If you are watching this and wondering about where I stand on this issue please see my original video where I analyzed presup bibically. It's not as exciting as an exchange with Sye but it will hopefully clarify. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bLOfqcSl2K_TdIk.html

"I'd rather have messy evangelism than none." Fantastic quote!

Mike, I admire your willingness to debate/ discuss this on a live stream. I believe you were gracious and willing to admit that 'you are nee to this apologetics work' but I think you did a grand job defending your position. I was amused when at one point, Sye was using some very deep philosophical terms, you looked perplexed, laughed and said something like "I literally have no idea what you just said!!". I appreciated that you were honest and real enough to admit that. I think you did an excellent job, and Lord Willing, will continue to grow in this area. May the Lord continue to use you to help so many us 'out here' who are hungry for the solid meat of the Word of YAHWEH.

A beautiful display of how two Christians *should* disagree. God bless you both.

I listen to Sye, James White, Jeff Durbin, MacArthur, Paul Washer, David Platt, John Piper, Frank Turek, Matt Slick and you Mike. I love you all! God bless!

Wow...just wow. Mike, I think you handled this conversation respectfully and graciously and were able to stick to topic with almost superhero strength. Now I see why you don't like debates, but in my opinion you won this one and ARE consistent. Thank you for all the hard work. Way to represent 👍

Mike, I loved the video. Seeing two Christians work through a disagreement is refreshing. Keep up the good work. I'm actually on Sye's side of the aisle here. However, I thoroughly enjoy your transparency and content.

Hey Mike, kudos for your patience here. I wouldnt have had the patience to sit through a conversation with Sye. He doesnt seem to care what people have to say. He listens to respond, not to understand anothers perspective. You, on the other hand, display so much wisdom admist confrontation! I enjoy listening to you stand against opposition while maintaining peaceful speech and conduct. So thanks Mike :) Ive been enjoying your channel lately and I want to thank you for your hard work and study, as well as upholding Gods Word. God is using you in spectacular ways and its awesome to watch this channel grow :)

If every apologist purely took on a presupposition approach, I’m not sure I’d be a Christian today (at least not yet). I was once an atheist, but evidential apologists have made far more of an impact on my walk. However, I do believe there’s a time and place for both approaches. It just depends on the nature of the person you’re witnessing to and the flow of the conversation. That’s where I appreciated Mike’s attitude in this video. He clearly took a side, but it looks to me that he was still engaging and open to the other side. Sye took a side and closed his mind off completely to the other side. Nonetheless, excellent points from BOTH Sye and Mike!

Sye's view is heavily flawed, he needs to just take a step back and see that his view does not accord with scripture at all.

What Sye seems to miss here is that when Scripture says all men know God exists, it's not because of some presupposition. It's because the evidence of God is seen throughout nature so that they are without excuse. This isn't something that argues for presuppositionalism, it argues for evidentialism, and the evidence for God is so obvious through nature, itself, that no one has an excuse for denying God exists, at the end of the day.

Here's an idea - use the best of BOTH apologetic methods. I simply do not understand why the "presupp" method and the "evidential" method have to be in conflict with each other. People may disagree, but the whole point of apologetics is to be able to proclaim the gospel. WLC is completely wrong when he wants to separate apologetics from theology. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of God proclaimed. The whole point in talking to someone about God isn't to have a philosophical discussion, rather it is to PROCLAIM THE GOSPEL. The method that I use is a hybrid of the two that can adapt based on the hostility of the person with whom I am speaking. Ray Comfort is a good example of this. He is able to sense the level of hostility with the person who he is speaking with. If they are militant, then you can go the route that sye uses in his video. But if they are willing to have a conversation, then you don't need to be so abrasive, but instead simply ask "do you believe in objective truth"? Then show that the only way that we have objective truth is through the bible. Then use the evidences showing that the Bible is not like some history book from barnes and noble, but instead revelation from God. Then quickly transition to proclamation of the gospel. Remember, it is NOT my argumentation that will make someone a believer, bur rather it is the Holy Spirit who gives a person a heart of flesh and removes their heart of stone. Of course, this method demands the highest view of scripture - which sadly - many people do not hold.

Plain reading of scripture shows that Mike's view is correct. Sye reads his view into scripture. It's similar to what Calvinists do with scriptures that invite people to repent and believe. Calvinists deny that it is even possible because their theological framework does not allow it. In their view, no one can hear the call and believe. Sye's framework does not allow scripture to teach an evidence based apologetical method even though it's clear in the plain reading. He also uses false piety to bolster his argument.

Mike, I watched and participated in this debate, and I just wanted to let you know that I think you did a great job, and really appreciate you taking this on. I know you don't have a huge following compared to some "big name" preachers and apologists, but I have to say, without intent of flattery, that you are probably my favorite bible teacher, because of your heart to be faithful to what the scripture really teaches, your logic, reasonableness, and approach to all of this. I found your retoric in this debate to be far more faithful to the texts presented, and more consistant, than Sye on this issue. Keep up the great work brother.

Mike: *breathes* Sye: Let me tell you why you’re wrong. ((Jokes aside, this was an interesting debate, and you guys became pretty respectful))

Very interesting debate. Mike and Sye presented their arguments robustly, treating each other with cordiality and respect.

Absolutely loved this! I wish more Christians would have conversations like this, "you will know my disciples by the love they have for one another". I am hoping Mike Winger gives himself some time to reflect on this and give his commentary. Personally, I lean more towards what Sye was saying. However, Mike has pastored me towards truth faithfully for a while now, he has God's fingerprints all over him and I'm immensely grateful for his clarity in thinking and handling of scripture. I do agree that at first Sye can be abrasive but that's a GOOD thing!!! Sometimes pruning can feel bad but it's necessary.

It sounds to me like Sye is saying to the unbeliever, “you know God exists, you know who he is, now admit it!” That’s not apologetics at all and it isn’t evangelism.

Here's how I know that Sye is wrong about the evidential method: I wouldn't now be a born again Christian without it. Though a series of awesome experiences I came to believe in God, but the Christian God? No. I fought internally against that for a long time due to bad personal experience and, because of that, a belief in the mass amount of polemics against Christianity. Without Mike and people like him a lot of us would still be lost.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an isolated fact. The reason why Jesus rose from the dead was to show that Jesus finished paying sin's penalty.

The Bible talks a lot about God saying choose, choose, choose. So God asks an unbeliever to choose, but the person cannot choose? By grace through faith!

Pressup is hard to understand yet so simple at its base. I used to be an evidentialist till I truly understood pressup. Never been more certain in my faith. It’s the atomic bomb to truth suppressors. Love you both. Sye’s method honors Jesus best.

"I don't know ... aaaand it wouldn't stop me." Right on, Mike. Right on.

When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, "This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. Luke 11:29 ESV must be because they already know God exist....

Mike, you've been a gracious host for this discussion. Thank you.

Kudos to Mike for his grace and patience with Sye. Like Sye mentioned, I do agree that he gets a little to caught up in the argument, which is easy to do.

I am a presuppositionalist but I believe that there is place for evidentialism when you are engaging with people who believe in a false god.

Epistemic Certainty: “I know to a valid and reliable standard which is justified” vs “I believe with psychological certainties strong emotional confidence”

Still watching through this, but I think you nailed it right there @1:19:00 when you said that a probabilistic argument doesn't mean that one is saying God is probabilistic. Sye seems to think that, and I think that is the disconnect, like you said. In my view, who cares if someone gives the unbeliever an evidential or classical argument, if that's the thing that persuades him to read the Bible and ultimately come to faith.

I'm presuppositional in my apologetic. I actually have zero problem showing the consistency of the fulfilled prophecies because they are in fact Scripture.

Sye: "I mean, Jesus did that, but I wouldn't..."

Hi Mike! I've enjoyed your videos quite a bit since finding your channel... Regarding Eve being deceived; the serpent deceived Eve by reshaping the argument away from the commandment of God to focus solely on the consequence of breaking God's single law. Eve was not deceived on what God had commanded, she told the serpent what God had commanded, and the serpent did not challenge God's commandment. Rather, the serpent focused on the penalty, she was deceived into thinking the penalty for breaking God's law was something other than death... In her case, that she would be like God. I don't know if this is any different than most sinners even today. It's not always the moral law itself being questioned; it's often the penalties for breaking these laws that are most often assaulted.

Brian Stevens said it well: ”​I'd love to hear a presupper for Islam argue against a Christian presupper.”

A gift is still a gift even if you use your free will to open the box. Sye is talking nonsense.

I'm not gonna lie- this kinda stressed me out!🤣 As always, I'm amazed at your biblical knowledge and humility

Imagine the pride that comes with knowing it was your wise choice that saved you.

great discussion. I agree with Sye, if Mike became a presup apologist he'd be a great one. get well soon Mike!

Im pretty sure I understand the entire issue here after 1:23:54.... Mr. Winger is having the same issue that I was having the first time I was listening to "How to Answer the Fool" - this is an amazing Apologetic and also mind boggling. But what I began to realize the more I listened to Sye's debates and the "Fool" video is that I, myself, might be having an issue with just belief in scripture ALONE. If this introduction to Presup has done anything for me its RADICALLY deepened my love for scripture and THE GOD EVERYONE knows exists... Since running across Sye I have found more awesome men like Jeff Durban & James White who have challenged my thinking on "what I've always thought." I don't EVER want to close myself off to opportunities to increase wisdom BUT I am very guarded after a horrific church split in 2013. SO I WOULD JUST END WITH - if what Sye is saying sounds weird how about examine YOURSELF! Not because Im choosing sides but because we should all examine ourselves FIRST... AND Mr. Winger you are a true Gentleman and seem very humble and I APPRECIATE THAT! :-)

The point in the fall is this: God said you will die if you eat. Satan said you will not die if you eat. So we have two contradictory propositions that exclude each other. Before the fall Eve was in everything wholly dependent on God. When she began to consider the two statements she distant herself from the dependecy. She 'stepped' back from the dependence and reasoned outside of God (she doubted Gods word). She began to reason autonomously. The fall took place here.

I respect you Mike. You are a very knowledgeable and professional fellow. I respect Sye as well. You were both very professional.

The question Sye posed, would this brother "lose his job if he became a Calvinist?" Since he works for Calvary Chapel - the answer is with he would have to - resign or they would dismiss him!

Mike seems to get a lot of compliments for being a nice guy. For being patient, gentle, good listener friendly etc. These are all great quality and evidences of the fruit of the spirit! However, lets keep in mind that if Mike is the nicer guy and Sye is more aggressive or a "bully" this has nothing to do with whether or not what they are saying is true. Sye could be impatient at times, not a good listener or whatever and everything he says could still be true. I just know that for some people, they get easily swayed and convinced because of the person themselves and how they speak rather than the truth of the arguments and scriptures being presented. Don't be deceived by the smooth talkings of men.

When you mentioned Romans 1 and Psalm 19 about creations echoing proof that there is God, i wanted to shout, “Yes, Amen!” They are without excuse!

After watching this. ......I like you Mike. May the Lord bless you and your ministry.

This is like the “Baptism required for salvation” debate. My own personal experience tells me Mike is right. I FIRST found the prophets to be true. That required weeks and weeks of work. Then I went through a process of seeking God earnestly in my heart and when I truly accepted Him into my life I could feel His indwelling. Evidential apologetics is so remarkably important.

In Acts 17 in Athens Paul encounters the "unknown god". He then exposes the false suppressed god of the Greeks and unpacks and reveals the true God. Paul presupposes God theoughout. Look I totally agree with Sye. I was an evidentialist for a long time until I met Sye personally and talked with him. He was so gracious. Evidentialism was a very frustrating endeavour that often led to a stalemate. "Your evidence against mine". When evidence's are used as the foundation as to whether God exists you're essentially putting God on trial. The fallen sinful creature becomes the final determiner as to His existence. But according to the bible God is presupposes. The creation, miracles, etc. merely give witness to the reality of God's existence.

I've had a couple of responses to my former comments (after I was responding to their comments). But now I've listen to the second half and I must say: I get it; I get what Sye is saying; and I love it and I love him for bringing this new light to my old problems. Thank you Sye! I see now how evidential apologetics is working from NOT the base. The base IS God as presupposition...this way of thinking clears up so many problems I've had with even Bible studies. Foundational - "...not a tool, not a tool box, but rather the foundation on which the toolbox sits." I'm very glad to see the maturity of Sye's thought. Thank God; Praise God.

Watch this maybe 5 times already. A lot of inside, very interesting and entertaining as well. Both Sye and Mike were very passionate in this discussion. Beautiful interaction between two people disagreeing with each other. I love it

This is so frustrating. They want to make God separate from proof and evidence and act holy by the confidence they have but it’s just assumptions that are taken so far that they can’t be knocked down and instead of answering our toughest questions leaves young people trying to cling and claim a giant faith while the pillars are filled with sand and air. Just answer the questions! Ask the hardest questions and Lord save the church from the assumption and fear of YEC and this method of apologetics that runs from evidence You’ve given us and blessed us with so richly! Let them see how the refusal to discuss evidence unless the assumption is granted makes the great great evidence we have seem nonexistent.

Mike, I appreciate your conversation here. I have heard different viewpoints on presuppositional apologetics, as well as different methods of going about it, than simply what Sye is presenting. The form of Presuppositional Apologetics I learned is, recognizing that everyone has presuppositions or worldviews through which they see reality, and that you want to help them see that their presuppositions don't match up with the way things are and that the Bible and Biblical Christianity does. Would you be willing to give your feedback about this? Thanks.

Mike Has such a Loving,gentle Spirit.

This is awesome. I love that this is done in humility and Christian love. And that Sye took over early for a while to understand you. And there is no attempt by either of you to do a gotcha. And I've only listened to 1 kings 18 so far.

Below I will highlight the key difference between presuppositional apologetics and historical apologetics. Historical apologetics is the simple position that belief in God/Christianity is a rationally justified belief. From this position the historical apologist attempts to show that this is the case; that holding a belief in God/Christianity is rationally justified (and it is irrational not to). Pressuppositional apologetics is the position that unless one first believes/presupposes belief in God/Christianity, then one can not hold any other possible belief X in a rationally justified way. From this position the pressuper does not (directly) attempt to show that belief in God/Christianity is rationally justified, rather the pressuper attempts to show that unless one first believes/presupposes belief in God/Christianity, then one can not hold any other possible belief X in a rationally justified way (one can not have knowledge on the JTB model). This is why pressupers use the method of 'reductio ad absurdum' so much; they believe that any belief/knowledge claim some one has/makes can not be rationally justified unless it is some how linked via a line of reasoning to the belief God/Christianity is true. I believe pressup is erroneous and hold to the historical position. I also hold to Reformed Epistemology, which is simply the position that belief in God/Christianity can be a rationally justified belief without having to believe it based on inferential reason/argument/evidence - i.e. it can be a rationally justified non-inferential belief. Reformed Epistemology can be implemented in many ways; including epistemologies commonly accepted by secular academia. The usual implementation is: Foundationalism --> Reliablism --> Externalism. I personally study philosophy and computer science a lot; and one area of interest for me is machine learning/AI. I think if any pressuper tried to code a computer to correspond with the way human belief forming/assessing mechanisms work (which is a passion of mine), they will realize that pressup is nonsense. It is a shame that much of the debate conflated these issues: 1. Belief in God is needed for rational justification of any possible belief X *CONFLATED WITH* God's existence is needed for rational justification (or anything) to exist. 2. People have a belief in God despite their profession to the contrary *CONFLATED WITH* people need a belief in God to be rationally justified believing in anything else. I am not pressup but I believe to a degree that all people believe in God. I will explain what I think is happening in the psychology of these professing non-believers (who most likely believe in God). It is not that (for the most part) I believe they are - in full conscious awareness - lying when they claim they do not believe in God. Rather, it is that they have conflicting beliefs. I believe what is happening is: 1. The professing non-believer, believes in God. 2. The professing non-believer, believes that they do not believe in God. Obviously, belief #2 would be false, but it would still be honestly held. God bless

Mike Winger is a nice guy, some Reformed folks can learn from him lol btw.. I am Reformed myself.

Here are some questions for Sye: if everyone knows/knew the (same) God of Abraham, then what was the purpose of showing the miracle that He did, and He even went so far as making it physically as difficult as possible, in order that they recognize His power? So why doesn't Sye believe that sending Missionaries is a work, Sye? Isn't thinking we are doing something in order to be saved the point that works was taught against?

This is great. Thank you brother Mike for your godly example in this and many other videos of interacting and willingness to discuss tough issues with other brothers in the Lord who may disagree. I have found that both methods presented here have its place in evangelism. Thank the Lord for both of you brothers!

Very good debate. I love seeing two great men in God talking and being respectful. I love the both of you very much and please keep up the great work.

Sounds more like a methodology to defend Calvinism not the Gospel.

I’m personally not a fan of Sye. His presup method absolves Him from actually articulating his position and of extensive study for those who topic so he just ignores them and sticks to this circular routine he has of saying the same thing

This was an awesome discussion, you two!

I agree with Sye that all truth and ability to reason comes from God. Where I disagree is that we can't be used by God through the sharing of evidence in order to demonstrate his truth. Jesus seemed to care about evidence while still declaring that the Father does his work in the heart of individual.

Now imagine if Mike and Sye discuss soteriology for another 2 hour long video. That would be awesome

As I watched this I think Sye is a really great example of a perfectly good mind being limited by the bounds of Calvinism and PreSuppositionalism. It is kind of sad. Presuppositionalism really defeats the purpose of even trying to engage non-elect, and seems to confirm the Calvinism in his pride in a man-made philosophy.

Actually, even though RC Sproul did that Bahnsen debate, you can actually hear Sproul using presuppositional apologetics when he was on BAM, the Bible Answer Man. He took a phone call from an atheist who was saying that Christians can't account for dignity. Sproul said to him, "you're trying to tell me that we evolved from non-life and you're trying to argue about dignity. I don't think so. Your bases for human dignity is ultimately founded on nothing!"

MIKE I love you brother ... I tried to use Sye's method and it twisted me up just like he did you ... LOL ... above my intellect not that i don't understand it I just have been able to implement it ... LOVE BOTH OF YOU TWO FINE MEN OF FAITH !!! I am a calvinist but I love and respect those that aren't ... not sure where all the hate comes from we are supposed to love one another as two bio brothers ... I ALSO LOVED HOW BOTH OF YOU IN THIS DEBATE RESPECTED ONE ANOTHER AND ACTED CIVILIZED RARE IN MODERN DEBATE ... no interuption and talking over ...GREAT JOB enjoyed every minute of the entire thing... THANKS TO BOTH OF YOU !!!

I love to witness to people! What greater joy could one receive than being used by God to lead someone to christ. I'm still undecided in my approach to apologetics, but have quite a hunger for doing apologetics in general, and I've watched many debates, find them all fascinating, and most of them helpful. This is definitely one of the helpful ones, so I thank you Mike, and thank you Sye. You both have a clear heart for honoring God so may God bless both your ministries. I believe a good apologetic is a vital tool to witnessing and is also a biblical command. This video will definitely help me in my journey of finding my own way of doing apologetics. Just curious if this jumped out to anyone else: 1 Kings 18:37 "Answer me, O Lord , answer me, that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back." ESV. BACK? Back to what? To me it almost seems to indicate he is wanting their hearts to be turned back to a place of knowing God. To me, this would imply they knew him to begin with. Sye you may be on to something! I'm honestly surprised Sye didn't point this out. Not saying Mike doesn't make good points, but this is a verse he used to support his thinking and it still seems to indicate a previous knowledge they had of God. Not set either way and Mike I love your ministry brother! Anyone have any thoughts???

Eve was deceived as to the penalty of disobeying God. She was not deceived concerning God's existence.

Seems to me presup only works on other Christians. "We start with the idea that The Bible is true and God exists and that proves that the Bible is true and God exists!" Imagine talking with a Scientologist: "We start with the knowledge that Scientology is true and work from there. We know YOU believe in Scientology, it's just that you suppress that reality." Or a Mormon who believes "the book of Mormon is the word of God. And we know you believe it, you just aren't admitting you do. Because it's real!" The Book of Mormon tells us it's real!" Why should anyone outside of that faith be convinced by these arguments? Sye actually tells people they are not to judge God, quoting from the Bible. He is saying not to think to hard about it. Don't use your reasoning. Just accept what we are saying because you know that's it's true. Unfortunately that's what Scientologists say, and Mormons, and Moonies, and Jehovah's Witnesses and on and on... Just follow. Don't ask questions.

Bless you Mike; God's Spirit and grace carried you through the long haul of this debate. Your armor held battling not only against a pomp theological term grandiose display you stood well shielded and vanquished each barbed arrow Sye shot at you. I discern a far from righteous intent from your guest and would not have him back. “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble”, in action.

I think it is silly to attack evidential methods when it is FACT that some have come to faith in this way. J. Warner Wallace comes to mind. He used his skill set as a detective to proof the scriptures true evidentially and came to faith in Jesus Christ. I think he is rocking the apologetics world with his methods and perspective.

Thanks for this Mike. I know I’m a little late in showing up to this. I just came off of watching some of Sye’s debates, and while I think he is an excellent debater and teacher, I have to lean more towards your straight forward Biblical view on presup. Great job to both of you guys!

Minute 15-17 is real good. Great job Mike. I agree with you and I had the same answer when I was about 15.

I like that this is more of a discussion than a debate. I am a learning a lot.

Here’s a question Mike Winger: did you come to faith in God by reason or by faith? Why try to convince someone of God’s existence by methods of reason if your own belief in God isn’t based on reason?

If you make a graph in which every piece of knowledge that you have is a node, and an edge between x and y represents that x proves y, you quickly realize that since you, as a human, have limited pieces of knowledge, in that graph, there exists at least 1 piece of knowledge that doesnt have a proof. Either that, or you force a proof and create a cycle, in which case you what we call "circular reasoning". So, by using graph theory i just proved the following statements: Omniscient beings know an infinite amounts of things, and they have an explanation for each of those pieces of knowledge. Non-omniscient being know a finite of things, and they have at least 1 piece of knowledge that is not proven. Sye argument is this "you have at least of piece of knowledge that is not proven, therefore God exists." Which translates to "you are not omniscient, therefore God exists" which can be countered with an argument just as stupid "You are not omniscient, therefore God doesnt exist, because you are unaware of the reasons for which God cant exist". This argument is also wrong, cause then we cant have an opinion on anything if we start from this. And there lies his stupid argument. The problem with Sye is that if you would tell him my argument, he would say "How do you know thats true?". Basically, when Sye asks "how do you know your reasoning is valid?" he wants you to prove your reason is valid, without using your reason. This is a contradictory statement. The moment Sye uses the word "know" in the sentence "how do you know your reasoning is valid" , he admits that you are capable of knowing things and the question becomes pointless. If he would ask "Do do you know that your reason is valid?", you could just simply say "yes" and when he would ask "how" you would have the same problem again. My last favorite way of contradicting Sye is making him admit that revelation from God is how he knows that his senses are right. Then tell him "Ok, a second ago, the aliens that created this universe, stopped time, and told me that this universe is just a computer simulation to see what kind of live can this universe support. They also told me that they wrote the entire bible thing just for fun, and nothing in that book is true". They told me this, and i know this because they revealed to me. And since my revelation is the full story of your world view, I am right. Prove me im wrong Sye. Now you turned the tables and you have access to all his tricks. In the end, he will be forced to admit that he cant prove you are wrong, and since revelation lead to 2 different stories about reality, it cant be a good way of finding out whats true.

As an atheist, and former reformed calvinist, it's fun sometimes to listen to these debates. Sye really shows his biblical illiteracy and dishonesty in debates like this. Even if he was right, I would leave and go listen to another christian because he acts like such a condescending jerk.

I’ve seen Sye in his other debates, which I’ve seen the long ones and not just the 2 minute clips, he can give a bit of an off putting vibe which was why I asked that question of whether he feels his approach could use more gentleness and respect. Either way I know he’s still fighting for the great commission which is awesome and I applaud👏 Wonderful discussion between you guys and I look forward to more videos. Being able to have live Q&A is awesome!

So, I'm....oh, "discovering" something about myself. As I'm starting to get into the more difficult part of this discussion, I'm going back and forth between different web pages to distract myself from the discomfort of watching a difficult conversation...Interesting. Any feedback on that?

I agree with Sye, no believer should ever argue for the existence of the One who is Existence. Its absurd.

I absolutely LOVE watching Christians argue!! I could have watched these guys for another two hours.

This was my 1st time to listen to Sye. I really appreciate The humility he showed at the end talking about his desire to do things right.

1 Corinthians 15:17 "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins." Sye said "if there there is evidence that could change your mind, then Jesus isn't the Lord of your reasoning." Apparently Paul thought there is evidence that could change his mind. PS. Great discussion Mike and Sye! God bless you guys!

So watching this and trying to drive deeper I'll stick with Mike. Didnt our souls always know where we came from and from who and it wasnt developed or it was surpressed. Mike you are so much nicer at this.Please dont change

I commend your willingness to debate Sye. My only critique would be the unwillingness to engage Sye in the Calvinist foundation for the presup method. Humbly, you dodged him brother. Great conversation!

Hang on - at 8:08, did Sye say "if they concede the fact that they can't know anything without Yahweh (that is, concede that Yahweh exists), then I will go over evidence"?!?! "Concede my point, then I'll prove it." Utter, utter lunacy.

I had a difficult time with the tone of your guest. You were great, as usual.

I've watched Sye evangelize and I've seen him debate and I honestly don't like his style AT ALL. It always seems to try to win an argument rather than win a soul. He tries to expose an atheist has a circular reasoning (without recognizing the circular reasoning in his own presuppositions). He'll refuse to debate because his opponent supposedly admits they can't know anything for certain. If I were an atheist, I would be completely turned off by this.

Never have I before frowned in confusion so intently for so long....

This guy sounds like the type that always has to be right and always has to get in the last word on a subject. I could see how debating with him would be extremely frustrating and unproductive. No offense to the guy, but... Aren't we as Christians not all on the same team?

It seems like Sye's interpretations of the Elijah and the prophets of Baal story are clearly coming from his preconceived opinions and not from the clear reading of the text or from other Scriptures.

I think we all need to be humble and gentle as Jesus showed us to act, and even wise teachers can learn to think Biblically if they try. Good job , Mike

Hey, thanks for the shout out ;) Enjoyed the video

I’ve always found “hardcore” presup guys to be simply cold and wooden when it comes to outreach. Just my experience.

I'm Reformed, but Sye appears more committed to his own logic and the Reformed system than to Scripture. Mike, I appreciate your humility and gentleness. Sye, take a lesson from your younger counterpart here.

I'm glad I saw this video. Thank you for modeling how to deal with people with hard positions that don't agree with you. I honestly think this is very very relevant to the Body.

This was a great discussion. I really enjoyed it. I'm not a Calvinist in any way shape or form (I'm Arminian), but I think Sye's arguments regarding everyone knowing there is a true God is sound and scriptural. "…what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse." Romans 1:19-20 Having said that, Mike's teaching on faith not being a work is sound and I agree with that over Sye's. 1:17:17 I believe in Jesus because I had an encounter with him.

this was awesome. Thanks to both men for the cordial exchange! Sye is really difficult to listen to sometimes, but his wisdom is true blessing! Blessings everyone

And thank you to Sye for finally putting a term to my knowing nor being able to discontinuing to believe in God. Epistemic certainty.

Lovely example of glorifying God Lots of love. Thank you

I've heard Sye before, I expected him to be aggressive and rude based on what I've seen of him. He was mild and considerate in comparison to many other videos I've seen. This was a good conversation.