly wants everyone to come to it makes a good argument that there is no reason to assume that there was a mythical "correct" set of bible stories if it allows the wrong ones to remain.
Both methods fail always? Lol! Evidential really helped me and many others gain or strengthen our faith. Presuppositional has helped many as well. I disagree that one is better than the other.
I challenge you to look for ancient manuscripts of any ancient book. None of them even come close to manuscripts found of the bible. The bible is by far the most reliable book to the original of any book older than 1000 years. Yes there are minor differences in copies, but it's like 1 %. And none of those differences are very important.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 "I challenge you to look for ancient manuscripts of any ancient book. None of them even come close to manuscripts found of the bible. The bible is by far the most reliable book to the original of any book older than 1000 years. Yes there are minor differences in copies, but it's like 1 %. And none of those differences are very important." ROFL. "Come close'" how, TTR? In number of scraps? That doesn't mean something is true. That they mostly agree? That doesn't mean something is true. I am always amused with these types of claims. What happens when the qu'ran exceeds copies of your nonsense, having less differences? Will it magically become the one and only true religion? The bible is not reliable at all when it comes to reality. Funny how there is not one scrap of evidence for any of essential events in it. No creation (either contradictory version); no world-wide 28,000+ foot deep flood; no tower of babel; no exodus; no fabulous palaces and temples with tons of gold and precious items; no one noticing a guy wandering around with a roman legion's worth of men following him in Roman-occupied Palestine; no one noticing a day where there was a major earthquake, the sky darkening and the dead wandering the streets of Roman-occupied Jerusalem on a Passover. Funny how even the other gospel writers didn't notice that either. And it's always hilariosu to see you whine "it's not important". The differences influence your theology, dear. Tell me, could Mary touch Christ in the garden or not? One gospel says yes, one says no, one doesn't have Mary seeing Christ at all. Hmmmm, and that does change your theology, TTR, on how the resurrection worked.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 " Both methods fail always? Lol! Evidential really helped me and many others gain or strengthen our faith. Presuppositional has helped many as well. I disagree that one is better than the other" alas, TTR, the Christians you say are wrong make the same claims about their way as do you yours. oh their faith is "gained", oh their faith is "strengthened". funny how none of you can show your version to be the "right" one.
![KSI - Dirty [Official Visualiser]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VoDh1h1dPUE/mqdefault.jpg)
Subscribe to our RUclips channel for more content like this. To support Right Response Ministries, visit: rightresponseministries.com/donate/
Subscribe to Theology Applied full episodes below:
Apple podcast: bit.ly/theologyapplied
Spotify podcast: bit.ly/theologyappliedspotify
If you live in the Austin area, Pastor Joel just started planting a brand new church called Covenant Bible Church in Hutto, Texas. He would love for you to come visit on a Sunday. Check out the church’s website for details: covenantbible.org/
Isn't presupp the point where Christians have accepted they haven't got a single scrap of credible evidence of your god and so need to resort to childish word games?
I see you Christians are dishonest and c😊ant answer! Lol
15:18 _"...although that may be an apparent paradox, it's not."_ Being paradoxical, nor being fallacious is the issue with circular justification. The issue with circular justification is that it is epistemically vacuous. It's an empty claim. There's nothing to support it other than the claim itself. That is to say, the issue lies with your inability to show the claim is sound, not that the argument is invalid.
Imagine being in a room with Christ. He says that P. But you hold your hand up in his face and say: "I'mm'a stop you right there, Christ. Just because you say that P, doesn't mean I'd be justified in believing that P. I need something more..."
@@Scott_Terry Yeah, then what?
@@ajhieb ...if you reject the self-attesting authority of Christ, your entire alternative worldview collapses into absurdity.
@@Scott_Terry Yawn. Can you prove that? No. Can you demonstrate that? No. Can you back it up in any meaningful way? No. Remind me why I should care about your vacuous claims?
@@ajhieb So, if Christianity is true, all justification of beliefs (all "proofs") just reduce to the authoritative say-so of Christ.
Demonstrate it? Yes. We demonstrate this whenever someone (like you) tries - and subsequently fails - to offer some alternative justification for any of your views.
That none of you are ever able to do it is something we would expect if Christianity were true.
As to why you ought to care? You're the one here, watching this video and trying to interact with presuppositionalists... maybe, instead, you ought to just sit by quietly and learn?
But the minute you try to offer objections to our Faith, you get the horns...
Theology is not a way to truth, it is a way to validate your truth.
Presuppositional apologetics is well worth the investment in study. Evidence must be evaluated by presuppositions. To put the evidential approach over against presupp is to 1. misunderstand the distinction. 2. To put logic & science as independent of God (bad idea). 3. leaves with probability only, where presupp leaves apodictic certainty. 4. (etc...)
@AnonYmous-yj9ib Correct- within a worldview. But there are particular presuppositions (worldview) you start with to identify (law of identity) and evaluate (law of contradiction, excluded middle) evidence (e.g. modus ponens). So, you need to start with the correct worldview which makes sense of laws of logic and everything else we experience and even experience itself. This is where internal critique is employed and Christianity alone makes sense of these necessary preconditions of thought because of the transcendent God of scripture.
@AnonYmous-yj9ib Yes- but not because they are created, but they are the product of his divine nature governing reality. "The name 'laws of thought' is also misleading, for what is important is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words, the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly.”- (The Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell pg.113)
@EleazarDuprees It seems anonymous just destroyed your argument and you ran away from him.
Please tell me how your god justifies ANYTHING when you can't even show such a being EXISTS?
I appreciate the banter, but if you really think someone saying 'Christianity doesn't make sense' equals 'destroying an argument' then you weren't sincerely trying to understand to begin with. Seeing that we will all die it would be in your best interest to understand the gospel before your time arrives, possibly today.
Christ is eternal God come as a man in the flesh to die for your sins and save you from eternal damnation. And he rose from the dead- the empty tomb is a historical fact. Believe on him and be saved.@@nickjones5435
Best example: endegenous retrovirises. Compare what any creationist source says about them against what any mainstream science publication says about them and how they account for the similarities between chimpanzees and humans.
Recommend listening to RC Sproul and Greg Bahnsen Debate this. I believe it’s available on RUclips. RC Sproul argues that you can argue for God from mediate (with medium/natural revaluation) and immediate (without medium/ word of God) revelation. While Bahnsen argues from the impossibility of the Contrary. That is simply that without a Biblical Worldview nothing makes sense.
"It's true because it's true." Genius.
As no justification is ever offered, presuppositional apologetics is a waste of time.
The Bible is the self validating word of God. It needs no other authority.
@@BigCowboy777 It's just a book, dude.
@@BigCowboy777 _"The Bible is the self validating word of God. It needs no other authority."_
I am the self validating authority in my worldview. The only difference between my claim and your claim is that your claim falls in line with your preconceived ideas about the world so you blindly accept it.
It’s not circular logic because - “go read John Frame” 🤣. Great answer, considering he tries to change the circular charge in his answer. Circular logic is really simple and all logic is certainly not circular in this way.
Cornelius Van Til agreed that presuppositional was circular reasoning, i.e., start with God only to end with God, but didn't admit that it was a petitio principi...a logical fallacy in which a premise is assumed to be true without warrant or in which what is to be proved is implicitly taken for granted. The existence of God starts with man and ends with God (classical apologetics) To start with God would make God wholly other, and unknowable...
God has condescended to us in his wisdom and sovereignty to make himself known in Scripture. It’s not viciously circular because it provides the preconditions for intelligibility.
Presuppositionalism can be summed up in 3 words.
Sophistry, Circularity and Gaslighting.
That's precisely what it is.
Thanks for your illuminating post
TRUTH
If you believe your reasoning is valid, prove it without using reason.
"Since I'm right, you can't be."
-Presuppositionalism
Unless you subscribe to today's postmodern ideals of "your truth and my truth", you believe there is only one definitive truth and standard. So by definition if your beliefs are not in line with the truth, then what you believe is false.
I just want a defense of the claims made by presuppositionalists, but they never offer one. Only assertions and gaslighting.
@@dutchchatham1then Read your Bible
@@BigCowboy777 the Bible is the claim, not the evidence.
Is presuppositionalism comforting? I bet it is. Denying one's interlocutor's ability to disagree must certainly come in handy. You never have to be wrong again!
@@dutchchatham1 You might try taking an introduction to philosophy course.
There, you'll learn that someone (you, for example) isn't (intellectually) allowed to just swagger around in public, making audacious claims, without having an underlying account (and justification for them). To hand-wave away presuppositionalism, you need to hand-wave away the requirement of rationality all together.
Is hand waving away the need to be rational comforting? I bet it is... :D
What do you think of Francis Schaeffer?
I have found that with a evidential approach works well with those who are already religious, and a presuppositional approach is the ONLY way to deal with an atheist.
I agree. Atheists always want evidence. Never give it to them.
This is definitely not true! Josh McDowell and Lee Strobel were both atheists or agnostic in the 70s. They both set about to disprove Jesus and the resurrection through historical data. But through the evidence, they both got saved. Of course, I don't discount that the Holy Spirit was working on their hearts. This is always true, regardless what method helps someone come to belief, it is the Holy Spirit that opens their eyes.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 you’re pointing out the MASSIVE exception, not the rule. And atheistic catechesis is MUCH stronger today than in the 70s due to public education and higher ed. Totally different playing field and entrenched presuppositions. It’s like if I said “you need to be 6’ or taller to play in the NBA” and you go, “not true! Spud Webb was 5’6” in the NBA in the 80s!”. Massive exception and totally different landscape
@@nathanielkeane8462 I have no idea which approach works more. I responding to you saying that evidential apologetics NEVER works. I personally believe that the Holy Spirit opens eyes. And he can use any way to do it. Jesus did miracles so that 'they might believe'. I have never seen a miracle, yet I believe. But for some, God uses miracles. Thomas needed to see Jesus to believe, but most Christians never saw Jesus. Paul also needed to see Jesus, even though he hadn't seen him until Christ ascended to heaven.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 Amen.
Hello from Corpus Christi
Also james white and Steve Lawson recently had some good sermons on this topic at the g3 channel
ruclips.net/video/qRAPhj08XtE/видео.html
Why would god bother putting in any authority that could error?
Didn't he fail to see his creation would need to be scrapped 3 times?
Joel, can you tell me what internalism and externalism is?
Since professional philosophers waffle around in how they understand this distinction, why should Joel do any better?
@@Scott_Terry Not surprising you're terrified to address the question head on. It's yet another philosophical tool that presups try to exploit in order to gain the upper hand in an interaction.
Internalism is a theory of knowledge/justification that says that justification (and subsequently knowledge) derive from internal factors to a person. Externalism says that knowledge/justification relies on one or more factors outside of a person.
Presups take an externalist position by saying that God is the justification for all knowledge claims. The offer no elaboration on this. There's no description of _how_ God manages to justify things, just that he _does_ by definition. So what was considered an unsolvable problem in epistemology (Agrippa's Trilemma) was magically solved just by making a baseless claim! Cool trick fellas! Go claim your Berggruen Prize!
But it's not just picking a vacuous form of externalism that's the problem it's also that the presup apologist will also demand that his interlocutor provide an internalist justification for any/all claims and deny any attempts at externalism. They're simply counting on the fact that their interlocutors aren't familiar enough with the subject to catch the deception.
Excited to hear this on this sabbath day!
The Lord's day ***
Sabbath is Saturday
@@micahlantz905 the sabbath day is now the Lord’s day. We don’t just ignore the 4th command while keeping the Lord’s day holy
@@jeremyjohnson4106 amen, my views have changed and aligned on this recently. Man, reformed theology changes everything!
@@micahlantz905 praise God brother!
Great video great clear video
What do you think of the idea that unless one presupposes that the Bible is the word of God, one cannot have the tools that are needed to find out whether something is true?
Abdolute cobblers
Great point exalting scripture in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Thank you for the video.
Pressup destroys sola scriptura and redefines it.
There is another aspect of presuppositional apologetics that says that only the Christian worldview can account for logic, morals, and science. If the only the Christian worldview can account for those things, would this prove that the Bible is the word of God?
No.
But neither does the presuppositionalist claim that it does.
All justification in a Revelational Epistemology reduces down to the divine, self-attesting, authority of Christ. If Christ says that P, then I'm justified in believing that P - justified by virtue of Christ having said that P. Subsequently, this does give "P" a sort of transcendental-necessity status, such that anyone who denies P will be reduced to absurdity...but this accidental property of P (...its being transcendentally necessary) is not the ground for justifying one's belief in P (since it requires omniscience to say that P is transcendentally necessary and the presuppositionalist's belief that P is transcendentally necessary rests on the authority of Christ).
So, while I wouldn't expect you to accept belief that P, based on my claim that P is transcendentally necessary, I am, nevertheless, motivated (by my worldview) to believe that P is transcendentally necessary and that your denial of P will lead to absurdity. (And, this is exactly what we find - empirically - when we in fact do see unbelieving positions reduced to absurdity time and time and time again).
Do you read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek? if not, you're depending on the "lesser" authority of interpreters and translators.
@Rasskaz Forge Translation necessarily involves interpretation. You'd know this if you've ever done a translation, especially a biblical translation.
@Rasskaz Forge You may think your father said or meant one thing when he really said or meant something else. But you wouldn't know because you haven't even read the words that he said, because you don't understand the language in which they were said.
If you presuppose that the guy who read you your father's letter is inerrant in doing so, it is proof that he is inerrant.
@@hamnchee If you presuppose something, it's easy to "prove" that assumption: it's called a circular argument.
@@11kravitzn I'm just practicing my presuppositional apologetics. "It's a circle, yes, but it's a virtuous circle!", as I once heard a pre-sup Christian respond in a debate.
I don’t think Joel does a good job explaining how non pressup methods logically conclude in a rejection of sola scriptura. I strongly disagree that it does
It's one of those things that's obvious when you take a step back and think about it.
The Bible says that P,
therefore,
I'm justified in believing that P.
If you say otherwise - as all non-presuppositional apologists do - then you're rejecting Scripture as the sole, final, authority. Something else is more "authoritative"... reason, logic, or empirical data, etc.
Reading these comments tell me that there is a good deal of misunderstanding of what the word of God says. I agree with Pastor Joel. I'm not at my desk and I hate typing on my miniscule phone' s keyboard. Will be back to explain what and why later. Ok, this is future Craig at my desk less than an hour later. Here are notes from the message out of I Thessalonians 4:8 done last Sunday, June 5th. Quote:
"II Corinthians 1:21, 22
Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge.
I John 2:20
But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know.
The anointing is the inward persuasion of God that the Word you are hearing is true.
I John 2:27
As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him.
It is the power of God to bend your will to what is true. The Holy Spirit is in your heart; God’s power is exercised by His Spirit. But this is not some mystical thing where the Holy Spirit speaks things to you in your spiritual ear, a teaching that He gives you directly and not to others. No, it is the anointing that teaches here, not the Holy Spirit. His anointing teaches you by the recognition in your heart of the truth of the Word of God. God said it, that settles it, and you believe it. The Spirit of God caused you to be born again, the Spirit of God energized faith within to trust the Word and believe. And that which you have already received from God now continues to act within you to discern truth from a lie, God’s Word from man’s word. This comes about from God the Spirit living within your heart.
Let me give you an example to help you here.
John 6:44-47
No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life."
So, I gave the above notes so show that as the Thessalonians had received the hearing of the Apostle Paul, the Prophet Sylvanus (Silas) and the Pastor Timothy as the Word of God and not the word of men (See Chapter 1) they were God-taught (literal). God-taught, God puts faith into our heart to believe the gospel. We believe not because we have proof from lesser sources but because the Spirit anointed us with believing the Word of the gospel we heard as the Word of God. Hope this helps.
Thank you brother. Amen.
It is impossible for the Bible to be the highest authority, because I need my eyes to see the Bible and my mind to understand it. If I were blind and stupid, then it would be impossible for me to treat the text of any book as having authority. The highest authorities are your eyes (or other senses) and your mind, because without those, you can understand nothing else.
Eerily similar to what the mormons preach.
“I know it clearly sounds like a contradiction and a logical fallacy, but it’s not. I won’t explain how it’s not, but trust me.”
“Everyone who has studied reality and can’t find anything in it that matches my beliefs, well, it’s because the all secretly hate my invisible friend. That must be it.”
Irrational. Textbook faulty reasoning. Pathetic. Unconvincing.
Roman’s 1 aside but you think you have a valid argument. Can you prove it without using reason?
In other words, one should take the Bible's word for it. The Bible is the highest authority. If something else besides the Bible were to prove that the Bible is the word of God, then the Bible would not be the highest authority.
So, to the questioner, all doubts about inerrancy are answered simply by believing that the Bible is inerrant. Now, if that doesn't quiet those doubts, nothing will.
Are you willing to jump from a high place without a parachute if you simply believe sufficiently strongly that gravity has no effect on you?
No, of course not. So why do you think believing sufficiently strongly somehow makes something true in the case of the Bible but in no other case?
@@diogeneslamp8004 The danger of treating belief and knowledge as synonyms is definitely a valid concern which is often ignored. To be fair though, if one "truly" believed that they were unaffected by gravity, then of course they would jump.
@@blueglassdave
And reality would disabuse them of their misconceptions. This is why we trust our perceptions-particularly those enhanced by technological aids-at least provisionally: nature will eventually tell us if we’re wrong.
@@diogeneslamp8004 Possibly, assuming the person was open to analyzing new experiences on their own merit, which is fundamental in science but frequently avoided within religion, but the "true" believer may very well tell themselves that God was testing them that time so as to avoid having to challenge their belief, particularly if they're concerned that they would be challenging God by examining their faith in their own weightlessness.
Isn't this just circular reasoning?
welp. Didn't expect you to just admit it... or to pretend like it isn't after admitting it is.
"What's wrong with circular reasoning."
DD
Why will no pre-sup explain to me how my life would change if I woke up tomorrow realizing you guys are right about... uh... whatever the hell you say? Would I be happier? Would I be smarter? Would I be kinder or more generous? Would I make better decisions or be healed of my disability? C'mon, is there ANY good reason to consider buying what you guys are selling?
Also, could you be wrong?
If you're planning to respond with questions for me rather than some answers to my questions, don't bother. Congratulations, I'll just dismiss you as another nonsensical, addle minded clown. Good day.
Study the Bible.
For one thing, your life would change by the simple fact that you'd have woken up actually understanding presuppositionalism (instead of holding a childish and ridiculous caricature of it). You'd be able to immediately begin having fruitful conversations and interacting with people on videos like this one.
Secondly: imagine a baby who grows up playing with a rattle in its crib. He associates the rattle with fun and love. Now, many years later, he's hiking a trail in the woods and hears a rattle again.
...but since this guy learned and understands presuppositionalism, it causes him to be aware of his assumptions and to question them. So instead of thinking "fun and love" when he hears the rattle-in-the-woods, he becomes cautious instead. "Why am I hearing this artificial noise that doesn't seem to blend in with all the other regular sounds of wind and leaves and bird-songs?"
Being aware of his presuppositions may have saved his life in this situation...
@@Scott_Terry Wow, Scott, you are as pitifully bad at explaining things as every other person of your presuppositional ilk. I gained my "childish and ridiculous caricature" of presuppositionalism from people exactly like you. So, I will ask the question again, in a slightly different way: How would it benefit me to have a non-'childish and ridiculous caricature' of an understanding of presuppositional apologetics? So I can have fruitful conversations with more people like you? Seriously? I have had tens of thousands of fruitful conversations with people with no consideration made for any god. But, to want more fruitful conversations with you and your ilk, now that's just sad. Do you see now why people like me call your little cadre of like minded boyfriends a "circle-jerk"? Do you? Sorry, pal, you do you, but I'm just not into it.
So, a little science: do you actually think the sound of a rattlesnake's tail is unnatural? You called it "unnatural". Just checkin'. Here's a question/analogy that makes a lot more sense: should the first native person who stepped in front of a musket ball not knowing it would tear they/them to shreds known it was not benign, such as a clap of thunder directly overhead? Possibly, certainly there may have been some natural skepticism, but ultimately, it was learned through experience and observation. Where can I find any experience or observation of a god (I ask again, and again . . . and again)?
One more thing: I promise you I make no consideration for god . . . ever, yet somehow I can communicate in such a way as to elicit these responses from you. How can that be? If I notice no inspiration from a god, and you claim inspiration, or grounding, or whatever the f-all, from some god while demonstrating none, WHAT IS THE POINT OF GOD? If it is unconscious, again, what is the point, and why are you calling it god?
Have a lovely day, Scott, . . . maybe keep some tissues on-hand just in case you feel "inspired" to pow wow with your little community of pre-sup brah's. I can imagine how emotional that can get.
@@kevinfancher3512 You're "just not into" rationally justifying your position or your claims.
We can only do presuppositional apologetics with people who are concerned with being rational.
@@Scott_Terry Please inform me of a claim I've made that you would like me to rationalize. Thank you.
So, congratulations. Now you're simply admitting it IS a circle-jerk. Bravo. 'You have to believe it before you can discuss it.' Brilliant, dude. 'WHAT CAUSED YOU TO BELIEVE IT? This is what we keep asking and what every one of you continues to dodge. This abject failure repeatedly points to apparent fact that presuppositional apologetics, as well as TAG, are bankrupt of justification . . . or that you guys also DO NOT UNDERSTAND this supposedly very important thing. Which is it? Put up or shut it! And before you ask . . . DON'T. Do not ask me to justify something that you also have no justification for, such as: how do you know you're not a brain in a vat? Of course, you wouldn't do something as stupid as that, would you?
Exactly...yep...Stallings...guy in my high school...North Haven Connecticut
Interesting video. Thank you. I’ve always found presupp difficult to illustrate. And it’s amazing the amount of apologists that employ it as the seminal method don’t seem to be very effective at explaining it or illustrating it and winning hearts and minds.
With regard to evidence, if the Bible said something that was patently false how could we claim that it’s true because it says it is? Much of what the OT shared can’t be verified. Given that man has not found any inconsistencies with what we can prove, it bears the ring of truth. But to tell someone it’s true because it says it’s true is silly. How do you know it’s true would be the obvious question. And that requires evidence. I would simply ask them what in it can they prove as false.
The fact that you’re asking the question of truth proves the Bible is true. You’re showing the image of God in you by looking for what only God can provide. You can’t disprove or prove the Bible without first using the truth of the Bible.
It is circular, but it is not a vicious circle like any ultimate standard that isn’t Scripture. It is the foundation for all human experience and knowledge, therefore, it’s circularity is necessary and valid
9 months later. Do you see how the other guy replied? They don't care about evidence or winning hearts. They just bludgeon you with assertions. They start with the premise that they're right and can't possibly be wrong.
Arguments don't work that way, and no emotionally mature person thinks they do.
Which leads me to believe that presuppositionalism attracts a certain kind of person that suffers from a pathological need to right. It's apologetics for the "nuh-uh" people.
@@jeremyjohnson4106Thats a total non sequitur. How can asking the question prove that the bible is true??
Isn't the bible patently and obviously false?
Great video, thanks. I'm still not convinced, of presuppositionalism, but I appreciate the clarity of this brother. The problem I see with the highest authority claim, is NOT that the Bible isn't the highest authority - I believe it is, however, in order for. person to believe that the Bible is the highest authority, like this gentleman, they (he) has to rely on a lesser, fallible, authority, i.e., Calvin, other presuppositionalists. I've read John Frame's and Van Til's arguments and find them still circular. Dr. David Haynes, a pastor and apologist in Quebec has shown using predicate logic that Presuppositionalism is, in fact, circular.
If you believe your argument is valid then prove it without using reason. All arguments are circular. What you have to assert otherwise is that man has an intellectual problem that needs to be solved rather than a moral problem that he needs to be disarmed from defending. You have to remove faith from apologetics and conversion by the Holy Spirit.
As much as it pains me Pastor Joel, I have to disagree with you here for a second time. The first being on infant baptism. The Apostle Paul appealed directly to eyewitness evidence in 1 Corinthians 15, and Peter did as well. That's where I almost always start my apologetic arguments, and I trust that in God's sovereignty He will save the person I'm talking to if it's part of His perfect will. Anyway, I appreciate you laying out the differences here in detail, but I still prefer the apologetic methods of Geisler and Turek, but I'm not opposed to using presup methods as well. I don't think they have to be in conflict.
I agree that they do not have to be in conflict. The evidence for the veracity of the Bible has actually been preserved by God Himself; He has preserved the manuscript evidence, for example which is overwhelming. I appreciate the presuppositional view also, and I would cite Romans 1. But even in Romans 1 Paul cites the revelation of God through His creation, which all mankind can see. Which is why no one without excuse.
@@jeannet7443how convenient. I guess we can just toss out the literal mountians of concrete evidence in direct opposition to the accounts in the bible. You convinced me. Im saved!
@@GrolskslorGconcrete evidence based on what? You have a moral problem that can only be solved by the Holy Spirit while you hide behind an intellectual problem.
it's superior because it makes theists finally admit that there no good evidence for god. Hence, to make their point, they have to come up with some terrible mental gymnastic that start with "let's start with the presupposition I'm right (god exists). If I'm right, then you (atheist) are wrong)". Amazing philosophy. Next level!
That's 100% accurate. It's not even an argument. It's a bludgeoning tool for assholes who can't admit they're wrong.
ok, so instead, we should start with you are right and therefore I am wrong, no. We look at the same evidence, the Christian says what an amazing world God has created, the atheist says what an amazing thing that happen to come about through random chance. The very crux of the argument is the presuppositions, until those presuppositions are proven wrong, no matter what, you are going to always see any evidence through those presuppositions.
@@Hadloc411 in your view then, god is this unfalsifiable thing. I don't care much about unfalsifiable things
@piage84 If you don't have something unfalsifiable, then on what basis can you make any truth claim. All truth claims would then be based on something falsifiable.
Hence why I am not a presuppositionalist. I am a Christian and hold to classical apologetics. You can most definitely prove God's existence through nature. Presuppositionalism is nonsensical and collapses in on itself. It's not a good representation of biblical theology or natural theology.
Thank you for this video-I followed evidential apologetics, it excited me but this has opened my eyes……………
Now you don't lose an argument with Atheists because you put your fingers in your ears😁
@@BatTaz19 You mean the incessant begging for the leap of logic?
@@BatTaz19 - he also hums loudly at the same time. Don’t forget that part.
Question: Why is presuppositional apologetics superior to classical/evidence-based apologetics?
Answer: It’s not.
Presuppositional apologetics can be used for literally every other faith (either supernatural or materialist in nature) to the same effect. Presuppositionalists use circular reasoning and if they have problems with the Muslims using this train of thought to argue for the inerrancy of the Qu’ran, you should not use it for the Bible. It’s literally “The Bible is true.” “Why?” “Because the Bible is the Word of God.” “How do you know that?” “Because the Bible says it is true.”
Did you think while typing that comment? Oh you did huh, that proves Christian theism, because without God you couldn't think
Only God provides a basis for things being intelligible and us being able to know anything. Without God you can't know anything or think
- I've heard a presupper say that before and it's ridiculous, I don't even take presuppers seriously, they're illogical or ignorant or dishonest, it's the worst apologetics I've encountered so far
@17:50. That doesn’t make sense. If the pastor tells you that Jesus loves you, that is a fallible authority referencing an infallible authority. But are you saying you shouldn’t trust the fallible authority at that point?
Fallible doesn’t mean is always wrong Joel. Stop using that word in that way
How do you know that the fallible authority is teaching an infallible truth? Scripture alone. He’s not saying you don’t trust the fallible authority.
Jude 1:3: "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints,"
2 Peter 1:16-21: "16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such a declaration as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory: “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased”- 18 and we ourselves heard this declaration made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
I realize this discussion addressed one person's doubt. I would tell Nathaniel that we have a faith that is also based in eye witness accounts as well as other evidence: manuscripts, archaeology, prophecy. The Bible is not myth, it is not a fairy tail, it isn't fiction. We know, for example, that the accounts in the Bible of events are reliable because with every turn of the archeologist's spade the Bible is proven to be true. Yes, God has preserved the evidence.
The manuscript evidence proves that the Bible hasn't been changed over time, an accusation that is hurled from, for example, Muslims. Christians need to know how to answer these accusations.
The resurrection was a supernatural event, with hundreds of (not just two or three) eye witnesses who attested to the risen Messiah. The fact that these eyewitnesses actually saw the physical, risen body of Jesus Christ is evidence that the resurrection happened. The Gospel writers included this information of eyewitnesses in their accounts. The apostles were willing to be persecuted and martyred because they had seen the risen Christ.
"For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 19:10
And then we have the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. Neither archaeology or prophecy validate the Islamic and Mormon narratives.
God has not left us without evidence of the truth of the Bible. We don't need to abandon evidence-based apologetics. These tools are additional weapons in our arsenal to defend the faith. Many doubters have come to Christ by examining the evidence for the veracity of Scripture (Simon Greenleaf, for example). Using evidence that attests to the reliability of the Bible does not undermine presuppositional apologetics. We can and should use both. We can defend our faith from more than one direction.
Amen. Both are employed by Scripture itself. This should not be an either/or argument.
@@priestap Indeed!
Presuppositional apologetics is an oxymoron.
How so?
@@AllGlorytoGod9Cos the dishonest scum are not even apologising for their dishonest bullshit presuppositions.
Extra-Biblical sources can strengthen classical apologetics, but the authority of the Bible is not contingent upon them. The collection of documents in the NT corroborate each other. Therefore you have corroborating eye witness accounts coming from the ultimate authority, the Bible.
So the gist of this is to prioritize everything you assume is true over anything to the contrary that is clearly seen in objective reality.
This approach can equally support literally any belief, regardless of any evidence for or against it. This is the definition of irrationality. The fact that apologetics has to stoop so low says everything about the likely truth of Christianity. Hilariously pathetic.
I've never been close to convinced by a presuppositional argument which is just the argument from ignorance in many forms.
Ultimately every belief system is presuppositional when you boil it down. Everyone holds to a foundation of some kind. The atheist/naturalist presupposes (typically) that there is nothing beyond time, space, matter, and energy, that their senses can be trusted, and that we should use logic to make coherent arguments. However, they are assuming these starting points without a basis for WHY these should be assumed. Starting with the premise that there is nothing supernatural will of course lead to you rejecting anything that could possibly be beyond our natural world, so the argument is circular. The Christian says that it is possible for there to exist things beyond our natural world that have influence inside the world that we live in i.e. God. We have Scripture that describes the character of who God is, how He governs that world, and that we can trust our ability to analyze and use logic, as well as our senses being correct. What presuppositional apologetics then does is "internally critique" each system, assuming the presuppositions and assertions that each world view makes. Christianity remains coherent and consistent because it is able to ground everything in the triune God of Scripture. Atheism/naturalism fails to remain coherent because it is unable to justify WHY we can trust the initial assumptions to be true.
@@douglasmcnay644 Neither can the presuppositionalist justify his initial pressuppositions. Hence the presupposing of them.
@@douglasmcnay644
“…they are assuming these starting points without a basis for WHY these should be assumed.”
They are assumed provisionally, until such time as it is demonstrated that we shouldn’t trust them. Uncertainty is ok!
Not only is this argument entirely circular-the Bible is true because the Bible says it’s true!-but the justification of personal revelation is incoherent because you don’t know if you can trust it! How could you?
The presentation was entirely circular but only appeared not to be because the logical chain back to first principles wasn’t always drawn explicitly.
Presuppositional apologetics is like a 4 year old child trying to have a conversation with an adult about any topics. It's the dumbest form of apologetics possible as it's based on 2 silly foundations:
- the atheist is lying (as they deep down know that god exists)
- it only works for the Christian god
Both these assumptions are factually false without both of those, there's no presuppositional apologetics
How. Do. You. Know?
“The Bible is the only authority we can trust” - this is not 1689 LBC and I am skeptical what you are describing is even a Christian position. Self refuting contradiction and error. Mark and avoid
The contradiction of both classical and evidential method is that they are presupposing the validity of the scripture by using it to prove what Jesus said.By using the Bible to prove what Jesus said about the Bible.They are guilty of doing what they accuse the presuppositionalist of doing.😂😂
Scripture may be infallible but the interpretation (which requires an interpreter) is not. Scripture was assimilated by the Orthodox Church; see Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. So, would it make sense to say that the ones who translated and compiled Scripture turned out to be wrong?
No because God is almighty and sovereign. The compilation of the Bible is not man centered because it is the Omnipotent Creators divine revelation.
When I questioned my faith, it was through evidential apologetics that strengthened my faith. I honestly don't understand presuppositional or classical apologetics. Many people I respect, use them, and have benefitted from it. So I don't attack it by any means.
"Classical Apologetics" by R.C. Sproul and John Gertsner settled it for me...nothing personal...
It is not circular reasoning to say because the Bible tells me so. Who says the Holy Bible is one book? It's comprised of 66 books with over 40 different authors over the span of thousands of years!
It is precisely circular reasoning. The Bible is the claim; you can’t also use it as the evidence. The point is you want independent evidence to support your claim.
Excuse me but if Jesus' bones were found (and that was irrefutably verified) Christianity would no longer be a thing.
Putting your eternal destiny on an "if" doesn't seem very wise. Might want to look a little deeper.
IF you could IRREFUTABLY then yes Christianity is tombed BUT we have IRREFUTABLE evidence that He rose from the dead. Christianity is based on Faith and relationship. On saying that everything hinges on Christ.
No excuse is necessary. There is ample prove that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead.
Nathaniel: Consider how Jesus spoke of the scripture. He never corrected it, he spoke of it as the word of God. And please spare me the nonsense that Jesus used the Septuagint.
I will not spare you that nonsense because it would have been one of his primary resources. IF we are assuming he was a preacher and not a revolutionary
@@anonymous01792 I believe the Septuagint is a farce, concocted by Origen to buttress his heretical views of Scriptural innerancy.
I don't actually see why this is a debate. For a Christian who has and knows the voice of the Holy Spirit, yes God himself can confirm the truth of His word. But for the non-saved scholars that we would like to witness to, in our modern culture evidence can be extraordinarily useful. Even for me when I was already saved, hearing evidence based Apologetics cemented my belief in the absolute authority of God.
And no, I'm not just going to listen to every whim of science, but I do find it amazing that Archeology and history continue to prove the Bible true and true again despite those very scientists trying to find evidence to the contrary.
I also do not believe that God has a problem with us thinking this way. Romans 1:19,20 seems to indicate that we can use external sources to be held responsible for our doubt. And in Matthew 12:24-28 even Jesus himself alluded to the idea the devil cannot work against himself, so I don't see a problem with the argument of saying since the resurrection happened it must have God's stamp of approval.
You spent 15ish minutes bashing our God given reason/intellect, then on the last 5ish minutes you defend presuppositional apologetics by literally singing (17:31), "This I know, for the Bible tells me so". While telling us it's not circular, it just appears to be.
Because man has a moral problem not to be confused with the intellectual problem.
@@BigCowboy777 Fantastic job utterly failing to address any of the points raised.
They are not, both should be used to help bring people to Christ. Stop dividing over dumb stuff and let’s focus on using all the tools God has given us.
Garbage
And now there are differences between Christians in which apologetics are the "right" ones. Alas, both "presuppositional" and "classic" apologetics fail with the exact same frequency: always.
It is nothing new that Christians can't agree on what "inerrant" means when it comes to their claims about their bible. Many times, a Christian will claim inerrancy, but only when it comes to the "original manuscripts", which don't exist. There is no way to show that there was ever an inerrant version of the bible. This is a baseless assumption made by the Christian in order to hide behind the "well, you can't prove there weren't" argument. That this god is supposedly perfect, and supposedly wants everyone to come to it makes a good argument that there is no reason to assume that there was a mythical "correct" set of bible stories if it allows the wrong ones to remain.
Both methods fail always? Lol! Evidential really helped me and many others gain or strengthen our faith. Presuppositional has helped many as well. I disagree that one is better than the other.
I challenge you to look for ancient manuscripts of any ancient book. None of them even come close to manuscripts found of the bible. The bible is by far the most reliable book to the original of any book older than 1000 years. Yes there are minor differences in copies, but it's like 1 %. And none of those differences are very important.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 "I challenge you to look for ancient manuscripts of any ancient book. None of them even come close to manuscripts found of the bible. The bible is by far the most reliable book to the original of any book older than 1000 years. Yes there are minor differences in copies, but it's like 1 %. And none of those differences are very important."
ROFL. "Come close'" how, TTR? In number of scraps? That doesn't mean something is true. That they mostly agree? That doesn't mean something is true. I am always amused with these types of claims. What happens when the qu'ran exceeds copies of your nonsense, having less differences? Will it magically become the one and only true religion?
The bible is not reliable at all when it comes to reality. Funny how there is not one scrap of evidence for any of essential events in it. No creation (either contradictory version); no world-wide 28,000+ foot deep flood; no tower of babel; no exodus; no fabulous palaces and temples with tons of gold and precious items; no one noticing a guy wandering around with a roman legion's worth of men following him in Roman-occupied Palestine; no one noticing a day where there was a major earthquake, the sky darkening and the dead wandering the streets of Roman-occupied Jerusalem on a Passover. Funny how even the other gospel writers didn't notice that either.
And it's always hilariosu to see you whine "it's not important". The differences influence your theology, dear. Tell me, could Mary touch Christ in the garden or not? One gospel says yes, one says no, one doesn't have Mary seeing Christ at all. Hmmmm, and that does change your theology, TTR, on how the resurrection worked.
@@truthtransistorradio6716 "
Both methods fail always? Lol! Evidential really helped me and many others gain or strengthen our faith. Presuppositional has helped many as well. I disagree that one is better than the other"
alas, TTR, the Christians you say are wrong make the same claims about their way as do you yours. oh their faith is "gained", oh their faith is "strengthened".
funny how none of you can show your version to be the "right" one.
@@velkyn1 Version of what? Are speaking about versions of apologetics or Christianity?
Wow man! Do you have the integrity to be ashamed of yourself for that presentation?
Lol where do you get thd absurd idea that the bible has any credibility at all?