I think we need to look into the origin of that word before we call Jesus that. Before I got born again of the Holy Spirit, I mistakenly called Him a magician and I'm still sorry about that, because now I know better as I no longer confirm to the ways of the world and am continuously being transformed by the renewing of my mind unto the mind of Christ (by heavily studying what God says front to back). God bless.
@@f.s.h.g.9763 the origin of the word is not particularly relevant in this case, at least in America. The current usage of the word is exclusively someone of exceptional, or unsurpassed, intelligence and has been for so long that I didn't even know it had any other meanings until I actually did what you suggested and researched the origin (albeit briefly). Furthermore, context is exceedingly important, and the context of this quote makes it clear that it is intended as I described it. This isn't to say that I disagree with your sentiment. I find your commitment to clear and precise language admirable. I attempt to hold myself to a similarly high bar. This is still quite clear in my opinion, though. For me, this is the same as trying to decide what to call a greatsword from post-renaissance Scotland. Everyone calls them claymores today, but historically the claymore was what is now referred to as a basket hilted broad sword. Genius may have its origins in Roman pagan spirits, but if you are talking to an average person, they won't know that, just like if I'm talking about a claymore, an average person will think of a greatsword. As far as being sorry about calling Jesus a magician, 2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." It seems to me that you became aware of that log in your eye, and excised it. If you've given yourself over to Christ, he's already washed you clean of it, so there's no longer any reason to be sorry for it.
I am reformed/Calvinist but I think the Biblical example of presenting evidence for our belief is inescapable and some of the more radical presuppositional positions sadden me. God wants us to be descerning and test and search out things to find out if they are true not just blindly trust something because it claims authority. It is the cults and false religions that tell converts to blindly trust. Thank you for this great video!
people are over thinking a lot of issues in the bible without really doing their homework and without really talking with others about their conclusions and then presenting it to the public. in one aspect this is harmful but because of such, I would say incomplete dutifully searching of the scriptures, it causes us as it has you to really get to the heart of the matter and i'm very grateful for you doing it and doing it without the ugly pride and arrogance that is so prevalent in many theologians and apologist. grace peace love truth and mercy in and of the Father and the Son by way of the Holy Spirit
I was an “atheist” from 11 years until almost 21 years of age. I accepted Christ in 2016. One thing I do believe, in my case, is that I - deep deep down knew felt there was a God. Few times I asked God for help, even though I “knew” he was not real. I grew up a catholic and I remember loving Jesus as a kid, and I traded that for lies. I’ve barely starting do learn and study the Bible. There are a lot of questions I have and there’s a lot of growth that needs to be done, I’m sure. I just wanted to give my perspective and thank you for these educational videos.
Even though we may disagree on this matter, I certainly thank you for your charitable take. It is evident that you are committed to correct representation and understanding other people’s views correctly. Thank you.
Proverbs says: "Answer a fool.../ Answer not a fool..." I think there are times to give evidence, and times to refuse to give more evidence. It's when presuppositionalism is made an absolute- that one moves into error. Thanks for a great job done in a great spirit Mike! You're my example!
Mike Winger, love your videos man. But I would clarify that as a presuppositionalist, I would not say that it is morally wrong to provide proof of our faith in Christ, but that that proof does not come from the unbeliever's worldview but from the Christian worldview itself. And this is what Presuppositional Apologetics is about. When we reason from X (sense perception, human experience, emotions, science, history, etc.), we are actually saying without saying it, that X defines truth for us. But if we reason from Scripture, we are saying that Christ defines Truth because Scripture is Christ's testimony to us. So, when we reason from X, we are adopting a method that says because X provides positive proof or probability for the veracity of Scripture, therefore Scripture is true. But the problem is that X is a variable, i.e. it produces varied results as is proved by the variations in faith and worldviews, and schools of thought. So, if X is a variable, how can truth be a function of it when truth is not a variable? We can never have certainty in the proofs derived thereof. But if we reason from Scripture, the very words of Christ, then we are saying that Truth is a function of the mind of Christ, which does not change and does not produce varied results, because Christ is perfect and unchanging. So, whatever truth we derived from Scripture has certainty. But the point of Presuppositional Apologetics is that, this certainty is only possible if Truth is a function of the mind of Christ, not human experience, sense perception, observation, etc. Christ then necessarily exists as the function of truth.
I disagree that presenting evidence is like asking an atheist to judge God because their decision doesn’t alter reality. What you’re doing is reasoning with them in an attempt to get them to merely ACCEPT reality. God is never on trial here; their unbelief in God is on trial. It just sounds like another argument to support Calvinistic fatalism, and this goes against everything Jesus taught about going into all the world and preaching the gospel to everyone.
An atheist could, likewise, come back at the presups, “No. God is not on trial, and I wouldn’t propose that we try God. You are trial. Your claims to know God and to speak for him are on trial. You’d expect me to do the same to the Mormons or the Catholics, so you ought to expect it for yourself.” Most atheists do not have strong philosophical opposition to the concepts of “God” or “gods”, so they aren’t really putting these on trial so much as they are putting revelation on trial. Sometimes an apologist will claim to have “discovered” that they are actually “agnostics”, but this is not so much a secret as it is a disagreement over definitions. They are just mentally simplifying their worldview by leaving out components that they can’t realistically respond to. Drop revelation and your philosophical assertions become a non-issue. You might’ve noticed that a lot of atheists like to talk about the Bible and to form their arguments in opposition to it. This is because it is the Bible (and the Koran, Vedas, Torah, Book of Mormon . . .) that they reject, rather than some general notion “divinity”.
Mike, as promised in my first comment, these are a portion of my notes from the second class I taught on Apologetics. This is a section that shows that presuppositional apologetics is actually taught in scripture. I'm just cutting and pasting these notes (it may be the raw notes I wrote before I edited them, so forgive any typos or grammatical errors). SECTION TWO: APOLOGETICS DEMONSTRATED IN SCRIPTURE We will look at three examples, in the Gospels, of Jesus Christ using presuppositional apologetics with those around him. At first glance, we wouldn’t notice this because many of these passages are so familiar. However, please notice the way the Lord demolishes the presupposition of those that challenged Him. And while he may not have used the two-step approach exactly as shown, both steps are definitely implied by the things He said. The presuppositional apologetic used by Christ is actually summed up in two verses: Proverbs 26:4-5, which says, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” While these verses seem to contradict each other, they actually complement one another. Verse 4 basically tells the believer not to answer the unsaved by his own presupposition because you will be like him. Unsaved people are fools in this respect. If you argue based on their way of thinking, you become like them. This is actually the second step of presuppositional apologetics; you show Christianity is the only logical worldview, therefore, you don’t answer based on the unsaved person’s worldview. On the other hand, verse 5 says answer a fool according to his folly, which means you take the unsaved person’s worldview and begin reasoning based on it. In doing so, you will show the foolishness of their worldview as it refutes itself, showing that the fool is wise in his own conceit. The great thing about this two-step approach is you can do either one first (though using the verse 5 step first is a better way to demolish the unsaved worldview before showing the Christian worldview is better). As we look at three examples in scripture, you will notice that Christ uses these two verses from Proverbs to put to silence his questioners. Read Matthew 22:23-33. The Sadducees are questioning Jesus Christ about marriage, but notice they do so to prove their presupposition about the resurrection. They don’t believe in it (Matthew 22:23), which is their presupposition. Because of this, their questions about marriage, as it pertains to the resurrection (Matthew 22:24-28), is based on that presupposition. They’re only posing the question to Jesus because they want to “prove” the resurrection is not valid based on their disbelief in it. Their logic in disproving the resurrection is completely based on the fact they don’t believe it. Jesus answers their presupposition by exposing it as faulty: He tells them they are in error, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God (Matthew 22:29). Next, Jesus explains the dynamics of the resurrection (Matthew 22:30) and the very nature of God as it pertains to the resurrection (Matthew 22:31-32). The reaction is astonishment from those that heard His doctrines (Matthew 22:33). Jesus actually shut the mouths of the Sadducees by exposing their faulty view of the resurrection and God. He didn’t answer a fool according to their folly here. He stayed true to the Word of God instead of answering godly things from an ungodly perspective. Read John 10:31-39. The Jews are ready to stone Christ (John 10:31) because He said He and the Father were one (John 10:30). Jesus asked why they were going to stone Him since He had done so many good works from His Father in their presence (John 10:32). (Notice that Jesus is asking them this question based on the empirical evidence of His works. They actually saw what He did. We will return to this later.) The Jews said it was because He blasphemed, saying He was God when He was only a man (John 10:33). Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6 to show that the OT scriptures called them gods. And since the scriptures can’t be broken (which means it’s infallible), why are they saying He blasphemed when God the Father sent Him into the world? (John 10:35-36) Jesus then continues and tells the Jews they should believe Him based on the works He has done because those works were from the Father. (John 10:37-38) This only angered the Jews further; they tried to take Christ to stone Him, but He escaped from them (John 10:39). Jesus used their own presupposition against them to show them their faulty understanding of scripture. The Jews were right to be angry about any man saying He was God based on their OT scriptures, but He reminded them that the psalm He quoted showed the Hebrew word for God many times described representatives of God. Since Christ was representing the Father, based on the scriptures they were basing their own presupposition on, how could they say He was blaspheming (if they knew their scriptures)? The truth is that they had a self-righteous understanding of the truth, but Christ answered them according to their folly so they wouldn’t be wise in their own conceit. Yet it was the evidence of His works that really angered them still. They had physical evidence of the works of Christ, but it still wasn’t enough to convince them He was Messiah and the Son of God. Read Luke 20:1-8. Jesus here is teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel; the chief priests and scribes ask Him by what authority He did those things and who gave Him the authority? (Luke 20:1-2) This question is being asked by the religious leaders of that day; they thought they alone had the authority to teach/preach the things Jesus presumed to teach or preach. They wanted to shame Christ by showing their authority by questioning His. Christ then asks them a simple question about the baptism of John: Was it from heaven or man? (Luke 20:3-4) The priests and scribes reasoned among themselves the possible reaction to either answer. They were stuck because the answer was either heavenly or man-centered. If they believed it was heaven, they would look foolish for not believing John the Baptist. If they believed it was from man, the people would literally stone them for doubting John was a prophet. (Luke 20:5-6) Either answer would get them in trouble (though one answer was true, but their admission of it would expose their hypocrisy). They answered that they couldn’t tell (or better put, they didn’t know) (Luke 20:7). Jesus then tells them He wouldn’t tell them by what authority He taught and preached (Luke 20:8). The priests and scribes’ presupposition was that they were the authority. Jesus answered them according to their presupposition, asking them a spiritual question they should be able to answer since they were the authorities. They couldn’t, showing they truly had no real authority from God (which is where Jesus got His authority from, God the Father, which they knew down-deep). And since their lack of authority was exposed, Jesus had no obligation to answer any of their questions from a perspective that they had authority. Again, both Christ and the priests/scribes knew the authority was from God the Father, but the sins of those Jewish leaders suppressed that truth because they wanted to be the authorities from God. Notice in all three accounts that Jesus never answered from a perspective that God the Father and the Word of God wasn’t His foundation. Any challenge was answered based on the presupposition of the Word being the Word and God being God. Jesus didn’t use evidence to prove to the skeptics that He was the Christ. Yet there were many times that Jesus and His apostles showed empirical evidence all could see or hear to validate it was from God. Notice in the next examples below that actually empirical evidence, according to scripture, is not convincing. (No room to put the rest of the notes in)
Eric I wonder if there is some confusion of exactly what is Presuppositional Apologetics (PA). Classical Apologists can and do interact with non-believers about their presuppositions. My understanding of PA is that it holds that all people have the same presuppositions, that God exists, etc. but that the non-believers suppress this knowledge within themselves and are only pretending to not know that Jesus is Lord. That is what I get from the PA description of Romans 1. So, it seems to me that if we show a non-believer, who really does presuppose that God does not exist, that his presuppositions don’t support some of his other beliefs, such as the reliability of scientific research or his belief in objective morality, then we are engaged in traditional apologetics - not PA. Two other quick points. Jesus’ ministry was at least partly to bring judgment on the Jews, there was a divine hardening of the Jews during his ministry to bring about a crisis event: the crucifixion of Christ. I’m not saying we can’t learn some things on how to do Apologetics but we should be aware of what was going on at that time. Many of those who rejected him during his earthly ministry repented and believed after Pentecost. Also, Paul reasoned with unbelievers, sometimes for hours. It doesn’t take that long to accuse people that they actually do know that God exists and then preach the gospel - nor would that be called reasoning with people.
Nathan, I've listened to many Classical and Evidential Apologists, and they bluntly say you don't start with the Bible to prove the Bible. In this respect, they tend not to quote or allude to the Bible before they give tons of "evidence" of its validity or the existence of God. This isn't always wrong, but to think an unbeliever will be swayed by our evidence without the gospel and God's illumination can actually be conceited. And though Jesus' ministry was to bring hardening to the Jews, if you go to my second comment and examine the verses where Jesus didn't answer questions based on the faulty presuppositions of others, but by the Word of God. This is the crux of Presuppositional Apologetics; we give our answers from the Word of God. 1 Peter 3:14-15, Jude 4, Titus 1:9, Colossians 2:8, and 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 are just some of the verses that tell us to go to the Word of God for our answers or defending of the faith. When we continue to go outside the Word of God more than quote the truth of it, we become philosophical. I've heard Frank Turek and Ravi Zacharias both do this. They are brilliant men, but listen to their answers; they're more philosophical than Biblical. And don't assume that Presuppositional Apologetics doesn't reason with unbelievers. It's just done from a worldview perspective more than answering the skeptic's question to "prove" God exists. For example, if someone says they don't believe in God because bad things happen to good people, I go right to the scriptures. I tell them there are no good people compared to God (Romans 3:12). I tell them goodness is defined by God since He is the creator of all things, even the intangible things (Colossians 1:15-17). I explain that God's standards are absolute, that sin is the breaking of God's law and coming short of His glory (1 John 3:4, Romans 3:23) and breaking one of His laws means breaking them all (James 2:10). This way, I define sin to them and show them that they are absolute lawbreakers before the self-existent God (Exodus 3:14) that is the lawgiver and judge (Isaiah 33:22). So any 'bad" thing is due to sin, which is on mankind. Any good thing is from God because He is the essence of good. And if they judge God by His own standards, I ask them by which absolute standard they make a judgment against God. I know they don't have one because if it were absolute, it would come from an absolute source, which is God. So I do reason with them, but I can't convince them, only show them the error of their thinking. But if I start going into detail about how the Bible was put together, how logically God exists based on their philosophy, or proving that the Bible is the Bible with outside sources, they can sit back with their arms crossed and say, "I don't buy your evidence, give me more until I'm convinced." And I've interacted with enough atheists/skeptics to know that this is true. I attack their worldview and lead them directly to the cross. So is giving some evidences wrong? No, there are times to do that. But if we don't understand the presupposition of the sinful person that says they hate God (Jesus' own words in John 15:18-23) and they can't discern spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14) and that they have wicked, deceitful hearts (Jeremiah 17:9), we give the spiritually dead sinner (Ephesians 2:2) more reasoning credit than the Bible does. We speak God's truth and pray that God opens their eyes because it will never be my evidence that saves them (or even draws them), but God.
@@2timothy23 As an evidentialist myself, that's not quite how I would do it. I might say something similar to 'not using the bible to prove the bible', but what I mean is I don't start talking to people with the automatic assumption that the bible is inspired, but working from the ground up it *might* be inspired or it *might* not, but I myself think that it is inspired. It certainly doesn't mean not using the bible, you just use it in a different way. You can use the bible as a historical source/witness initially. You can also point out furfilled prophecy in the bible also establish the bible and God's prophets as being inspired by God. I might also show that scripture confirms something that they already know to be true, confirming to them that scripture is accurate, indicating that it is inspired. All of this involves quoting scripture, the difference is you're quoting scripture from an initially neutral standpoint. Furthermore (this isn't really a universal evidentialist position, not all of them would use this or call it 'apologetics') I would also preferably want to generate experimental evidence I can point out to them or leave them to work through, and this can also involve quoting scripture. I might do this by simply saying a scriptural passage to them and observe them noticing the presence of the holy spirit in that passage. I also might do this by saying an accurate word of knowledge to them rooted in scripture, so they can see that there is something special about the bible. I could also recollect to them times this has happened to myself or people I know, bringing evidence to them and quoting scripture in that way. All of this, though is only something that you do if they don't already say they think that the bible is inspired to some extent (which, say, Muslims do; or some 'generic theists' do too). If they do already recognise the bible is inspired (but might think the current version is corrupted or only partially inspired or doesn't say what Christians think it says or whatever), you can start from there. You only need to establish what someone doesn't already agree with, once you have it you can start from there. In short, not 'proving the bible with the bible' doesn't mean not using the bible, it means not using it with the assumption it is inspired, unless the person you are talking to already thinks that. I can somewhat sympathise with not going into philosophical nonsense, but to me the presuppositionalists are as guilty if not more of this than evidencialists. The transcendental argument and moral arguments for God are very philosophical, and I prefer apologetics that is more grounded in reality (like prophecies, miracles, historical evidence of biblical events) than in philosophy-land (I do have the same criticism of the cosmological argument, in case you're interested). Using these arguments are not bad, but they aren't optimal in my opinion.
@@IamGrimalkin I understand your intent, zeal, and even your compassion in answering the lost with evidences. It is the most common method used and it is quite popular among most apologetists. And I don't even mind using some evidences in my conversations, but the problem stems from something you wrote in your reply. I am cutting and pasting it not to nit-pick, but actually point out a serious dilemma that most classical/evidential apologists don't consider: you wrote, "I might say something similar to 'not using the bible to prove the bible', but what I mean is I don't start talking to people with the automatic assumption that the bible is inspired, but working from the ground up it might be inspired or it might not, but I myself think that it is inspired. " Here is the problem: 2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Bible is God-breathed (inspired) and sufficient for all believers. Christians will "amen" that truth in church and Bible studies, yet when we speak to the unsaved we suddenly start talking to people with the “assumption” that the Bible is inspired? Does this mean you believe it is inspired when you're with believers, but when you're with unbelievers it is a hypothetical? Either it is inspired or it isn't. And one day, an unsaved skeptic will call you out on it. They will ask if you believe it is inspired or not. If you say it may be, then they can question you about which parts may not be, basically questioning the validity of your faith. If you say it is, then they can rightly ask why you're saying it is a hypothetical when in reality you believe it is; they can show that you're either doubting your own scriptures or that you're lying. If you believe God's Word is truth (John 17:17), pure (Psalm 12:6), tried (Psalm 18:30), holy (Romans 1:12, 2 Timothy 3:15), and quick and powerful (Hebrews 4:12), then you can’t think it is only hypothetical when you’re speaking to the unbeliever. Unbelievers have no problem quoting secular sources and their own opinions to back up their worldview, actually with no empirical proof of their theories and sources, yet we jump through hoops to “prove” to them our Bible is potentially or probably inspired so they can accept the validity of it. This is Biblically nonsense. And your second assertion shows it; you wrote: “…the difference is you're quoting scripture from an initially neutral standpoint.” This is where the need to do evidence based apologetics has a serious problem. The unsaved mind is not neutral at all. Romans 8:5-8 says the carnal mind is at enmity (hostility) against God, which is the reason no one in the flesh can please God. Romans 1:18-23 says the unsaved person knows all about the existence of God, yet they hold (or suppress) that truth in their unrighteous nature, though the creative order testifies that He is Creator. Jesus Himself said the unsaved world hates Him, Christians, and God the Father in John 15:18-23. There are many other verses, as well, that shows that the mind of the unbeliever is foolish, not discerning of spiritual things (just check 1 Corinthians 2:14), and darkened. Jeremiah 17:9 says the heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked. Do we believe what the Bible says about the unsaved or not? Yet if you hypothetically say the Word of God is not inspired, then perhaps the very verses I cited aren’t really inspired by God. If it isn’t, then it isn’t absolute or binding on the Christian for life or the unbeliever for salvation. And if you think it isn’t, even unconsciously, then you will naturally (and I use that term literally) think man has a neutral attitude towards God. They don’t. The Bible says they hate God. But if we don’t believe the Bible outside of the church the way we do in the church, then we will speak to the unsaved person with a presupposition similar to theirs. In other words, we will think we can present evidence to the unsaved person to convince them of the “possibility” of God, then we can spring the gospel on them because they would be more receptive. In other words, you want to make them theists (believers in the existence of a god) instead of answering questions to directly lead them to the gospel so they would become Christians (believers in the one and only God). You can convince them in an existence of a god, but that doesn’t mean they will repent and believe in Christ. I just had a conversation with someone after I preached a gospel message at a chapel service at a homeless shelter. The person objected to Christ being the only way and said I was disrespectful to other religions. He also said no one could show him proof that God was the God of the Bible. He said he never met anyone that went to heaven or hell and came back to tell him. Do you see how this person was making himself the judge of God? And he wanted me to jump through hoops to convince him when he already had his mind made up. So how did I answer him? I told him that he’s upset that I disrespected other religions, but I don’t have to respect them because there is only one God and Jesus Christ is the way to Him (John 14:6). I asked him outright if Jesus was the only way to heaven and if the gospel message I preached was wrong? He said “I don’t know,” so I told him that he couldn’t realistically object to the truth I was preaching if he didn’t have an alternative, absolute answer showing he was right. If he doesn’t know, then he can’t say I’m wrong. The Bible is inspired whether the unsaved person believes it or not; as a Christian I’m not to put God on trial for the unbeliever to judge whether His Word or existence is true. It is absolute truth and we’re to proclaim it. They’re saved by the gospel message, not by giving “evidence.” Don’t misunderstand, I don’t mind answering many of those questions, but I never put down “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17) and speak to an unsaved person based on their unbelieving, biased presupposition. They are not neutral, and neither should we be. We answer objections to our faith by sanctifying the Lord in our heart and the Word of God (1 Peter 3:15, Titus 1:9, Jude 3), not by leaning on our own understanding, vain deceit, and philosophies (which Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8 speaks against).
@@2timothy23 The thing is, it's not really about what I assume, it's about what I'm asking the person I'm talking with to assume. Hi, I think it would be helpful if you were to think of things in terms of how you would convince something of anything else. Imagine you were talking to someone who didn't think animal tissue was made of cells, and therefore didn't think in the cellular nuclei exist. You wouldn't say 'start by assuming that that cells exist', you would preferably just show them some animal tissue under the microscope and the nuclei inside them. You don't need to start with cells to prove cells (even though they will be looking at the tissue, made of cells, using the cells in their eye to do so), but you are still examining cells, and you personally still think cells are real, you just aren't asking the other person to assume that a priori. 2 Timothy 3: 16 is a good case in point: it is helpful for showing someone who thinks scripture is credible that it is also inspired. You use the bible, but you don't have to start by the person having to assume the bible is inspired: if they understand Paul as being wise or credible (which many people do), 2 Tim 3: 16 can show someone that the bible is inspired. Also, similarly, the 'experimental' approach may end up working in some cases: someone may recognise the presence of the spirit when hearing 2 Tim 3: 16 that confirms its truthfulness, or (for example) be wondering about the status of the bible when you feel prompted to share 2 Tim 3: 16 with them and they recognise that as God telling them it is inspired. They don't have to start from the position that the bible is inspired in that case, they can wonder whether or not the bible is inspired and see evidence that confirms it. Of course people you talk to are not neutral, but my point is that being neutral is something that you can reasonably ask of them and they will understand why it would be good to do so. In terms of the guy who you met, it sounds like he might be saying that he would be convinced that Christianity is true if he had someone come back from the dead and tell him that Christianity is true. That being the case, I personally would a) point out the Jesus came back from the dead and he said that Christianity is true, and perhaps add a few pieces of historical evidence (mostly involving those found in the bible ) to back it up and b) talk about people I have sort-of associated with who say Jesus brought them back from the dead, and further events that seem to have verified that was indeed the case. Of course how much of that conversation I would be able to do would rather depend on how long he stayed, but I feel my appoach would also be more liable to make him want to hang around than yours. How long did he stay to listen to your explanation? ps you seem to indicate here that believing in the inspiration of scripture is necessary for salvation. That's nonsense, the bible has some pretty clear lists about what is necessary for salvation and the inspiration of scripture isn't in them (well, it does talk about Jesus's breath and resurrection happening 'according the the scriptures', but it is possible, if perhaps not logical, for someone to believe one but not the other).
There is effectiveness to some portion of presuppositional apologetics. Most people don't know what they believe. Uncovering their presuppositions can be necessary to reveal to them what they truly believe. Uncover presuppositions to reveal to them Classical truths of scripture.
I personally don't have a "dog" in this "fight". I think that Classical, Evidential and Presup Apologetics are all useful in some extent, and each has pros and cons (I don't think there's a "perfect apologetic method"). Our central message is the Gospel, which has the power to convict, and our PRIMARY job is to preach it. Ofcourse, we should be able to defend it too, that's where apologetic starts, the SECONDARY job after preaching the Gospel. However, I see a "trap" that traditional apologists typically tend to fall in, and that is, trying to rationalize Biblical/spiritual concepts within the atheist's frame of thinking. For example; when an atheist objects to God's actions in the OT as being 'immoral', traditional apologists try to defend God's actions as actually lining up with the atheist's moral code, if understood with additional historical context/facts. In reality, God has a different moral code from the atheist altogether and there's NO need to prove that God is 'good' based on anyone's standard other than His own. So, I see use of apologetics in showing the non-believer that Christianity can work in a rational framework, and a way to BREAK-DOWN the intellectual barriers that had reinforced their resistance to the Gospel. At the end of the day, it's their PERSONAL choice on whether to follow or reject Jesus. I think 1 Corinthians 2 is eye-opening regarding this issue :-)
True, this why I vehemently disapprove or over-reliance on reductionist approach. It is possible to approach things in an overly simplistic manner. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
God proves Himself to believers more and more all the time. That’s how our faith grows. It’s in part, how we grow to know him more. Faith based on nothing at all means you have no experiences in the Lord, which is fine in the very beginning, but over time, it simply means you only have religion and no relationship.
@@JMUDoc God doesn’t need atheists to believe in him. What you mean is, atheists need God to prove Himself to them. And you’re right, that is what they need. But that doesn’t stop the ones to whom He does prove himself, from being lambasted and ridiculed by the current atheists for their betrayal, or stupidity. In debates you always hear this question, “What would it take to make you a believer?” And I always thought that question was so stupid. Lol. No one has any idea what it would take to make them a believer. From the most hardcore, God-despising atheist to the coolest, nonchalant agnostic, you hear answers like, “My kid died a horrible death,” or “I was sitting at a museum looking at a painting and then I knew,” or “I was taking a hike in the woods and saw a leaf blowing through the air,” or “I watched my child be born...” Atheists become believers, always in the most personal of ways, which is ever varying and countless. No one has any idea what it would take to make them believe, but yes... we do need it.
@@LindeeLove If you seek Him you will find Him. If you knock, He’ll open the door. Like it says in the Bible, “The glory of God is to hide things, the glory of Kings is to search them out.”
@@joshuashepard583 How do you tell the difference between Him "opening the door" for you, and your brain just messing with you? Can you describe how in your personal experience you know the difference in such a way that I can understand?
As much as California seems like a lunatic state by a guy from Pennsylvania, it is encouraging to know God has poured out wisdom on many believers from that state. There seems to be an abundance of good teaching online from people in California to offset the weird. I also hope God pours out tons of wisdom for Hebrews 6. We would all like to know!
Justin Harrell, I live here in Pa and am from California. Mike and I are great friends from church. The state has it's bad side but I, personally, know that there's an abundance of wonderful Godly people there. People here laugh at me when I tell them how much I miss my Christian brothers from California. I just found your comment to be very personal and had to comment. :)
That's great to hear. Jim Wallace is a gifted speaker and apologist. The body of Christ is so blessed that God called to him to this ministry. I've met him in person a number of times and he is very personable and humble.
Thank you for your faithfulness to the Lord, and for all that you do. That being said I'd like to point out all the verse you posed showed they knew God, and turned away from Him. They don't show they didn't know God, but they turned away from Him and chased after idols. Keep up the great work, God bless!
Great video brother. God bless you. That passage you spoke of in Heb 6; "For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, SINCE they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." ... has been, I'm afraid, the reason many have not returned to their Father in heaven as they should. Note the prodigal son parable. The crux of this is the single Greek word being translated here as "since". It is a word needing context for meaning and can be translated here as "since" or as "while" BUT if "since" is the proper translation then many other new testament passages seem to be contradicted. However, if "while" is used, (as it has been in some translations) the true meaning becomes clear. If you were once a Christian, experiencing all the wonders of our hope, but are NOW rejecting Jesus, what could we possibly say to bring you back? "While" implies present continuous action, not a one time thing in the past as in the word "since". It's impossible to repent if you don't want to repent. I believe this is at the crux of the questions here. Read it both ways and see the difference. About Sye, ... God bless him, but it seems that he had this epiphany about teaching atheists, that God should not be on trial for existing, (which has a truth in it and could be valuable in certain discussions), but he has become fixated on this one thing as his ministry. He has put it out there, gets attention and so is encouraged to continue. It seems to have become his "niche" ministry. Justin Peters has a niche ministry exposing the Benny Hinn, Kreflo Dollar types, but I think Peters ministry IS important to help people escape from that false doctrine. Sye's niche, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be helping Christians. Perhaps it will become an excuse for Christians to NOT study to "be ready to give a reason for the hope." Once again dear brother, God bless you and your great work for Him.
Thanks for this. Really well, and respectfully done. I had some exposure to presupositionalim recently and knew something was off, but couldn't quite articulate what. You helped a ton.
If we go by the definition of Sye Ten Bruggencate, then it's Christians that are on trial, not God. The athiests are calling us liars, not God. We are defending our belief system, not God.
Mike (or anyone here) - I am struggling with this one. Under evidential/classical apologetics, can't you only logically conclude that Jesus *most likely* died and rose again? How can we be saved if we don't believe the resurrection with 100% certainty? Another example, under evidential apologetics, how would you deal with someone who says "I believe Jesus is Lord, unless some other evidence arose to prove otherwise"? Are they saved?
Within the first 3 minutes I knew that Mike doesn't grasp presuppositional apologetics based on the comment that presuppositionalist think "it's wrong to give evidences." No the fact is we as believers need to stop letting unbelievers make objections to God when they don't even have the frame work/world view to be mad about anything, have a reason to care about truth, have a world view for the necessary preconditions of induction/reason/logic/uniformity in nature in order to even have the ability to speak a single word. We need to stop letting the unbeliever grab what they can only get from a Christian worldview and use it against us. I know some presuppostionalist that even use evidence is the presuppostionalist fashion by the way.
Trenten Fully agree . The unbeliever is never judge of the evidence . the unbeliever is never judge of the Word of God. I think more Christians should adopt Syes presupp approach. Presenting evidence always ends in rejection of the evidence because Sciencism has brainwashed so many unbelievers and the natural pride and arrogance in man causes self promotion to the position of judge.
As an atheist, I just presume the laws of logic themselves. Why is this not allowed? Why does there have to be anything "behind" them? And why *doesn't* there have to be anything behind Jehovah? I say "there's nothing underneath the laws of logic"; you say "Jehovah is underneath the laws of logic, but there's nothing underneath *him*". Why is yours better?
@@JMUDoc I'll give it a shot. There is a fundamental difference in an argument where therefore God exists is the last line of a syllogism. Without the foundation for reason, no logical syllogism can even exist. If reason is the top level rather than Devine inspiration, what is the foundation of reason...does reason even exist ? Can you prove the validity of reason, without using reason ? Or logic, without using logic, how about proving the validity of mathematics, without appealing to maths ? One cannot even prove words have meaning without using words to do it. It's actually all circular reasoning in the end, but Divine revelation while circular as well, can give account for the very reason I just invoked...nature cannot. Don't know if that helps...
The problem of apologetics is that it has become a winning of an argument but no the winning of the heart. This is a major problem and I think this is the crux of the problem we are talking about now in this video.
Hey Mike, I was wondering about William Lane Craig and Catholics in regards to separating from those that associate with a false gospel. He references them as brothers. I love WLC but don't know what to do about this.
I have listened to WLC talking to a Catholic priest and he says plainly that he disagrees with a number of the RCC doctrines including Justification. So it isn’t like he associates with Catholics and pretends like there aren’t any significant differences with their doctrine.
Hey Nathan, I know that he makes it clear there are major differences but he does still affirm them as brethren and he has done at least one event with them (might be the one you're referencing). 2 John 10-11 would seem to condemn this type of public affirmation... If we agree that their view of Justification causes their gospel to be false. I haven't fully explored that idea but it seems likely.
Yunus, I do realize that many Catholics are saved... but I believe it's probably in spite of churches view of Justification. And WLC seems to affirm that it's not in spite of it, and the church holds to a true gospel.
"deep down they know God exists - that they're lying to you and they know it" is not the presup position. the position is that deep down they know it but they've suppressed the truth and have lied to themselves, so that consciously they think it's true. Romans 1:18 ff - they suppress the truth until their heart becoms dark. so consciously they think it's true
Did you make a category error when you said people can choose God like you choose to go out to eat? So when you read Romans 3, no one seeks God, so how can choosing God be like choosing a restaurant? Your thoughts?
In reference to time stamp 1:06:30 they were not killed for any knowledge or lack thereof they were killed for their sins. And of course just because all men are without excuse and the evidence of God is clearly seen it only means as the guy in the video kinda says they "should have" known and were accountable for it. But ultimately they were punished for their sins.
Where did "evidence-S” come from? Do apologists circulate memos making up their own rules of grammar? The singular and plural case were the same when I grew up.
This is an interesting discussion as I watched Sye video last week that you played clips of and had many of the same reserves after watching even though I thought I was presupp. Maybe I’m not. I didn’t realize there was a branch that was this extreme about not using evidence. Not sure I followed when you said there is only evidence for God, because unbelievers believe they have evidence against God and I think (and I could be wrong) this is because the evidence is interpreted based off their presuppositions. I feel like the skeptic can always interpret it differently or give a rescuing device for any evidence given to him (as do we vice versa). I thought evidence can only confirm (not prove) our presuppositions or be used to show the unbelievers inconsistencies with their presuppositions. Don’t you have to presuppose logic to use logic? Otherwise you would have to prove logic without logic. That sounds circular but I think it unavoidable and necessary for ultimate standards. Also the transcendental argument isn’t just logic and reasoning I think there are 8 things (morality for example I don’t remember all 8). Look forward to more on this and I appreciate your openness and doing this with meekness and respect!
PLEASE do a video on the whole idea of Christians being accused of using the Bible to prove the Bible! I need a way out of the circular reasoning debate.
I have read quite a lot of Van Til and Bahansen. And I find the transcendental arguments for God’s existence to be really helpful in our postmodern culture. It really is more focused on the necessity of God’s existence so that we can do science, morality, and reasoning with confidence. The rejection of evidences really comes down to a rejection of probabilistic arguments because it is believed that probable arguments mean that God is only probable in his being and thus does not sovereignly control all possibility. Basically, probability undermines God’s self-existence (it actually has some overlap with the rationale supporting classical theism). But this antagonism to evidence and a desire to set one’s methodology apart can go too far. And a tension in Van Til is that he also insists that the argument can start from man proximately (from man’s experience of reason) to God’s ultimate existence. It seems me a mistake for presuppositionalists to negate probabilistic arguments just because they do not result in deductive necessity. If the arguments for the necessity of God are true and ground inductive logic, it is not wrong to use probabilistic arguments where appropriate and it doesn’t look much different than how traditionally presented. Historical arguments depend upon the validity of the transcendental arguments that ground them. So presuppositionalists should argue away about history as it presupposes God. Appeal to the necessity of God can come in at the end of a good probabilistic case from history. The thing is, that evidential probabilistic arguments are easier for most people to understand than arguments about the grounding of knowledge. Presuppositionalists should spend more time actually pressing home the arguments for necessity, and show how theses support rather than rebut or negate the probabilistic arguments. On another note, the presuppositionalist needs to distinguish arguments about method and Calvinism from the substantive transcendental arguments themselves. It gets old pretty quick to hear the argument against neutrality used as a substitute for persuasive reasons that the Gospel is true. Even the most convicted Calvinist believes that God has appointed means to his ends. Sometimes it’s like the scriptural truth that God is the source of enlightenment has replaced the arguments that are supposed to point people to God’s light. One is not actually making the presuppositional argument by appealing to scriptures about the fallen nature of man; and arguing methodology with the unbeliever is not as faithful to the presuppositional method as some who practice this method often assume.
I listened to this whole “discussion”, though many times I wanted to turn it off because I was so disappointed and frustrated. I had been hoping to hear Sye’s response to Mike’s previous video this wasn’t that at all. I like to hear both sides of an argument. But I dislike listening to people who are rude. Others have commented here that it was a respectful conversation, so perhaps I’m just particularly sensitive. I thought Mike was humble and respectful, but I didn’t think Sye was. He continually interrupted Mike to make a point that took the conversation in a different direction. He didn’t seem to be willing or able to listen to Mike’s concerns or objections and to answer with thoughtful disagreement, which would have been okay. He didn’t answer most of the objections that were in the first video at all. Because he wouldn’t stay on one topic very long but just kept taking the conversation back to some point he wanted to make regardless of its relevance to what Mike said, I finished the video more confused than I started. Until now, I’ve been more comfortable with apologetics that I thought were presuppositional. What I thought that meant was that it was okay to use the Bible to help people understand the truth about God and the gospel because people have eternity placed in their hearts by God. I found great value in the teaching and example of those who assume the Bible is true, that it’s a valid resource to use when witnessing to pre-believers. I’ve seen this approach used by Jason Lisle, so I was really surprised to hear Sye mention him in a positive light. Several times Sye said it was wrong to use evidence like the design of the human body in evangelism, but Lisle not only defends his faith using the Bible, but he also sees value in sharing evidence from scientific discoveries. It seems to me that Jason Lisle thinks scientific evidence is part of how God makes His presence known to people through the things that have been made. (Rom 1:20) If Sye is saying that such evidence will not save someone, I would agree. Everyone needs to hear the plan of salvation from the words of Scripture to be saved. But to say it is wrong to present such information to a pre-believer seems to me to be going way beyond what the Bible teaches and what I thought was presuppositional apologetics. So, I’m left to conclude that I really don’t understand presuppositional apologetics. And Sye’s overbearing approach to this conversation made me not want to. On the other hand, Mike, I really appreciate your thorough approach to understanding what the Bible says about various topics and your willingness to consider all sides of controversial issues, comparing those thoughts with what the Text says. Keep up the good work!
The approach by Sy is strange. There is a strong thread through the whole Bible of God, in the New and Old, specifically proving who He is and why He's the one true God.
You can’t change skeptics’ minds or hearts. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit. 🕊️ I agree with Dr. Stanley (RIP), who said to share Christ and leave the results up to God.
The unbeliever has already placed himself in the position of judge. God has already provided His own defense, and we dishonor Him by not presenting it.
@@20july1944 my point is to counter the idea that we elevate the unbeliever to the position of judge by providing evidence. If the conversation is anything more than a simple discussion of basic theology, evidence will be required. It isn't enough to say you believe. It must be substantiated with evidence.
I think you would agree that there is power in God's word and it's the Gospel message that will ultimately save people right? I'm not saying that providing philosophical or scientific evidence for example is bad or that we shouldn't do it......but just that God's word and the Gospel seems to have more power in bringing someone to Christ than the Ontological argument for the existence of God. Also, a relationship with God isn't something that we just mentally ascent to. Where once we believe enough evidence then we're in. It's a sin issue, a gospel issue of repentance and faith. Again, not that it's wrong to provide evidence, I guess I just see the one approach more important, effective (not promoting pragmatism) and seen more in scripture.
I do agree, but most who call themselves atheists believe that religion does not comport with reality. In this case, I find it necessary to demonstrate that it does, at in terms of Christianity. Once the intellectual issues have been satisfied, you can show them that their resistance is irrational.
I have a question that I pray you consider as my honest concern, you stated "the parable" of the rich man and Lazarus, but also expressed why you believe it does not fit the pattern of a parable and that you therefore do not believe it to be a parable... So then, who's voice was so convincing that while you know it is not a parable, you still subscribe to the inherited misunderstanding, rather than accepting what the scriptures are saying? Additional questions, you may feel awkward judging if someone is in Christ, but then what do you do with the command to not believe every spirit but to test every spirit to see if it comes from God? How do you sharpen your discernment, since we are warned of many deceivers and deceptions? Please pray and ask God these things because I'm very concerned for you, as no real child of God wants to see the adversary deceive anyone. God bless and protect and guide and grow you in His likeness, in the mighty name of Jesus. Please pray about these things. You don't need to answer publicly, but it would be profitable to ask God still.
You're against Presup too? Wow. So, you're against Biblical Cosmology and Presup, the two things that brought me to Christianity because researching them deeply led to the conclusion that they're not only true, but indisputably true. I can't fathom how anyone could be opposed to these positions unless they're just not comprehending them. Particularly a Christian. A Christian running a channel trying to spread belief in God, no less. These two things are spreading belief in God more than any other forms of apologetic over the last decade. So, I'm sorry, but I can't help but find this to be a bit suspicious.
Hey Mike, when discussing Elijah, just remember that he was a called profit who was the mouth piece of God. Sye has no claim on that. He does speak the truth that was given from scripture though. Time roughly around: 11:10
The biggest flaw in Sye's presup apologetic is the assumption that evidence is ONLY presented in court before a judge. No, it's done in everyday life situations where evidence may be required. For example, if you make the claim that you have $100 in your wallet, and then someone says "prove it." you're not going to go to court before a judge to establish your claim. You're going to pull out your wallet and present the evidence. So right from the start, Sye's approach has a flawed assumption.
I love so much of this..and I think that's sad that comment that you said...the pervasive sexual sin of our culture is a symptom of the rejection of God...now if those who were saved live with someone before marriage saying come on it's almost 2020 what are we to say in love? I mean they are not rejecting God and perhaps surely they are sealed until the day of redemption..this is not to be judging them over but praying that God would pull them back to Him!?
In general we are supposed to live in such a way tha people ask us , “ What is the reason of the hope within you.” And our answer needs to be prepared by having sanctified the word in our heart. Sy has a good point as do you, but the strict formula youre looking for is the problem, in my humble opinion.
I don' think Mike is advocating for a strict formula at all. He clarifies at the start he's not trying to take the side of evidential apologetics over presup, but would prefer people consider Classical Apologetics that combines them both. While the title may not clarify it I'd say that Mike is arguing against a perspective that sees Presuppositional Apologetics as the only appropriate method, not to deny it's a valid method in the first place. He also mentions prophetic apologetics, which I hadn't heard as a distinct category before, hmm.
Have u ever seen “Is Genesis History”, and if so what is your opinion on it, I believe it is still on Netflix but it was very interesting and I enjoyed it but I wanted to make sure it was valid, love all your videos, I literally get excited waiting on new videos, GOD bless
If the findings of science, archaeology, or historical research demonstrate that the Bible is historically reliable, then would this mean that the findings of science, archaeology, or historical research have more authority than the Bible?
"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good." - 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21 The bible says to prove everything. Case closed.
It is called the Evidentiary method. It is the same system we use in the court of law and is based upon EVIDENCE Jesus came and did His many miracles by the thousands in full view of the pharisees as EVIDENCE as to who He is> These miracles are His evidence / credentials We are to spread the gospel based upon that method because it is the exact same method used by Jesus EVIDENTIARY The point being in this age we use evidence (eye witness) as recording in the scriptures PLUS prophecy and the fulfillment of prophecy as EVIDENCE
1Cor 15:3-4 I'd like to see a video about this Mike. Where, according to the scriptures aka OT, messiah was to die for sins and be buried and raised the 3rd day.
Mike: Doug's question @1:14:48 " Is it ok to ask for evidence of God today as in a miracle?" makes me think of a child asking his parent for another toy because he doesn't "like" the hundreds already given him. Your response to focus on the evidence already given was perfect.
If A is trying to convince B of something, does A get to decide when B has enough evidence? If what a god has provided is not enough to convince a person, the fault is the god's , not the person's.
Agreed. In the Bahnsen Stein debate, Bahnsen invited Stein to a Bible study to help him understand some basic Bible 101 when he seemed confused. I'm not a fan of Sye's approach and I think he doesn't understand presup all that well.
Furthermore, as JWM writes, "It is far better to start with presuppositions of METHOD (deductive logic and inductive method that can lead to the discovery of truth) than to begin with presuppositions of CONTENT -- that prejudge the nature of the cosmos and cannot in principle be confirmed or disconfirmed. [At this point] the Christian presuppositionalist turns out to be no different from … the Muslim presuppositionalist" ( Always Be Ready, Kindle edition, p. 9, Loc 125).
what about the missionnarie who use parts of people's own culture to make them understand the gospel (Paul was known to do that)? If atheists understand things better through logic then I think it is a useful tool to show them the truth of God and the scriptures and not putting Him on trial
Presuppositional Apologetics is the ONLY biblical form of apologetics. The theme apologetic verse, 1 Peter 3:15, begins telling us, "In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord." The apologist must be committed to the absolute Lordship of Jesus (cf. Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). We cannot argue on the basis of criteria or standards derived from outside the Bible because then logic, facts, experiences, reason, etc., become the sources of truth, and divine revelation which is the only thing that can bring a person to saving faith (2 Cor. 4:6) is excluded. Christians must not argue from a neutral basis, presenting Scripture Alone, not scientific discoveries or logical syllogisms. For Peter in the verse I began with, the apologetic situation is one in which we are especially to "set apart Christ as Lord," to speak and live in a way that exalts his Lordship and encourages the skeptic to whom we are speaking to do so as well. In the larger context, Peter is telling his readers to do what is right, despite the opposition of unbelievers (Vv. 13-14). He tells us not to fear them. Surely it was not Peter's view that in apologetics we should set forth something less than the truth out of fear that the truth itself might be rejected. Peter tells us that the Lordship of Jesus (and hence the truth of his word, for how can we call him "Lord" and not do what he says [Luke 6:46]?) is our ultimate presupposition. We trust Jesus Christ as a matter of eternal life or death; we trust his wisdom beyond all other wisdom; we trust his promises above all others. He calls us to give him all our loyalty and not allow any other loyalty to compete with him (Deut. 6:4ff.; Matt. 6:24; 12:30; John 14:6; Acts 4:12). We obey his Law even when it conflicts with lesser laws (Acts 5:29). Since we believe him more certainly than we believe anything else, he (and hence his word) is the very _criterion_ and ultimate _standard_ of truth. The Lordship of Jesus is not only ultimate and unquestionable, not only above and beyond all other authorities, but also over all areas of human life: "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31. Cf. Rom. 14:23; 2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 3:17, 23; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Our Lord's demand upon us is comprehensive; no area of human life is neutral, certainly not apologetics as the author of Proverbs says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 1:7. Cf. Psalm 111:10; Prov. 9:10). Those who are not brought to fear God by the new birth cannot even see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). Unbelievers are not merely ignorant of the truth for God has revealed himself to each person with unmistakable clarity, both in creation (Psalm 19; Rom. 1:18-21) and in man's own nature (Genesis 1:26ff). At some level of an unbeliever's consciousness or unconconciousness, the knowledge of God remains (Rom. 1:21). But in spite of that knowledge, the unbeliever intentionally distorts the truth, exchanging it for a lie (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 1:18--2:16 [note especially 2:14]). The unbeliever cannot (because he will not) come to faith apart from the biblical gospel of salvation, and only by Scripture do we know the unbeliever's true condition. One last note: some try to stress the aorist form of "know" in Romans 1:21 to prove that the knowledge in view is past, not continuing in the present. Yet, in Greek, tense does not mean time as it does in English; although the aorist very often is past, it actually refers to pointed action. Paul's purpose in this passage is part of his larger purpose in 1:1-3:21, which is to show that all have sinned and therefore that none can be justified through the works of the law (3:19-21). In chapter 1, he shows is that even without access to the written law, Gentiles are guilty of sin before God (chap. 2 deals with the Jews). How can they be held responsible without the written Law? Because of the knowledge of God they have gained from creation. If that knowledge were relegated to only the past, we have to conclude that the Gentiles in the present are not responsible for their actions, contrary to 3:9. Furthermore, the past translation is appropriate because Paul intends to embark on a "history of suppressing the truth" in verses 21-32, but he clearly does not regard the events of verses 21-32 merely as past history as he uses this history to describe the present condition of Gentiles before God. The aorist _gnontes_ should not be pressed to indicate past time exclusively but should be considered as merely pointed action, or man's specific state before God. The unbeliever knows things on one level of his consciousness that he seeks to banish from other levels. To put it simply, he knows God, he knows what God requires, but he does not want that knowledge to influence his decisions, except negatively: knowledge of God's will tells him how to disobey God. So, yes, God does not believe in atheists.
Around the 29 minute mark, speaking of Paul, Acts 17, it should be noted that Paul was using the presuppositions of his audience to reason with them. Namely that they believed the Old T. was true and was God's Word.
mike white Acts 17 was talking to the Greeks at Mars Hill. They were pagans, not Jews - they didn’t believe in the OT, unless I’m understanding your statement incorrectly, which I very well may!
When giving evidence for God, I'm not putting God on trial, acting as a defense attorney and making the athiest judge. Rather, I am the prosectutor giving evidence of the error of the athiest thinking...putting the athiest beliefs on trial with God as their judge.
I think traditional apologetics does a better job of representing the character of God. It condescends to the humanity of the person, not their will, but like christ being judged by man, why wouldn't he expect to br placed on trial again and again. I think the presuppositionalist, understandably, assumes that God in this current age (not a dispensationalist) is acting like he would at the second coming. I may be very wrong, but I think each person responds differently and it's our responsibility to work it out with others in regards to faith.
I know I'm late to this party but I have to add that the truth isn't on trial; unbelief is. The person being debated is defendant and judge in a trial of unbelief.
Where were in scripture does Paul specifically preach to the "atheist "? It seems that he was preaching to a culture filled with god's. Weren't the Jewish religious people the one he wanted to convert? It seems to me Paul was preaching and proving Christ to the Jews. Todays culture on the contrary is filled with those who deny any gods existence because of the Sciences of men. That's a completely different audience form then.
Sorry, Mike, I love you man, I'm subscribe to your channel and all, but I don't think you understand presuppositional apologetics, at least not at the time you made this video. Presuppositionalists are _not_ against the giving of evidence, but we believe is giving evidence but through a presuppositional framework. The issue is not the fact that you _give_ evidence, but the _way_ you give the evidence that is the issue. Thank you for making the video any how. Blessings!
Is it wrong to present evidence to non-Christians? I think it depends on how it is presented. It would be wrong to say something like, "Hopefully, this evidence is good enough for you" or "This evidence might measure up to what you think is reasonable." I think its better to say something like, "The chief Temple priests knew that Jesus rose from the dead, but they did not want to admit it so they paid the soldiers to say that the disciples of Jesus stole His body." If someone denies God's existence, you can try to see if he believes in something that presupposes God's existence. If he says that he believes in using logic, you can show that laws of logic presuppose God's existence.
How are you supposed to spread God's word to people who don't believe in them without convincing them God is real. You can talk forever but if they don't think God is real they will never start believing
We are called to give evidence. Rom 10:14-15 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (15) And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 2Ti_4:2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and careful instruction. 1Pe 3:15-16 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (16) keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Mike, I appreciate the time you took to make this video and I will confess I only watched part of it, but I find some errors in your thinking. To compare Jesus' or any prophets signs and miracles to us giving evidence today is an apples and oranges argument. Today, can we give a miraculous sign to an unbeliever to give evidence that Jesus Christ is real? No, so the evidence that Jesus or the prophets gave to validate themselves isn't something you and I can do today to prove God's existence. But let me answer your three questions you began the video with: 1) God doesn't believe in atheists clearly because then the atheist would have an excuse when he stood before God. He could say, "I was never given enough evidence, that is why I didn't believe. The Christians you sent didn't do a good job in showing the evidence that you were real." Well, Romans 1:18-23 says that the creative order and their conscience already bears witness to the truth of His existence; therefore they are without excuse. In fact verse 18 says they hold (or suppress) the truth in their unrighteousness. Notice they hold or suppress it. It doesn't say they don't have inward knowledge of the truth, but that their unrighteous nature makes them suppress or twist it. Atheists know God exists which is why they fight against it so much. No person would fight against Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc. when they think they don't exist, but they make up organizations, TH-cam videos, etc. to fight against the God they think -doesn't exist? They are in denial. This is the reason Paul doesn't get philosophical with the idolaters in Acts 17:18-34, he proclaims who God is a creator, sustainer, etc. Only in verse 28 does he reference their poets and in verse 23 use their own ignorance about God to point them to the true God. 2) No, it isn't immoral to give evidence, but for the skeptic/atheist, notice every time you give evidence they want more proof. Why? Because they actually are the judge of our God. This is the reason they have a presupposition about God that goes like this: "If God were real, He would do _______." "If God were real, He would show me _______." I don't have enough evidence to believe in your God." And also notice they never are specific about what evidence would convince them; they remain vague. Unsaved people don't believe in Christ by evidence, but by the gospel (Romans 10:14-17). Answering objections is fine, but if it doesn't lead right back to the cross, it is a waste of time. And by the way, the verses used to derive the word apologetics has to do with us giving an answer for the hope we have under persecution (1 Peter 3:13-17), which is the cross of Christ, not "proving" God exists. 3) Jesus certainly did presuppositional apologetics. To say He didn't means we focus on only His miracles/signs to prove who He was. Well, that didn't convince the crowd that yelled out for His crucifixion. The same people He healed and did miracles to didn't believe by the time He went to the cross. And read carefully John 8:30-59 (which I preached a message on a few months back), verse 30 said they believed on Jesus and Jesus exposed that they didn't really believe; by verse 59 they wanted to stone Him because He claimed to be the "I Am." In John 6, Jesus fed the 5000 so that he was followed by others in 6:25. Why? According to Jesus it wasn't because of the miracle, but that they were gluttons (6:26). Jesus exposed their own hearts (presupposition about Him) and by the time He was done, many of them walked with Him no more (6:66). By the way, this is the same chapter where Jesus Himself told them that unless the Father draws them, no one could come to Him (6:44). Jesus repeats this in 6:65 and that is when they left Him. These are examples that evidence didn't bring people to faith. But presuppostional apologetics isn't to bring them to faith, but to answer Biblically their objections from a Christian worldview, not an unsaved one. Space doesn't permit me to give examples of presuppositional apologetics in the Bible, so I will post a second reply and cut and paste it from the notes of a class I taught on apologetics (where I taught on the different views). Suffice it to say, though Sye may be hard core at times, apologetics are to be Biblical, not prove that God or the Bible exists.
As an atheist, I think your analogy about us not fighting over the tooth fairy Santa are poor comparisons. Nobody is legislating or voting or impeding science based on their belief in the tooth fairy, or Santa. But they are with religion. So religion is very harmful, and that's why we oppose it.
First, love your material and I’ve watched you for years…God has used you to help me a lot in my walk with Christ…I mean a lot…but if I had to be honest…on this matter…your response never really refutes or objects to pre sub…you gave truthful evidence from the Bible in deed but those examples didn’t address pre sub…though true they are they really only give evidence in these areas: -Christs divinity -Gods prophets speaking His truth -miracles being proven from God or His hand -His work on the cross And so on but none of those points prove God existence…again they are true very true hands down but how can they address pre sub when they are expressing a truth already known…a lot of your points from the Bible seem to be proclaiming Gods truth but again I don’t se how you proclaim something that’s fake…it already had to be real right? We as followers are told to share the truth and spread the gospel…but I can’t find where we are told to convince non believes with our real evidence that God is real…
You could apply this logic to any theology you share even with Christian’s we would be the judge of God and the Bible when we discuss different theological views
Mike, I don't want to give you a big head, but you have a mixture of humility, discernment, wisdom, love, encouragement, zeal, that I highly admire. I have subscribed to your channel and am exited to watch more of your videos. You answered my nagging question about presuppositional apologetics too. When I heard men speak on it I was bothered about what I heard and how they were presenting their ideas to unbelievers. I love your answers, they are Biblical. Besides, I have been using evidential apologetics for a while and am more and more excited about it, but presups threw a damper on it, but you have revived it. Thanks so much! I will be watching when I can.
Exactly, a great example is Jesus performing miracles in order to make the people believe John 4:48 NKJV - Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.”
mike - And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened." Even if the text didn't indicate he was mocking them, his words alone come off as sarcastic, brother. Again, he's demonstrating the inconsistency of belief in false gods. For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.. 1Thessalonians 1:9 You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. 1Corinthians 12:2 But where are your gods that you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you, in your time of trouble; for as many as your cities are your gods, O Judah. Jeremiah 2:28 People make idols out of creation and their darkened imaginations. I should know, I literally do it all the time. But in the time of trouble, none of them can help me because they don't exist outside my sinful mind. 1Kings 18:20-39 is a clear demonstration of presuppositional apologetics even in its OT roots. A beautiful display of rhetoric and sarcasm. Good quotation of Scripture. Are you under the impression that there actually exists image bearers in God's world who really aren't sure who created them? Serious question
Bob: You told me that you *reasoned* to God's existence when you were 17. You also said you had a healthy fear of God's anger at idolators at that "tender age." Did God imbue you with that fear, or did you reason to it or did someone preach it to you?
The irony is that Sye's argument fails in its own propositional fallacies. Specifically he is making a logical error called "Affirming the consequent". Essentially he is stating the most normative use of evidence is in a trial thus if we use evidence to support God and the Gospel, God is on trial. His fallacious argument is two fold. First he states that the most common use of evidence is in the courtroom and this is objectively false. While it is true that evidence is given at trial, it is not the most common use of evidence. In fact I would argue it is one of the least common uses of evidence in frequency. Every day billions of people worldwide are using evidence to support ideas. Friends argue who was the best baseball player of all time and provide stats to each other. Parents teach children the dangers of playing with fire using evidence, educators teach classes using evidence. Scientists publish papers with evidence, Medical doctors present evidence of sickness to their patients and the list goes on and on. So we can see many examples where using evidence is not in a "trial" and all that is required for his statement to be false is one instance where it is not true. Sye's argument fails on the basis of this erroneous assumption alone, however we will also look at his second argument. Second he states that by using evidence you a placing the person to whom you are presenting the evidence in an authority position to judge the truthfulness of the evidence and you are putting the subject of the evidence on trial. This is also objectively false. While it is possible that a person can sit in authority over the evidence and the subject of the evidence, this is rarely the case. Using the examples above, when friends argue who was the best baseball player ever, they will each present evidence and they may or may not agree in the end. Regardless of it they come to agreement, this doesn't change the fact that that the greatest baseball player ever does exist. Nor does it imply that the baseball players in question are somehow on trial. Similarly, If your Doctor presents evidence of Cancer, it doesn't put you in authority over the cancer or the doctor and neither are on trial. Again, for Sye's argument to be false, it only requires a single instance where one of his dependent propositional fallacies are false or non-applicable. Here we find there are many instances in both of his assumptions that are false or non-applicable. His argument is defeated on its false assumptions. It is also important to remember that in a Jury trial, the Jury renders a final decision that is enforced by the Judge who pronounces the sentence. As this applies to God, there is no ability for the non-believer to enforce judgment/sentencing upon God, and this alone invalidates his analogy. Imagine this. If a small plane had trouble and was going to crash, the pilot might tell everyone they had to jump out and give everyone parachutes. If some of the passengers refuse to take the parachute and jump out, the only one who will suffer is them. They don't have authority over the crash, the parachutes, the laws of physics, the pilot or the other passengers. They have the right to decide for themselves to jump or not but their decision only affects themselves.
I think elevating a persons ability to judge has nothing to do with God being judge, and I think he is conflating the two just because it's the same word
I like your analogy at the end that its more like the cop putting a badge up to give evidence theyre real n legit. If you make the judgement that there are not actually cops out there (represents God in this analogy) then thats not like you pass judgement on God and as in court he gets Sentenced and punished because you judged that He was not actually God. What happens is you get your door kicked in and arrested for obstructing police on top of whatever other charges they were gonna slap on you. (The accountability you speak of)
When I watch Sye I feel like his technique is rude and lazy. I am not trying to be mean, but he does not address any concerns an unbeliever has, and does not need to study scripture to be ready with answers, he just says the same thing over and over. It would not make me turn to the Lord if I was an unbeliever, I would just feel bullied and bulldozed.
dmthomas537 One cannot have objections to something that must be true in order to even have objections. Why act as if the unbeliever can say what they say without God first being true? As Sye says they say words do not exist all the while they are speaking.
This presupp guy is making the same appeals for his apologetics method as Calvinists use to justify their Soteriology: “Forget all of the scriptures which strongly suggest otherwise, I’m right because (I think that) my way of doing things honors God more, which means your way dishonors God.” If God and his prophets can ask wayward people to judge evidence, we are not wrong to do the same.
God is still their Lord even if they deny, I don't see how giving evidence goes against Gods authority or sovereignty or anything at all really. Deep down people know God exists, but that doesn't mean they are consciously aware of it and still deny it. I mean how do believers come to the faith in the first place?
I mean doesn't Peter Paul Mark Jesus etc use scripture as proof to non believers to show it's true and that Christ is Lord? jews who didn't believe Jesus is Christ were shown scripture as evidence and they themselves accepted it
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
" Jesus is a genius, in case you didn't know this" Yes! Love it
I think we need to look into the origin of that word before we call Jesus that. Before I got born again of the Holy Spirit, I mistakenly called Him a magician and I'm still sorry about that, because now I know better as I no longer confirm to the ways of the world and am continuously being transformed by the renewing of my mind unto the mind of Christ (by heavily studying what God says front to back). God bless.
@@f.s.h.g.9763 the origin of the word is not particularly relevant in this case, at least in America. The current usage of the word is exclusively someone of exceptional, or unsurpassed, intelligence and has been for so long that I didn't even know it had any other meanings until I actually did what you suggested and researched the origin (albeit briefly). Furthermore, context is exceedingly important, and the context of this quote makes it clear that it is intended as I described it.
This isn't to say that I disagree with your sentiment. I find your commitment to clear and precise language admirable. I attempt to hold myself to a similarly high bar. This is still quite clear in my opinion, though. For me, this is the same as trying to decide what to call a greatsword from post-renaissance Scotland. Everyone calls them claymores today, but historically the claymore was what is now referred to as a basket hilted broad sword. Genius may have its origins in Roman pagan spirits, but if you are talking to an average person, they won't know that, just like if I'm talking about a claymore, an average person will think of a greatsword.
As far as being sorry about calling Jesus a magician, 2 Corinthians 5:17, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." It seems to me that you became aware of that log in your eye, and excised it. If you've given yourself over to Christ, he's already washed you clean of it, so there's no longer any reason to be sorry for it.
Flying spaghetti monster is smarter. And the true Lord. You know it you just suppress your knowledge of the true lord
I am reformed/Calvinist but I think the Biblical example of presenting evidence for our belief is inescapable and some of the more radical presuppositional positions sadden me. God wants us to be descerning and test and search out things to find out if they are true not just blindly trust something because it claims authority. It is the cults and false religions that tell converts to blindly trust. Thank you for this great video!
people are over thinking a lot of issues in the bible without really doing their homework and without really talking with others about their conclusions and then presenting it to the public. in one aspect this is harmful but because of such, I would say incomplete dutifully searching of the scriptures, it causes us as it has you to really get to the heart of the matter and i'm very grateful for you doing it and doing it without the ugly pride and arrogance that is so prevalent in many theologians and apologist. grace peace love truth and mercy in and of the Father and the Son by way of the Holy Spirit
I was an “atheist” from 11 years until almost 21 years of age. I accepted Christ in 2016. One thing I do believe, in my case, is that I - deep deep down knew felt there was a God. Few times I asked God for help, even though I “knew” he was not real. I grew up a catholic and I remember loving Jesus as a kid, and I traded that for lies. I’ve barely starting do learn and study the Bible. There are a lot of questions I have and there’s a lot of growth that needs to be done, I’m sure. I just wanted to give my perspective and thank you for these educational videos.
So, you just became dumb then?
I pray after all this time you have grown in faith brother.
@@wheatandtares-xk4lp My farts definitely exist. Your chosen deity does not exist.
@@chuckiepeoples…ok. Really showed how intellectual you are
@@patatoe2124 I merely stated that some things exist while other things do not exist.
Even though we may disagree on this matter, I certainly thank you for your charitable take. It is evident that you are committed to correct representation and understanding other people’s views correctly. Thank you.
Proverbs says:
"Answer a fool.../ Answer not a fool..."
I think there are times to give evidence, and times to refuse to give more evidence. It's when presuppositionalism is made an absolute- that one moves into error.
Thanks for a great job done in a great spirit Mike! You're my example!
Mike Winger, love your videos man. But I would clarify that as a presuppositionalist, I would not say that it is morally wrong to provide proof of our faith in Christ, but that that proof does not come from the unbeliever's worldview but from the Christian worldview itself. And this is what Presuppositional Apologetics is about. When we reason from X (sense perception, human experience, emotions, science, history, etc.), we are actually saying without saying it, that X defines truth for us. But if we reason from Scripture, we are saying that Christ defines Truth because Scripture is Christ's testimony to us. So, when we reason from X, we are adopting a method that says because X provides positive proof or probability for the veracity of Scripture, therefore Scripture is true. But the problem is that X is a variable, i.e. it produces varied results as is proved by the variations in faith and worldviews, and schools of thought. So, if X is a variable, how can truth be a function of it when truth is not a variable? We can never have certainty in the proofs derived thereof. But if we reason from Scripture, the very words of Christ, then we are saying that Truth is a function of the mind of Christ, which does not change and does not produce varied results, because Christ is perfect and unchanging. So, whatever truth we derived from Scripture has certainty. But the point of Presuppositional Apologetics is that, this certainty is only possible if Truth is a function of the mind of Christ, not human experience, sense perception, observation, etc. Christ then necessarily exists as the function of truth.
I think you've convinced yourself you're smarter than you are. The Bible proves your views wrong man, change them
@@AR15andGOD
How so? Weird reply.
I disagree that presenting evidence is like asking an atheist to judge God because their decision doesn’t alter reality. What you’re doing is reasoning with them in an attempt to get them to merely ACCEPT reality. God is never on trial here; their unbelief in God is on trial.
It just sounds like another argument to support Calvinistic fatalism, and this goes against everything Jesus taught about going into all the world and preaching the gospel to everyone.
An atheist could, likewise, come back at the presups, “No. God is not on trial, and I wouldn’t propose that we try God. You are trial. Your claims to know God and to speak for him are on trial. You’d expect me to do the same to the Mormons or the Catholics, so you ought to expect it for yourself.”
Most atheists do not have strong philosophical opposition to the concepts of “God” or “gods”, so they aren’t really putting these on trial so much as they are putting revelation on trial. Sometimes an apologist will claim to have “discovered” that they are actually “agnostics”, but this is not so much a secret as it is a disagreement over definitions. They are just mentally simplifying their worldview by leaving out components that they can’t realistically respond to. Drop revelation and your philosophical assertions become a non-issue.
You might’ve noticed that a lot of atheists like to talk about the Bible and to form their arguments in opposition to it. This is because it is the Bible (and the Koran, Vedas, Torah, Book of Mormon . . .) that they reject, rather than some general notion “divinity”.
Well, this is not a Calvinist issue. Many renowned Calvinist oppose Presup Apologetics. Have you seen R.C. Sproul on the topic?
@@jltc5478, no.
I don't believe you. Prove it.
Mike, as promised in my first comment, these are a portion of my notes from the second class I taught on Apologetics. This is a section that shows that presuppositional apologetics is actually taught in scripture. I'm just cutting and pasting these notes (it may be the raw notes I wrote before I edited them, so forgive any typos or grammatical errors).
SECTION TWO: APOLOGETICS DEMONSTRATED IN SCRIPTURE
We will look at three examples, in the Gospels, of Jesus Christ using presuppositional apologetics with those around him. At first glance, we wouldn’t notice this because many of these passages are so familiar. However, please notice the way the Lord demolishes the presupposition of those that challenged Him. And while he may not have used the two-step approach exactly as shown, both steps are definitely implied by the things He said.
The presuppositional apologetic used by Christ is actually summed up in two verses: Proverbs 26:4-5, which says, “Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.” While these verses seem to contradict each other, they actually complement one another. Verse 4 basically tells the believer not to answer the unsaved by his own presupposition because you will be like him. Unsaved people are fools in this respect. If you argue based on their way of thinking, you become like them. This is actually the second step of presuppositional apologetics; you show Christianity is the only logical worldview, therefore, you don’t answer based on the unsaved person’s worldview. On the other hand, verse 5 says answer a fool according to his folly, which means you take the unsaved person’s worldview and begin reasoning based on it. In doing so, you will show the foolishness of their worldview as it refutes itself, showing that the fool is wise in his own conceit. The great thing about this two-step approach is you can do either one first (though using the verse 5 step first is a better way to demolish the unsaved worldview before showing the Christian worldview is better). As we look at three examples in scripture, you will notice that Christ uses these two verses from Proverbs to put to silence his questioners.
Read Matthew 22:23-33. The Sadducees are questioning Jesus Christ about marriage, but notice they do so to prove their presupposition about the resurrection. They don’t believe in it (Matthew 22:23), which is their presupposition. Because of this, their questions about marriage, as it pertains to the resurrection (Matthew 22:24-28), is based on that presupposition. They’re only posing the question to Jesus because they want to “prove” the resurrection is not valid based on their disbelief in it. Their logic in disproving the resurrection is completely based on the fact they don’t believe it. Jesus answers their presupposition by exposing it as faulty: He tells them they are in error, not knowing the scriptures or the power of God (Matthew 22:29). Next, Jesus explains the dynamics of the resurrection (Matthew 22:30) and the very nature of God as it pertains to the resurrection (Matthew 22:31-32). The reaction is astonishment from those that heard His doctrines (Matthew 22:33). Jesus actually shut the mouths of the Sadducees by exposing their faulty view of the resurrection and God. He didn’t answer a fool according to their folly here. He stayed true to the Word of God instead of answering godly things from an ungodly perspective.
Read John 10:31-39. The Jews are ready to stone Christ (John 10:31) because He said He and the Father were one (John 10:30). Jesus asked why they were going to stone Him since He had done so many good works from His Father in their presence (John 10:32). (Notice that Jesus is asking them this question based on the empirical evidence of His works. They actually saw what He did. We will return to this later.) The Jews said it was because He blasphemed, saying He was God when He was only a man (John 10:33). Jesus then quotes Psalm 82:6 to show that the OT scriptures called them gods. And since the scriptures can’t be broken (which means it’s infallible), why are they saying He blasphemed when God the Father sent Him into the world? (John 10:35-36) Jesus then continues and tells the Jews they should believe Him based on the works He has done because those works were from the Father. (John 10:37-38) This only angered the Jews further; they tried to take Christ to stone Him, but He escaped from them (John 10:39). Jesus used their own presupposition against them to show them their faulty understanding of scripture. The Jews were right to be angry about any man saying He was God based on their OT scriptures, but He reminded them that the psalm He quoted showed the Hebrew word for God many times described representatives of God. Since Christ was representing the Father, based on the scriptures they were basing their own presupposition on, how could they say He was blaspheming (if they knew their scriptures)? The truth is that they had a self-righteous understanding of the truth, but Christ answered them according to their folly so they wouldn’t be wise in their own conceit. Yet it was the evidence of His works that really angered them still. They had physical evidence of the works of Christ, but it still wasn’t enough to convince them He was Messiah and the Son of God.
Read Luke 20:1-8. Jesus here is teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel; the chief priests and scribes ask Him by what authority He did those things and who gave Him the authority? (Luke 20:1-2) This question is being asked by the religious leaders of that day; they thought they alone had the authority to teach/preach the things Jesus presumed to teach or preach. They wanted to shame Christ by showing their authority by questioning His. Christ then asks them a simple question about the baptism of John: Was it from heaven or man? (Luke 20:3-4) The priests and scribes reasoned among themselves the possible reaction to either answer. They were stuck because the answer was either heavenly or man-centered. If they believed it was heaven, they would look foolish for not believing John the Baptist. If they believed it was from man, the people would literally stone them for doubting John was a prophet. (Luke 20:5-6) Either answer would get them in trouble (though one answer was true, but their admission of it would expose their hypocrisy). They answered that they couldn’t tell (or better put, they didn’t know) (Luke 20:7). Jesus then tells them He wouldn’t tell them by what authority He taught and preached (Luke 20:8). The priests and scribes’ presupposition was that they were the authority. Jesus answered them according to their presupposition, asking them a spiritual question they should be able to answer since they were the authorities. They couldn’t, showing they truly had no real authority from God (which is where Jesus got His authority from, God the Father, which they knew down-deep). And since their lack of authority was exposed, Jesus had no obligation to answer any of their questions from a perspective that they had authority. Again, both Christ and the priests/scribes knew the authority was from God the Father, but the sins of those Jewish leaders suppressed that truth because they wanted to be the authorities from God.
Notice in all three accounts that Jesus never answered from a perspective that God the Father and the Word of God wasn’t His foundation. Any challenge was answered based on the presupposition of the Word being the Word and God being God. Jesus didn’t use evidence to prove to the skeptics that He was the Christ. Yet there were many times that Jesus and His apostles showed empirical evidence all could see or hear to validate it was from God. Notice in the next examples below that actually empirical evidence, according to scripture, is not convincing. (No room to put the rest of the notes in)
Eric I wonder if there is some confusion of exactly what is Presuppositional Apologetics (PA). Classical Apologists can and do interact with non-believers about their presuppositions. My understanding of PA is that it holds that all people have the same presuppositions, that God exists, etc. but that the non-believers suppress this knowledge within themselves and are only pretending to not know that Jesus is Lord. That is what I get from the PA description of Romans 1. So, it seems to me that if we show a non-believer, who really does presuppose that God does not exist, that his presuppositions don’t support some of his other beliefs, such as the reliability of scientific research or his belief in objective morality, then we are engaged in traditional apologetics - not PA.
Two other quick points. Jesus’ ministry was at least partly to bring judgment on the Jews, there was a divine hardening of the Jews during his ministry to bring about a crisis event: the crucifixion of Christ. I’m not saying we can’t learn some things on how to do Apologetics but we should be aware of what was going on at that time. Many of those who rejected him during his earthly ministry repented and believed after Pentecost. Also, Paul reasoned with unbelievers, sometimes for hours. It doesn’t take that long to accuse people that they actually do know that God exists and then preach the gospel - nor would that be called reasoning with people.
Nathan, I've listened to many Classical and Evidential Apologists, and they bluntly say you don't start with the Bible to prove the Bible. In this respect, they tend not to quote or allude to the Bible before they give tons of "evidence" of its validity or the existence of God. This isn't always wrong, but to think an unbeliever will be swayed by our evidence without the gospel and God's illumination can actually be conceited. And though Jesus' ministry was to bring hardening to the Jews, if you go to my second comment and examine the verses where Jesus didn't answer questions based on the faulty presuppositions of others, but by the Word of God. This is the crux of Presuppositional Apologetics; we give our answers from the Word of God. 1 Peter 3:14-15, Jude 4, Titus 1:9, Colossians 2:8, and 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 are just some of the verses that tell us to go to the Word of God for our answers or defending of the faith. When we continue to go outside the Word of God more than quote the truth of it, we become philosophical. I've heard Frank Turek and Ravi Zacharias both do this. They are brilliant men, but listen to their answers; they're more philosophical than Biblical.
And don't assume that Presuppositional Apologetics doesn't reason with unbelievers. It's just done from a worldview perspective more than answering the skeptic's question to "prove" God exists. For example, if someone says they don't believe in God because bad things happen to good people, I go right to the scriptures. I tell them there are no good people compared to God (Romans 3:12). I tell them goodness is defined by God since He is the creator of all things, even the intangible things (Colossians 1:15-17). I explain that God's standards are absolute, that sin is the breaking of God's law and coming short of His glory (1 John 3:4, Romans 3:23) and breaking one of His laws means breaking them all (James 2:10). This way, I define sin to them and show them that they are absolute lawbreakers before the self-existent God (Exodus 3:14) that is the lawgiver and judge (Isaiah 33:22). So any 'bad" thing is due to sin, which is on mankind. Any good thing is from God because He is the essence of good. And if they judge God by His own standards, I ask them by which absolute standard they make a judgment against God. I know they don't have one because if it were absolute, it would come from an absolute source, which is God. So I do reason with them, but I can't convince them, only show them the error of their thinking. But if I start going into detail about how the Bible was put together, how logically God exists based on their philosophy, or proving that the Bible is the Bible with outside sources, they can sit back with their arms crossed and say, "I don't buy your evidence, give me more until I'm convinced." And I've interacted with enough atheists/skeptics to know that this is true. I attack their worldview and lead them directly to the cross.
So is giving some evidences wrong? No, there are times to do that. But if we don't understand the presupposition of the sinful person that says they hate God (Jesus' own words in John 15:18-23) and they can't discern spiritual things (1 Corinthians 2:14) and that they have wicked, deceitful hearts (Jeremiah 17:9), we give the spiritually dead sinner (Ephesians 2:2) more reasoning credit than the Bible does. We speak God's truth and pray that God opens their eyes because it will never be my evidence that saves them (or even draws them), but God.
@@2timothy23 As an evidentialist myself, that's not quite how I would do it.
I might say something similar to 'not using the bible to prove the bible', but what I mean is I don't start talking to people with the automatic assumption that the bible is inspired, but working from the ground up it *might* be inspired or it *might* not, but I myself think that it is inspired. It certainly doesn't mean not using the bible, you just use it in a different way.
You can use the bible as a historical source/witness initially. You can also point out furfilled prophecy in the bible also establish the bible and God's prophets as being inspired by God. I might also show that scripture confirms something that they already know to be true, confirming to them that scripture is accurate, indicating that it is inspired. All of this involves quoting scripture, the difference is you're quoting scripture from an initially neutral standpoint.
Furthermore (this isn't really a universal evidentialist position, not all of them would use this or call it 'apologetics') I would also preferably want to generate experimental evidence I can point out to them or leave them to work through, and this can also involve quoting scripture. I might do this by simply saying a scriptural passage to them and observe them noticing the presence of the holy spirit in that passage. I also might do this by saying an accurate word of knowledge to them rooted in scripture, so they can see that there is something special about the bible. I could also recollect to them times this has happened to myself or people I know, bringing evidence to them and quoting scripture in that way.
All of this, though is only something that you do if they don't already say they think that the bible is inspired to some extent (which, say, Muslims do; or some 'generic theists' do too). If they do already recognise the bible is inspired (but might think the current version is corrupted or only partially inspired or doesn't say what Christians think it says or whatever), you can start from there. You only need to establish what someone doesn't already agree with, once you have it you can start from there.
In short, not 'proving the bible with the bible' doesn't mean not using the bible, it means not using it with the assumption it is inspired, unless the person you are talking to already thinks that.
I can somewhat sympathise with not going into philosophical nonsense, but to me the presuppositionalists are as guilty if not more of this than evidencialists. The transcendental argument and moral arguments for God are very philosophical, and I prefer apologetics that is more grounded in reality (like prophecies, miracles, historical evidence of biblical events) than in philosophy-land (I do have the same criticism of the cosmological argument, in case you're interested). Using these arguments are not bad, but they aren't optimal in my opinion.
@@IamGrimalkin I understand your intent, zeal, and even your compassion in answering the lost with evidences. It is the most common method used and it is quite popular among most apologetists. And I don't even mind using some evidences in my conversations, but the problem stems from something you wrote in your reply. I am cutting and pasting it not to nit-pick, but actually point out a serious dilemma that most classical/evidential apologists don't consider: you wrote, "I might say something similar to 'not using the bible to prove the bible', but what I mean is I don't start talking to people with the automatic assumption that the bible is inspired, but working from the ground up it might be inspired or it might not, but I myself think that it is inspired. " Here is the problem:
2 Timothy 3:16-17 says that the Bible is God-breathed (inspired) and sufficient for all believers. Christians will "amen" that truth in church and Bible studies, yet when we speak to the unsaved we suddenly start talking to people with the “assumption” that the Bible is inspired? Does this mean you believe it is inspired when you're with believers, but when you're with unbelievers it is a hypothetical? Either it is inspired or it isn't. And one day, an unsaved skeptic will call you out on it. They will ask if you believe it is inspired or not. If you say it may be, then they can question you about which parts may not be, basically questioning the validity of your faith. If you say it is, then they can rightly ask why you're saying it is a hypothetical when in reality you believe it is; they can show that you're either doubting your own scriptures or that you're lying. If you believe God's Word is truth (John 17:17), pure (Psalm 12:6), tried (Psalm 18:30), holy (Romans 1:12, 2 Timothy 3:15), and quick and powerful (Hebrews 4:12), then you can’t think it is only hypothetical when you’re speaking to the unbeliever. Unbelievers have no problem quoting secular sources and their own opinions to back up their worldview, actually with no empirical proof of their theories and sources, yet we jump through hoops to “prove” to them our Bible is potentially or probably inspired so they can accept the validity of it. This is Biblically nonsense. And your second assertion shows it; you wrote:
“…the difference is you're quoting scripture from an initially neutral standpoint.” This is where the need to do evidence based apologetics has a serious problem. The unsaved mind is not neutral at all. Romans 8:5-8 says the carnal mind is at enmity (hostility) against God, which is the reason no one in the flesh can please God. Romans 1:18-23 says the unsaved person knows all about the existence of God, yet they hold (or suppress) that truth in their unrighteous nature, though the creative order testifies that He is Creator. Jesus Himself said the unsaved world hates Him, Christians, and God the Father in John 15:18-23. There are many other verses, as well, that shows that the mind of the unbeliever is foolish, not discerning of spiritual things (just check 1 Corinthians 2:14), and darkened. Jeremiah 17:9 says the heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked. Do we believe what the Bible says about the unsaved or not? Yet if you hypothetically say the Word of God is not inspired, then perhaps the very verses I cited aren’t really inspired by God. If it isn’t, then it isn’t absolute or binding on the Christian for life or the unbeliever for salvation. And if you think it isn’t, even unconsciously, then you will naturally (and I use that term literally) think man has a neutral attitude towards God. They don’t. The Bible says they hate God. But if we don’t believe the Bible outside of the church the way we do in the church, then we will speak to the unsaved person with a presupposition similar to theirs. In other words, we will think we can present evidence to the unsaved person to convince them of the “possibility” of God, then we can spring the gospel on them because they would be more receptive. In other words, you want to make them theists (believers in the existence of a god) instead of answering questions to directly lead them to the gospel so they would become Christians (believers in the one and only God). You can convince them in an existence of a god, but that doesn’t mean they will repent and believe in Christ.
I just had a conversation with someone after I preached a gospel message at a chapel service at a homeless shelter. The person objected to Christ being the only way and said I was disrespectful to other religions. He also said no one could show him proof that God was the God of the Bible. He said he never met anyone that went to heaven or hell and came back to tell him. Do you see how this person was making himself the judge of God? And he wanted me to jump through hoops to convince him when he already had his mind made up. So how did I answer him? I told him that he’s upset that I disrespected other religions, but I don’t have to respect them because there is only one God and Jesus Christ is the way to Him (John 14:6). I asked him outright if Jesus was the only way to heaven and if the gospel message I preached was wrong? He said “I don’t know,” so I told him that he couldn’t realistically object to the truth I was preaching if he didn’t have an alternative, absolute answer showing he was right. If he doesn’t know, then he can’t say I’m wrong. The Bible is inspired whether the unsaved person believes it or not; as a Christian I’m not to put God on trial for the unbeliever to judge whether His Word or existence is true. It is absolute truth and we’re to proclaim it. They’re saved by the gospel message, not by giving “evidence.” Don’t misunderstand, I don’t mind answering many of those questions, but I never put down “the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God” (Ephesians 6:17) and speak to an unsaved person based on their unbelieving, biased presupposition. They are not neutral, and neither should we be. We answer objections to our faith by sanctifying the Lord in our heart and the Word of God (1 Peter 3:15, Titus 1:9, Jude 3), not by leaning on our own understanding, vain deceit, and philosophies (which Proverbs 3:5 and Colossians 2:8 speaks against).
@@2timothy23 The thing is, it's not really about what I assume, it's about what I'm asking the person I'm talking with to assume.
Hi, I think it would be helpful if you were to think of things in terms of how you would convince something of anything else.
Imagine you were talking to someone who didn't think animal tissue was made of cells, and therefore didn't think in the cellular nuclei exist. You wouldn't say 'start by assuming that that cells exist', you would preferably just show them some animal tissue under the microscope and the nuclei inside them. You don't need to start with cells to prove cells (even though they will be looking at the tissue, made of cells, using the cells in their eye to do so), but you are still examining cells, and you personally still think cells are real, you just aren't asking the other person to assume that a priori.
2 Timothy 3: 16 is a good case in point: it is helpful for showing someone who thinks scripture is credible that it is also inspired. You use the bible, but you don't have to start by the person having to assume the bible is inspired: if they understand Paul as being wise or credible (which many people do), 2 Tim 3: 16 can show someone that the bible is inspired.
Also, similarly, the 'experimental' approach may end up working in some cases: someone may recognise the presence of the spirit when hearing 2 Tim 3: 16 that confirms its truthfulness, or (for example) be wondering about the status of the bible when you feel prompted to share 2 Tim 3: 16 with them and they recognise that as God telling them it is inspired. They don't have to start from the position that the bible is inspired in that case, they can wonder whether or not the bible is inspired and see evidence that confirms it.
Of course people you talk to are not neutral, but my point is that being neutral is something that you can reasonably ask of them and they will understand why it would be good to do so.
In terms of the guy who you met, it sounds like he might be saying that he would be convinced that Christianity is true if he had someone come back from the dead and tell him that Christianity is true. That being the case, I personally would a) point out the Jesus came back from the dead and he said that Christianity is true, and perhaps add a few pieces of historical evidence (mostly involving those found in the bible ) to back it up and b) talk about people I have sort-of associated with who say Jesus brought them back from the dead, and further events that seem to have verified that was indeed the case.
Of course how much of that conversation I would be able to do would rather depend on how long he stayed, but I feel my appoach would also be more liable to make him want to hang around than yours. How long did he stay to listen to your explanation?
ps you seem to indicate here that believing in the inspiration of scripture is necessary for salvation. That's nonsense, the bible has some pretty clear lists about what is necessary for salvation and the inspiration of scripture isn't in them (well, it does talk about Jesus's breath and resurrection happening 'according the the scriptures', but it is possible, if perhaps not logical, for someone to believe one but not the other).
There is effectiveness to some portion of presuppositional apologetics. Most people don't know what they believe. Uncovering their presuppositions can be necessary to reveal to them what they truly believe. Uncover presuppositions to reveal to them Classical truths of scripture.
Sye live with you?! YES! Would LOVE to see this.
I personally don't have a "dog" in this "fight". I think that Classical, Evidential and Presup Apologetics are all useful in some extent, and each has pros and cons (I don't think there's a "perfect apologetic method"). Our central message is the Gospel, which has the power to convict, and our PRIMARY job is to preach it. Ofcourse, we should be able to defend it too, that's where apologetic starts, the SECONDARY job after preaching the Gospel.
However, I see a "trap" that traditional apologists typically tend to fall in, and that is, trying to rationalize Biblical/spiritual concepts within the atheist's frame of thinking. For example; when an atheist objects to God's actions in the OT as being 'immoral', traditional apologists try to defend God's actions as actually lining up with the atheist's moral code, if understood with additional historical context/facts. In reality, God has a different moral code from the atheist altogether and there's NO need to prove that God is 'good' based on anyone's standard other than His own.
So, I see use of apologetics in showing the non-believer that Christianity can work in a rational framework, and a way to BREAK-DOWN the intellectual barriers that had reinforced their resistance to the Gospel. At the end of the day, it's their PERSONAL choice on whether to follow or reject Jesus. I think 1 Corinthians 2 is eye-opening regarding this issue :-)
I agree with you. We don't speak to everyone the same way. We use these as tools in our toolbox.
True, this why I vehemently disapprove or over-reliance on reductionist approach. It is possible to approach things in an overly simplistic manner. If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
"A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent."
In what sense can an all-powerful being be "attacked"?
Also, your religion just made you compare yourself to a dog.
God proves Himself to believers more and more all the time. That’s how our faith grows. It’s in part, how we grow to know him more. Faith based on nothing at all means you have no experiences in the Lord, which is fine in the very beginning, but over time, it simply means you only have religion and no relationship.
How do you know what you are experiencing is "God"?
"God proves Himself to believers more and more all the time."
He should prove himself to non-believers - they're the ones that need proof.
@@JMUDoc
God doesn’t need atheists to believe in him.
What you mean is, atheists need God to prove Himself to them. And you’re right, that is what they need. But that doesn’t stop the ones to whom He does prove himself, from being lambasted and ridiculed by the current atheists for their betrayal, or stupidity.
In debates you always hear this question, “What would it take to make you a believer?” And I always thought that question was so stupid. Lol. No one has any idea what it would take to make them a believer.
From the most hardcore, God-despising atheist to the coolest, nonchalant agnostic, you hear answers like, “My kid died a horrible death,” or “I was sitting at a museum looking at a painting and then I knew,” or “I was taking a hike in the woods and saw a leaf blowing through the air,” or “I watched my child be born...” Atheists become believers, always in the most personal of ways, which is ever varying and countless.
No one has any idea what it would take to make them believe, but yes... we do need it.
@@LindeeLove
If you seek Him you will find Him. If you knock, He’ll open the door. Like it says in the Bible, “The glory of God is to hide things, the glory of Kings is to search them out.”
@@joshuashepard583 How do you tell the difference between Him "opening the door" for you, and your brain just messing with you? Can you describe how in your personal experience you know the difference in such a way that I can understand?
As much as California seems like a lunatic state by a guy from Pennsylvania, it is encouraging to know God has poured out wisdom on many believers from that state. There seems to be an abundance of good teaching online from people in California to offset the weird. I also hope God pours out tons of wisdom for Hebrews 6. We would all like to know!
Justin Harrell, I live here in Pa and am from California. Mike and I are great friends from church. The state has it's bad side but I, personally, know that there's an abundance of wonderful Godly people there.
People here laugh at me when I tell them how much I miss my Christian brothers from California. I just found your comment to be very personal and had to comment. :)
So timely. I'm going through "Forensic Faith" by James Wallace in my Bible Study. Another great one that pairs well with a message like this.
That's great to hear. Jim Wallace is a gifted speaker and apologist. The body of Christ is so blessed that God called to him to this ministry. I've met him in person a number of times and he is very personable and humble.
Thank you for your faithfulness to the Lord, and for all that you do.
That being said I'd like to point out all the verse you posed showed they knew God, and turned away from Him. They don't show they didn't know God, but they turned away from Him and chased after idols.
Keep up the great work, God bless!
Great video brother. God bless you. That passage you spoke of in Heb 6; "For it is impossible, in the case of those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit,
and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, to restore them again to repentance, SINCE they are crucifying once again the Son of God to their own harm and holding him up to contempt." ... has been, I'm afraid, the reason many have not returned to their Father in heaven as they should. Note the prodigal son parable. The crux of this is the single Greek word being translated here as "since". It is a word needing context for meaning and can be translated here as "since" or as "while" BUT if "since" is the proper translation then many other new testament passages seem to be contradicted. However, if "while" is used, (as it has been in some translations) the true meaning becomes clear. If you were once a Christian, experiencing all the wonders of our hope, but are NOW rejecting Jesus, what could we possibly say to bring you back? "While" implies present continuous action, not a one time thing in the past as in the word "since". It's impossible to repent if you don't want to repent. I believe this is at the crux of the questions here. Read it both ways and see the difference.
About Sye, ... God bless him, but it seems that he had this epiphany about teaching atheists, that God should not be on trial for existing, (which has a truth in it and could be valuable in certain discussions), but he has become fixated on this one thing as his ministry. He has put it out there, gets attention and so is encouraged to continue. It seems to have become his "niche" ministry. Justin Peters has a niche ministry exposing the Benny Hinn, Kreflo Dollar types, but I think Peters ministry IS important to help people escape from that false doctrine. Sye's niche, on the other hand, doesn't seem to be helping Christians. Perhaps it will become an excuse for Christians to NOT study to "be ready to give a reason for the hope."
Once again dear brother, God bless you and your great work for Him.
Thanks for this. Really well, and respectfully done. I had some exposure to presupositionalim recently and knew something was off, but couldn't quite articulate what. You helped a ton.
By their fruits you shall know them. From my observations, presuppositionism seems to lead down a very unchristian set of values.
Well done, well done indeed. God bless your ministry!
If we go by the definition of Sye Ten Bruggencate, then it's Christians that are on trial, not God. The athiests are calling us liars, not God. We are defending our belief system, not God.
Mike (or anyone here) - I am struggling with this one. Under evidential/classical apologetics, can't you only logically conclude that Jesus *most likely* died and rose again? How can we be saved if we don't believe the resurrection with 100% certainty?
Another example, under evidential apologetics, how would you deal with someone who says "I believe Jesus is Lord, unless some other evidence arose to prove otherwise"? Are they saved?
Within the first 3 minutes I knew that Mike doesn't grasp presuppositional apologetics based on the comment that presuppositionalist think "it's wrong to give evidences." No the fact is we as believers need to stop letting unbelievers make objections to God when they don't even have the frame work/world view to be mad about anything, have a reason to care about truth, have a world view for the necessary preconditions of induction/reason/logic/uniformity in nature in order to even have the ability to speak a single word. We need to stop letting the unbeliever grab what they can only get from a Christian worldview and use it against us. I know some presuppostionalist that even use evidence is the presuppostionalist fashion by the way.
Trenten
Fully agree . The unbeliever is never judge of the evidence .
the unbeliever is never judge of the Word of God.
I think more Christians should adopt Syes presupp approach.
Presenting evidence always ends in rejection of the evidence because Sciencism has brainwashed so many unbelievers and the natural pride and arrogance in man causes self promotion to the position of judge.
As an atheist, I just presume the laws of logic themselves. Why is this not allowed? Why does there have to be anything "behind" them?
And why *doesn't* there have to be anything behind Jehovah?
I say "there's nothing underneath the laws of logic"; you say "Jehovah is underneath the laws of logic, but there's nothing underneath *him*". Why is yours better?
@@JMUDoc
I'll give it a shot.
There is a fundamental difference in an argument where therefore God exists is the last line of a syllogism.
Without the foundation for reason, no logical syllogism can even exist.
If reason is the top level rather than Devine inspiration, what is the foundation of reason...does reason even exist ?
Can you prove the validity of reason, without using reason ?
Or logic, without using logic, how about proving the validity of mathematics, without appealing to maths ?
One cannot even prove words have meaning without using words to do it.
It's actually all circular reasoning in the end, but Divine revelation while circular as well, can give account for the very reason I just invoked...nature cannot.
Don't know if that helps...
The problem of apologetics is that it has become a winning of an argument but no the winning of the heart. This is a major problem and I think this is the crux of the problem we are talking about now in this video.
It's weird now watching these older videos without the text on screen lol.
Hey Mike, I was wondering about William Lane Craig and Catholics in regards to separating from those that associate with a false gospel. He references them as brothers. I love WLC but don't know what to do about this.
WLC also adheres to old Earth evolutionist time line
I have listened to WLC talking to a Catholic priest and he says plainly that he disagrees with a number of the RCC doctrines including Justification. So it isn’t like he associates with Catholics and pretends like there aren’t any significant differences with their doctrine.
yell jack
Someone can be saved an be a "catholic" they're just ignorant to the doctrines of their Church or disagree with them.
Hey Nathan, I know that he makes it clear there are major differences but he does still affirm them as brethren and he has done at least one event with them (might be the one you're referencing). 2 John 10-11 would seem to condemn this type of public affirmation... If we agree that their view of Justification causes their gospel to be false. I haven't fully explored that idea but it seems likely.
Yunus, I do realize that many Catholics are saved... but I believe it's probably in spite of churches view of Justification. And WLC seems to affirm that it's not in spite of it, and the church holds to a true gospel.
"deep down they know God exists - that they're lying to you and they know it" is not the presup position. the position is that deep down they know it but they've suppressed the truth and have lied to themselves, so that consciously they think it's true. Romans 1:18 ff - they suppress the truth until their heart becoms dark.
so consciously they think it's true
Great video Mike. I like Sye Ten’s video but at times he is kinda confusing; I like the way you explain it. Thanks
Sye's base approach is not confusing at all; it's the rabbit holes he (has to) go down that cause the confusion.
John 17, 17 - You either cherish the position 'man decides truth' or God's word is truth.
Mike Winger How old do you think the earth is? I asked my pastor this and he did not give me an answer?
This sounds eerily like hyper-Calvinism. A fist full of pride, so to speak.
Telling people that they need God and have no basis for rationality without God sounds like hyper-calivinism? Okay dude.
Did you make a category error when you said people can choose God like you choose to go out to eat?
So when you read Romans 3, no one seeks God, so how can choosing God be like choosing a restaurant?
Your thoughts?
In reference to time stamp 1:06:30 they were not killed for any knowledge or lack thereof they were killed for their sins. And of course just because all men are without excuse and the evidence of God is clearly seen it only means as the guy in the video kinda says they "should have" known and were accountable for it. But ultimately they were punished for their sins.
Where did "evidence-S” come from? Do apologists circulate memos making up their own rules of grammar? The singular and plural case were the same when I grew up.
This is an interesting discussion as I watched Sye video last week that you played clips of and had many of the same reserves after watching even though I thought I was presupp. Maybe I’m not. I didn’t realize there was a branch that was this extreme about not using evidence.
Not sure I followed when you said there is only evidence for God, because unbelievers believe they have evidence against God and I think (and I could be wrong) this is because the evidence is interpreted based off their presuppositions. I feel like the skeptic can always interpret it differently or give a rescuing device for any evidence given to him (as do we vice versa). I thought evidence can only confirm (not prove) our presuppositions or be used to show the unbelievers inconsistencies with their presuppositions. Don’t you have to presuppose logic to use logic? Otherwise you would have to prove logic without logic. That sounds circular but I think it unavoidable and necessary for ultimate standards.
Also the transcendental argument isn’t just logic and reasoning I think there are 8 things (morality for example I don’t remember all 8). Look forward to more on this and I appreciate your openness and doing this with meekness and respect!
Mike great video! Keep them coming brother!
PLEASE do a video on the whole idea of Christians being accused of using the Bible to prove the Bible! I need a way out of the circular reasoning debate.
I have read quite a lot of Van Til and Bahansen. And I find the transcendental arguments for God’s existence to be really helpful in our postmodern culture. It really is more focused on the necessity of God’s existence so that we can do science, morality, and reasoning with confidence. The rejection of evidences really comes down to a rejection of probabilistic arguments because it is believed that probable arguments mean that God is only probable in his being and thus does not sovereignly control all possibility. Basically, probability undermines God’s self-existence (it actually has some overlap with the rationale supporting classical theism). But this antagonism to evidence and a desire to set one’s methodology apart can go too far. And a tension in Van Til is that he also insists that the argument can start from man proximately (from man’s experience of reason) to God’s ultimate existence. It seems me a mistake for presuppositionalists to negate probabilistic arguments just because they do not result in deductive necessity. If the arguments for the necessity of God are true and ground inductive logic, it is not wrong to use probabilistic arguments where appropriate and it doesn’t look much different than how traditionally presented. Historical arguments depend upon the validity of the transcendental arguments that ground them. So presuppositionalists should argue away about history as it presupposes God. Appeal to the necessity of God can come in at the end of a good probabilistic case from history. The thing is, that evidential probabilistic arguments are easier for most people to understand than arguments about the grounding of knowledge. Presuppositionalists should spend more time actually pressing home the arguments for necessity, and show how theses support rather than rebut or negate the probabilistic arguments.
On another note, the presuppositionalist needs to distinguish arguments about method and Calvinism from the substantive transcendental arguments themselves. It gets old pretty quick to hear the argument against neutrality used as a substitute for persuasive reasons that the Gospel is true. Even the most convicted Calvinist believes that God has appointed means to his ends. Sometimes it’s like the scriptural truth that God is the source of enlightenment has replaced the arguments that are supposed to point people to God’s light. One is not actually making the presuppositional argument by appealing to scriptures about the fallen nature of man; and arguing methodology with the unbeliever is not as faithful to the presuppositional method as some who practice this method often assume.
I can truly say that I do not know what is the origin of our universe. I have no idea. Does that make me an atheist?
I listened to this whole “discussion”, though many times I wanted to turn it off because I was so disappointed and frustrated. I had been hoping to hear Sye’s response to Mike’s previous video this wasn’t that at all. I like to hear both sides of an argument. But I dislike listening to people who are rude. Others have commented here that it was a respectful conversation, so perhaps I’m just particularly sensitive. I thought Mike was humble and respectful, but I didn’t think Sye was. He continually interrupted Mike to make a point that took the conversation in a different direction. He didn’t seem to be willing or able to listen to Mike’s concerns or objections and to answer with thoughtful disagreement, which would have been okay. He didn’t answer most of the objections that were in the first video at all. Because he wouldn’t stay on one topic very long but just kept taking the conversation back to some point he wanted to make regardless of its relevance to what Mike said, I finished the video more confused than I started.
Until now, I’ve been more comfortable with apologetics that I thought were presuppositional. What I thought that meant was that it was okay to use the Bible to help people understand the truth about God and the gospel because people have eternity placed in their hearts by God. I found great value in the teaching and example of those who assume the Bible is true, that it’s a valid resource to use when witnessing to pre-believers. I’ve seen this approach used by Jason Lisle, so I was really surprised to hear Sye mention him in a positive light. Several times Sye said it was wrong to use evidence like the design of the human body in evangelism, but Lisle not only defends his faith using the Bible, but he also sees value in sharing evidence from scientific discoveries. It seems to me that Jason Lisle thinks scientific evidence is part of how God makes His presence known to people through the things that have been made. (Rom 1:20) If Sye is saying that such evidence will not save someone, I would agree. Everyone needs to hear the plan of salvation from the words of Scripture to be saved. But to say it is wrong to present such information to a pre-believer seems to me to be going way beyond what the Bible teaches and what I thought was presuppositional apologetics.
So, I’m left to conclude that I really don’t understand presuppositional apologetics. And Sye’s overbearing approach to this conversation made me not want to. On the other hand, Mike, I really appreciate your thorough approach to understanding what the Bible says about various topics and your willingness to consider all sides of controversial issues, comparing those thoughts with what the Text says. Keep up the good work!
The approach by Sy is strange. There is a strong thread through the whole Bible of God, in the New and Old, specifically proving who He is and why He's the one true God.
You can’t change skeptics’ minds or hearts. That’s the work of the Holy Spirit. 🕊️ I agree with Dr. Stanley (RIP), who said to share Christ and leave the results up to God.
The unbeliever has already placed himself in the position of judge. God has already provided His own defense, and we dishonor Him by not presenting it.
Ryan:
Do you offer an unbeliever any evidence of whatever you believe?
@@20july1944 my point is to counter the idea that we elevate the unbeliever to the position of judge by providing evidence. If the conversation is anything more than a simple discussion of basic theology, evidence will be required. It isn't enough to say you believe. It must be substantiated with evidence.
Ryan:
I apologize, I misread you. I agree with you on that.
I think you would agree that there is power in God's word and it's the Gospel message that will ultimately save people right? I'm not saying that providing philosophical or scientific evidence for example is bad or that we shouldn't do it......but just that God's word and the Gospel seems to have more power in bringing someone to Christ than the Ontological argument for the existence of God.
Also, a relationship with God isn't something that we just mentally ascent to. Where once we believe enough evidence then we're in. It's a sin issue, a gospel issue of repentance and faith. Again, not that it's wrong to provide evidence, I guess I just see the one approach more important, effective (not promoting pragmatism) and seen more in scripture.
I do agree, but most who call themselves atheists believe that religion does not comport with reality. In this case, I find it necessary to demonstrate that it does, at in terms of Christianity. Once the intellectual issues have been satisfied, you can show them that their resistance is irrational.
Both fascinating, entertaining & educational!
The real question is, should we call people on their bologna or call them on the carpet?
I love you brother, but isn’t it a fourfold witness in John 5? John the Baptist, The works Jesus did, The Father and OT scripture?
I have a question that I pray you consider as my honest concern, you stated "the parable" of the rich man and Lazarus, but also expressed why you believe it does not fit the pattern of a parable and that you therefore do not believe it to be a parable... So then, who's voice was so convincing that while you know it is not a parable, you still subscribe to the inherited misunderstanding, rather than accepting what the scriptures are saying?
Additional questions, you may feel awkward judging if someone is in Christ, but then what do you do with the command to not believe every spirit but to test every spirit to see if it comes from God? How do you sharpen your discernment, since we are warned of many deceivers and deceptions? Please pray and ask God these things because I'm very concerned for you, as no real child of God wants to see the adversary deceive anyone. God bless and protect and guide and grow you in His likeness, in the mighty name of Jesus. Please pray about these things. You don't need to answer publicly, but it would be profitable to ask God still.
Great video Mike. Well done bro!
You're against Presup too? Wow. So, you're against Biblical Cosmology and Presup, the two things that brought me to Christianity because researching them deeply led to the conclusion that they're not only true, but indisputably true.
I can't fathom how anyone could be opposed to these positions unless they're just not comprehending them. Particularly a Christian. A Christian running a channel trying to spread belief in God, no less. These two things are spreading belief in God more than any other forms of apologetic over the last decade.
So, I'm sorry, but I can't help but find this to be a bit suspicious.
Hey Mike, when discussing Elijah, just remember that he was a called profit who was the mouth piece of God. Sye has no claim on that. He does speak the truth that was given from scripture though. Time roughly around: 11:10
The biggest flaw in Sye's presup apologetic is the assumption that evidence is ONLY presented in court before a judge. No, it's done in everyday life situations where evidence may be required. For example, if you make the claim that you have $100 in your wallet, and then someone says "prove it." you're not going to go to court before a judge to establish your claim. You're going to pull out your wallet and present the evidence. So right from the start, Sye's approach has a flawed assumption.
This was great Mike. Thanks and God bless 😊
I love so much of this..and I think that's sad that comment that you said...the pervasive sexual sin of our culture is a symptom of the rejection of God...now if those who were saved live with someone before marriage saying come on it's almost 2020 what are we to say in love? I mean they are not rejecting God and perhaps surely they are sealed until the day of redemption..this is not to be judging them over but praying that God would pull them back to Him!?
In general we are supposed to live in such a way tha people ask us , “ What is the reason of the hope within you.” And our answer needs to be prepared by having sanctified the word in our heart. Sy has a good point as do you, but the strict formula youre looking for is the problem, in my humble opinion.
I don' think Mike is advocating for a strict formula at all. He clarifies at the start he's not trying to take the side of evidential apologetics over presup, but would prefer people consider Classical Apologetics that combines them both. While the title may not clarify it I'd say that Mike is arguing against a perspective that sees Presuppositional Apologetics as the only appropriate method, not to deny it's a valid method in the first place. He also mentions prophetic apologetics, which I hadn't heard as a distinct category before, hmm.
Have u ever seen “Is Genesis History”, and if so what is your opinion on it, I believe it is still on Netflix but it was very interesting and I enjoyed it but I wanted to make sure it was valid, love all your videos, I literally get excited waiting on new videos, GOD bless
Oh man, I watched the videos out of order… 🤦🏼♀️🤣 still great content!! Thanks Mike!!
1 peter 3 : 15-20....be ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you....
If the findings of science, archaeology, or historical research demonstrate that the Bible is historically reliable, then would this mean that the findings of science, archaeology, or historical research have more authority than the Bible?
"Do not quench the Spirit. Do not treat prophecies with contempt but test them all; hold on to what is good." - 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21
The bible says to prove everything. Case closed.
It is called the Evidentiary method. It is the same system we use in the court of law and is based upon EVIDENCE
Jesus came and did His many miracles by the thousands in full view of the pharisees as EVIDENCE as to who He is> These miracles are His evidence / credentials
We are to spread the gospel based upon that method because it is the exact same method used by Jesus EVIDENTIARY
The point being in this age we use evidence (eye witness) as recording in the scriptures PLUS prophecy and the fulfillment of prophecy as EVIDENCE
1Cor 15:3-4 I'd like to see a video about this Mike. Where, according to the scriptures aka OT, messiah was to die for sins and be buried and raised the 3rd day.
Mike: Doug's question @1:14:48 " Is it ok to ask for evidence of God today as in a miracle?" makes me think of a child asking his parent for another toy because he doesn't "like" the hundreds already given him. Your response to focus on the evidence already given was perfect.
If A is trying to convince B of something, does A get to decide when B has enough evidence?
If what a god has provided is not enough to convince a person, the fault is the god's , not the person's.
@@JMUDoc You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
@@thekam3588 If the evidence were good enough there would be no need to _make_ us drink.
It's not our fault we're not thirsty.
@@JMUDoc Do you believe mathematically, 2+2=4?
@@thekam3588 Yes, as long as the base in question is larger than four.
This is very related to soteriology: it makes sense for Calvinists to be pressupositionalists and for non-Calvinists to be evidentialists.
The worst thing I've heard Sye say is that he won't do a Bible study with a non-believer smh.
This is because he knows that the Bible is not convincing.
It's "you can't fire me; I quit!"
Agreed. In the Bahnsen Stein debate, Bahnsen invited Stein to a Bible study to help him understand some basic Bible 101 when he seemed confused. I'm not a fan of Sye's approach and I think he doesn't understand presup all that well.
Furthermore, as JWM writes, "It is far better to start with presuppositions of METHOD (deductive logic and inductive method that can lead to the discovery of truth) than to begin with presuppositions of CONTENT -- that prejudge the nature of the cosmos and cannot in principle be confirmed or disconfirmed. [At this point] the Christian presuppositionalist turns out to be no different from … the Muslim presuppositionalist" ( Always Be Ready, Kindle edition, p. 9, Loc 125).
what about the missionnarie who use parts of people's own culture to make them understand the gospel (Paul was known to do that)? If atheists understand things better through logic then I think it is a useful tool to show them the truth of God and the scriptures and not putting Him on trial
I’m just binge watching!!!!!
Sye and Mike? Wha? Was there another blood moon! LOL, epic! Looking forward to this!!
Yes, that is likely to be a keeper.
Presuppositional Apologetics is the ONLY biblical form of apologetics. The theme apologetic verse, 1 Peter 3:15, begins telling us, "In your hearts set apart Christ as Lord." The apologist must be committed to the absolute Lordship of Jesus (cf. Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 12:3; Phil. 2:11). We cannot argue on the basis of criteria or standards derived from outside the Bible because then logic, facts, experiences, reason, etc., become the sources of truth, and divine revelation which is the only thing that can bring a person to saving faith (2 Cor. 4:6) is excluded. Christians must not argue from a neutral basis, presenting Scripture Alone, not scientific discoveries or logical syllogisms.
For Peter in the verse I began with, the apologetic situation is one in which we are especially to "set apart Christ as Lord," to speak and live in a way that exalts his Lordship and encourages the skeptic to whom we are speaking to do so as well. In the larger context, Peter is telling his readers to do what is right, despite the opposition of unbelievers (Vv. 13-14). He tells us not to fear them. Surely it was not Peter's view that in apologetics we should set forth something less than the truth out of fear that the truth itself might be rejected. Peter tells us that the Lordship of Jesus (and hence the truth of his word, for how can we call him "Lord" and not do what he says [Luke 6:46]?) is our ultimate presupposition. We trust Jesus Christ as a matter of eternal life or death; we trust his wisdom beyond all other wisdom; we trust his promises above all others. He calls us to give him all our loyalty and not allow any other loyalty to compete with him (Deut. 6:4ff.; Matt. 6:24; 12:30; John 14:6; Acts 4:12). We obey his Law even when it conflicts with lesser laws (Acts 5:29). Since we believe him more certainly than we believe anything else, he (and hence his word) is the very _criterion_ and ultimate _standard_ of truth.
The Lordship of Jesus is not only ultimate and unquestionable, not only above and beyond all other authorities, but also over all areas of human life: "Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God" (1 Cor. 10:31. Cf. Rom. 14:23; 2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 3:17, 23; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Our Lord's demand upon us is comprehensive; no area of human life is neutral, certainly not apologetics as the author of Proverbs says "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom" (Prov. 1:7. Cf. Psalm 111:10; Prov. 9:10). Those who are not brought to fear God by the new birth cannot even see the kingdom of God (John 3:3). Unbelievers are not merely ignorant of the truth for God has revealed himself to each person with unmistakable clarity, both in creation (Psalm 19; Rom. 1:18-21) and in man's own nature (Genesis 1:26ff). At some level of an unbeliever's consciousness or unconconciousness, the knowledge of God remains (Rom. 1:21). But in spite of that knowledge, the unbeliever intentionally distorts the truth, exchanging it for a lie (Rom. 1:18-32; 1 Cor. 1:18--2:16 [note especially 2:14]). The unbeliever cannot (because he will not) come to faith apart from the biblical gospel of salvation, and only by Scripture do we know the unbeliever's true condition.
One last note: some try to stress the aorist form of "know" in Romans 1:21 to prove that the knowledge in view is past, not continuing in the present. Yet, in Greek, tense does not mean time as it does in English; although the aorist very often is past, it actually refers to pointed action. Paul's purpose in this passage is part of his larger purpose in 1:1-3:21, which is to show that all have sinned and therefore that none can be justified through the works of the law (3:19-21). In chapter 1, he shows is that even without access to the written law, Gentiles are guilty of sin before God (chap. 2 deals with the Jews). How can they be held responsible without the written Law? Because of the knowledge of God they have gained from creation. If that knowledge were relegated to only the past, we have to conclude that the Gentiles in the present are not responsible for their actions, contrary to 3:9. Furthermore, the past translation is appropriate because Paul intends to embark on a "history of suppressing the truth" in verses 21-32, but he clearly does not regard the events of verses 21-32 merely as past history as he uses this history to describe the present condition of Gentiles before God. The aorist _gnontes_ should not be pressed to indicate past time exclusively but should be considered as merely pointed action, or man's specific state before God. The unbeliever knows things on one level of his consciousness that he seeks to banish from other levels. To put it simply, he knows God, he knows what God requires, but he does not want that knowledge to influence his decisions, except negatively: knowledge of God's will tells him how to disobey God.
So, yes, God does not believe in atheists.
Mike I always enjoy listening to you. Your arguments are well thought out and very Biblical as always.
Around the 29 minute mark, speaking of Paul, Acts 17, it should be noted that Paul was using the presuppositions of his audience to reason with them. Namely that they believed the Old T. was true and was God's Word.
mike white Acts 17 was talking to the Greeks at Mars Hill. They were pagans, not Jews - they didn’t believe in the OT, unless I’m understanding your statement incorrectly, which I very well may!
When giving evidence for God, I'm not putting God on trial, acting as a defense attorney and making the athiest judge. Rather, I am the prosectutor giving evidence of the error of the athiest thinking...putting the athiest beliefs on trial with God as their judge.
I think traditional apologetics does a better job of representing the character of God. It condescends to the humanity of the person, not their will, but like christ being judged by man, why wouldn't he expect to br placed on trial again and again. I think the presuppositionalist, understandably, assumes that God in this current age (not a dispensationalist) is acting like he would at the second coming. I may be very wrong, but I think each person responds differently and it's our responsibility to work it out with others in regards to faith.
3:59 Hypocrites, you guys put zeus, thor, odin, etc which are Gods on trial as well. You see how that analogy is useless?
I know I'm late to this party but I have to add that the truth isn't on trial; unbelief is. The person being debated is defendant and judge in a trial of unbelief.
Where were in scripture does Paul specifically preach to the "atheist "? It seems that he was preaching to a culture filled with god's. Weren't the Jewish religious people the one he wanted to convert? It seems to me Paul was preaching and proving Christ to the Jews. Todays culture on the contrary is filled with those who deny any gods existence because of the Sciences of men. That's a completely different audience form then.
I needed this. Taking notes :)
Isn’t presuppositional apologetics presupposing the Bible god in order to argue for the Bible god circular reasoning?
What makes you not a presuppositional apologist?
If you start in a position of “neutrality”.
Sorry, Mike, I love you man, I'm subscribe to your channel and all, but I don't think you understand presuppositional apologetics, at least not at the time you made this video. Presuppositionalists are _not_ against the giving of evidence, but we believe is giving evidence but through a presuppositional framework. The issue is not the fact that you _give_ evidence, but the _way_ you give the evidence that is the issue. Thank you for making the video any how. Blessings!
Is it wrong to present evidence to non-Christians? I think it depends on how it is presented. It would be wrong to say something like, "Hopefully, this evidence is good enough for you" or "This evidence might measure up to what you think is reasonable." I think its better to say something like, "The chief Temple priests knew that Jesus rose from the dead, but they did not want to admit it so they paid the soldiers to say that the disciples of Jesus stole His body." If someone denies God's existence, you can try to see if he believes in something that presupposes God's existence. If he says that he believes in using logic, you can show that laws of logic presuppose God's existence.
How are you supposed to spread God's word to people who don't believe in them without convincing them God is real. You can talk forever but if they don't think God is real they will never start believing
We are called to give evidence. Rom 10:14-15 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? (15) And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!" 2Ti_4:2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-with great patience and careful instruction. 1Pe 3:15-16 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, (16) keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.
Mike, I appreciate the time you took to make this video and I will confess I only watched part of it, but I find some errors in your thinking. To compare Jesus' or any prophets signs and miracles to us giving evidence today is an apples and oranges argument. Today, can we give a miraculous sign to an unbeliever to give evidence that Jesus Christ is real? No, so the evidence that Jesus or the prophets gave to validate themselves isn't something you and I can do today to prove God's existence. But let me answer your three questions you began the video with:
1) God doesn't believe in atheists clearly because then the atheist would have an excuse when he stood before God. He could say, "I was never given enough evidence, that is why I didn't believe. The Christians you sent didn't do a good job in showing the evidence that you were real." Well, Romans 1:18-23 says that the creative order and their conscience already bears witness to the truth of His existence; therefore they are without excuse. In fact verse 18 says they hold (or suppress) the truth in their unrighteousness. Notice they hold or suppress it. It doesn't say they don't have inward knowledge of the truth, but that their unrighteous nature makes them suppress or twist it. Atheists know God exists which is why they fight against it so much. No person would fight against Santa, the Tooth Fairy, etc. when they think they don't exist, but they make up organizations, TH-cam videos, etc. to fight against the God they think -doesn't exist? They are in denial. This is the reason Paul doesn't get philosophical with the idolaters in Acts 17:18-34, he proclaims who God is a creator, sustainer, etc. Only in verse 28 does he reference their poets and in verse 23 use their own ignorance about God to point them to the true God.
2) No, it isn't immoral to give evidence, but for the skeptic/atheist, notice every time you give evidence they want more proof. Why? Because they actually are the judge of our God. This is the reason they have a presupposition about God that goes like this: "If God were real, He would do _______." "If God were real, He would show me _______." I don't have enough evidence to believe in your God." And also notice they never are specific about what evidence would convince them; they remain vague. Unsaved people don't believe in Christ by evidence, but by the gospel (Romans 10:14-17). Answering objections is fine, but if it doesn't lead right back to the cross, it is a waste of time. And by the way, the verses used to derive the word apologetics has to do with us giving an answer for the hope we have under persecution (1 Peter 3:13-17), which is the cross of Christ, not "proving" God exists.
3) Jesus certainly did presuppositional apologetics. To say He didn't means we focus on only His miracles/signs to prove who He was. Well, that didn't convince the crowd that yelled out for His crucifixion. The same people He healed and did miracles to didn't believe by the time He went to the cross. And read carefully John 8:30-59 (which I preached a message on a few months back), verse 30 said they believed on Jesus and Jesus exposed that they didn't really believe; by verse 59 they wanted to stone Him because He claimed to be the "I Am." In John 6, Jesus fed the 5000 so that he was followed by others in 6:25. Why? According to Jesus it wasn't because of the miracle, but that they were gluttons (6:26). Jesus exposed their own hearts (presupposition about Him) and by the time He was done, many of them walked with Him no more (6:66). By the way, this is the same chapter where Jesus Himself told them that unless the Father draws them, no one could come to Him (6:44). Jesus repeats this in 6:65 and that is when they left Him. These are examples that evidence didn't bring people to faith. But presuppostional apologetics isn't to bring them to faith, but to answer Biblically their objections from a Christian worldview, not an unsaved one. Space doesn't permit me to give examples of presuppositional apologetics in the Bible, so I will post a second reply and cut and paste it from the notes of a class I taught on apologetics (where I taught on the different views). Suffice it to say, though Sye may be hard core at times, apologetics are to be Biblical, not prove that God or the Bible exists.
Eric Smith, well stated. Thank you.
As an atheist, I think your analogy about us not fighting over the tooth fairy Santa are poor comparisons. Nobody is legislating or voting or impeding science based on their belief in the tooth fairy, or Santa. But they are with religion. So religion is very harmful, and that's why we oppose it.
First, love your material and I’ve watched you for years…God has used you to help me a lot in my walk with Christ…I mean a lot…but if I had to be honest…on this matter…your response never really refutes or objects to pre sub…you gave truthful evidence from the Bible in deed but those examples didn’t address pre sub…though true they are they really only give evidence in these areas:
-Christs divinity
-Gods prophets speaking His truth
-miracles being proven from God or His hand
-His work on the cross
And so on but none of those points prove God existence…again they are true very true hands down but how can they address pre sub when they are expressing a truth already known…a lot of your points from the Bible seem to be proclaiming Gods truth but again I don’t se how you proclaim something that’s fake…it already had to be real right? We as followers are told to share the truth and spread the gospel…but I can’t find where we are told to convince non believes with our real evidence that God is real…
Test all things? Doesn't that make us the judge? I don't think us making conclusions takes away any authority otherwise free will wouldn't exist
You could apply this logic to any theology you share even with Christian’s we would be the judge of God and the Bible when we discuss different theological views
Mike, I don't want to give you a big head, but you have a mixture of humility, discernment, wisdom, love, encouragement, zeal, that I highly admire. I have subscribed to your channel and am exited to watch more of your videos. You answered my nagging question about presuppositional apologetics too. When I heard men speak on it I was bothered about what I heard and how they were presenting their ideas to unbelievers. I love your answers, they are Biblical. Besides, I have been using evidential apologetics for a while and am more and more excited about it, but presups threw a damper on it, but you have revived it. Thanks so much! I will be watching when I can.
Exactly, a great example is Jesus performing miracles in order to make the people believe
John 4:48 NKJV - Then Jesus said to him, “Unless you people see signs and wonders, you will by no means believe.”
mike - And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."
Even if the text didn't indicate he was mocking them, his words alone come off as sarcastic, brother. Again, he's demonstrating the inconsistency of belief in false gods.
For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God.. 1Thessalonians 1:9
You know that when you were pagans you were led astray to mute idols, however you were led. 1Corinthians 12:2
But where are your gods that you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you, in your time of trouble; for as many as your cities are your gods, O Judah. Jeremiah 2:28
People make idols out of creation and their darkened imaginations. I should know, I literally do it all the time. But in the time of trouble, none of them can help me because they don't exist outside my sinful mind. 1Kings 18:20-39 is a clear demonstration of presuppositional apologetics even in its OT roots. A beautiful display of rhetoric and sarcasm. Good quotation of Scripture.
Are you under the impression that there actually exists image bearers in God's world who really aren't sure who created them? Serious question
Bob:
You told me that you *reasoned* to God's existence when you were 17.
You also said you had a healthy fear of God's anger at idolators at that "tender age."
Did God imbue you with that fear, or did you reason to it or did someone preach it to you?
july - The second sentence contradicts the first
The irony is that Sye's argument fails in its own propositional fallacies. Specifically he is making a logical error called "Affirming the consequent". Essentially he is stating the most normative use of evidence is in a trial thus if we use evidence to support God and the Gospel, God is on trial. His fallacious argument is two fold. First he states that the most common use of evidence is in the courtroom and this is objectively false. While it is true that evidence is given at trial, it is not the most common use of evidence. In fact I would argue it is one of the least common uses of evidence in frequency. Every day billions of people worldwide are using evidence to support ideas. Friends argue who was the best baseball player of all time and provide stats to each other. Parents teach children the dangers of playing with fire using evidence, educators teach classes using evidence. Scientists publish papers with evidence, Medical doctors present evidence of sickness to their patients and the list goes on and on. So we can see many examples where using evidence is not in a "trial" and all that is required for his statement to be false is one instance where it is not true. Sye's argument fails on the basis of this erroneous assumption alone, however we will also look at his second argument.
Second he states that by using evidence you a placing the person to whom you are presenting the evidence in an authority position to judge the truthfulness of the evidence and you are putting the subject of the evidence on trial. This is also objectively false. While it is possible that a person can sit in authority over the evidence and the subject of the evidence, this is rarely the case. Using the examples above, when friends argue who was the best baseball player ever, they will each present evidence and they may or may not agree in the end. Regardless of it they come to agreement, this doesn't change the fact that that the greatest baseball player ever does exist. Nor does it imply that the baseball players in question are somehow on trial. Similarly, If your Doctor presents evidence of Cancer, it doesn't put you in authority over the cancer or the doctor and neither are on trial.
Again, for Sye's argument to be false, it only requires a single instance where one of his dependent propositional fallacies are false or non-applicable. Here we find there are many instances in both of his assumptions that are false or non-applicable. His argument is defeated on its false assumptions.
It is also important to remember that in a Jury trial, the Jury renders a final decision that is enforced by the Judge who pronounces the sentence. As this applies to God, there is no ability for the non-believer to enforce judgment/sentencing upon God, and this alone invalidates his analogy. Imagine this. If a small plane had trouble and was going to crash, the pilot might tell everyone they had to jump out and give everyone parachutes. If some of the passengers refuse to take the parachute and jump out, the only one who will suffer is them. They don't have authority over the crash, the parachutes, the laws of physics, the pilot or the other passengers. They have the right to decide for themselves to jump or not but their decision only affects themselves.
This is the best explanation refuting sye’s PA argument that ive heard aside from the scriptures themselves
Something went wrong with the audio😕
Yeah. I fixed it at 2:07 click those blue numbers to go there.
I think elevating a persons ability to judge has nothing to do with God being judge, and I think he is conflating the two just because it's the same word
I like your analogy at the end that its more like the cop putting a badge up to give evidence theyre real n legit. If you make the judgement that there are not actually cops out there (represents God in this analogy) then thats not like you pass judgement on God and as in court he gets Sentenced and punished because you judged that He was not actually God. What happens is you get your door kicked in and arrested for obstructing police on top of whatever other charges they were gonna slap on you. (The accountability you speak of)
When I watch Sye I feel like his technique is rude and lazy. I am not trying to be mean, but he does not address any concerns an unbeliever has, and does not need to study scripture to be ready with answers, he just says the same thing over and over. It would not make me turn to the Lord if I was an unbeliever, I would just feel bullied and bulldozed.
dmthomas537
One cannot have objections to something that must be true in order to even have objections. Why act as if the unbeliever can say what they say without God first being true? As Sye says they say words do not exist all the while they are speaking.
This presupp guy is making the same appeals for his apologetics method as Calvinists use to justify their Soteriology:
“Forget all of the scriptures which strongly suggest otherwise, I’m right because (I think that) my way of doing things honors God more, which means your way dishonors God.”
If God and his prophets can ask wayward people to judge evidence, we are not wrong to do the same.
God is still their Lord even if they deny, I don't see how giving evidence goes against Gods authority or sovereignty or anything at all really. Deep down people know God exists, but that doesn't mean they are consciously aware of it and still deny it. I mean how do believers come to the faith in the first place?
Sye forgets that Jesus was on trial, and because it, we have salvation.
I mean doesn't Peter Paul Mark Jesus etc use scripture as proof to non believers to show it's true and that Christ is Lord? jews who didn't believe Jesus is Christ were shown scripture as evidence and they themselves accepted it