Subscribe to our KZfaq channel for more content like this. To support Right Response Ministries, visit: rightresponseministries.com/donate/ Subscribe to Theology Applied full episodes below: Apple podcast: bit.ly/theologyapplied Spotify podcast: bit.ly/theologyappliedspotify If you live in the Austin area, Pastor Joel just started planting a brand new church called Covenant Bible Church in Hutto, Texas. He would love for you to come visit on a Sunday. Check out the church’s website for details: covenantbible.org/

"It's true because it's true." Genius. As no justification is ever offered, presuppositional apologetics is a waste of time.

It’s not circular logic because - “go read John Frame” 🤣. Great answer, considering he tries to change the circular charge in his answer. Circular logic is really simple and all logic is certainly not circular in this way.

15:18 _"...although that may be an apparent paradox, it's not."_ Being paradoxical, nor being fallacious is the issue with circular justification. The issue with circular justification is that it is epistemically vacuous. It's an empty claim. There's nothing to support it other than the claim itself. That is to say, the issue lies with your inability to show the claim is sound, not that the argument is invalid.

Recommend listening to RC Sproul and Greg Bahnsen Debate this. I believe it’s available on KZfaq. RC Sproul argues that you can argue for God from mediate (with medium/natural revaluation) and immediate (without medium/ word of God) revelation. While Bahnsen argues from the impossibility of the Contrary. That is simply that without a Biblical Worldview nothing makes sense.

Theology is not a way to truth, it is a way to validate your truth.

"Since I'm right, you can't be." -Presuppositionalism

Cornelius Van Til agreed that presuppositional was circular reasoning, i.e., start with God only to end with God, but didn't admit that it was a petitio principi...a logical fallacy in which a premise is assumed to be true without warrant or in which what is to be proved is implicitly taken for granted. The existence of God starts with man and ends with God (classical apologetics) To start with God would make God wholly other, and unknowable...

Great video great clear video

Joel, can you tell me what internalism and externalism is?

What do you think of the idea that unless one presupposes that the Bible is the word of God, one cannot have the tools that are needed to find out whether something is true?

Scripture may be infallible but the interpretation (which requires an interpreter) is not. Scripture was assimilated by the Orthodox Church; see Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and the First Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. So, would it make sense to say that the ones who translated and compiled Scripture turned out to be wrong?

Why will no pre-sup explain to me how my life would change if I woke up tomorrow realizing you guys are right about... uh... whatever the hell you say? Would I be happier? Would I be smarter? Would I be kinder or more generous? Would I make better decisions or be healed of my disability? C'mon, is there ANY good reason to consider buying what you guys are selling? Also, could you be wrong? If you're planning to respond with questions for me rather than some answers to my questions, don't bother. Congratulations, I'll just dismiss you as another nonsensical, addle minded clown. Good day.

Hello from Corpus Christi

What do you think of Francis Schaeffer?

Also james white and Steve Lawson recently had some good sermons on this topic at the g3 channel

Why would god bother putting in any authority that could error?

Excited to hear this on this sabbath day!

Isn't this just circular reasoning? welp. Didn't expect you to just admit it... or to pretend like it isn't after admitting it is.

Presuppositional apologetics is well worth the investment in study. Evidence must be evaluated by presuppositions. To put the evidential approach over against presupp is to 1. misunderstand the distinction. 2. To put logic & science as independent of God (bad idea). 3. leaves with probability only, where presupp leaves apodictic certainty. 4. (etc...)

Presuppositionalism can be summed up in 3 words. Sophistry, Circularity and Gaslighting.

Interesting video. Thank you. I’ve always found presupp difficult to illustrate. And it’s amazing the amount of apologists that employ it as the seminal method don’t seem to be very effective at explaining it or illustrating it and winning hearts and minds. With regard to evidence, if the Bible said something that was patently false how could we claim that it’s true because it says it is? Much of what the OT shared can’t be verified. Given that man has not found any inconsistencies with what we can prove, it bears the ring of truth. But to tell someone it’s true because it says it’s true is silly. How do you know it’s true would be the obvious question. And that requires evidence. I would simply ask them what in it can they prove as false.

Reading these comments tell me that there is a good deal of misunderstanding of what the word of God says. I agree with Pastor Joel. I'm not at my desk and I hate typing on my miniscule phone' s keyboard. Will be back to explain what and why later. Ok, this is future Craig at my desk less than an hour later. Here are notes from the message out of I Thessalonians 4:8 done last Sunday, June 5th. Quote: "II Corinthians 1:21, 22 Now He who establishes us with you in Christ and anointed us is God, who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a pledge. I John 2:20 But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know. The anointing is the inward persuasion of God that the Word you are hearing is true. I John 2:27 As for you, the anointing which you received from Him abides in you, and you have no need for anyone to teach you; but as His anointing teaches you about all things, and is true and is not a lie, and just as it has taught you, you abide in Him. It is the power of God to bend your will to what is true. The Holy Spirit is in your heart; God’s power is exercised by His Spirit. But this is not some mystical thing where the Holy Spirit speaks things to you in your spiritual ear, a teaching that He gives you directly and not to others. No, it is the anointing that teaches here, not the Holy Spirit. His anointing teaches you by the recognition in your heart of the truth of the Word of God. God said it, that settles it, and you believe it. The Spirit of God caused you to be born again, the Spirit of God energized faith within to trust the Word and believe. And that which you have already received from God now continues to act within you to discern truth from a lie, God’s Word from man’s word. This comes about from God the Spirit living within your heart. Let me give you an example to help you here. John 6:44-47 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life." So, I gave the above notes so show that as the Thessalonians had received the hearing of the Apostle Paul, the Prophet Sylvanus (Silas) and the Pastor Timothy as the Word of God and not the word of men (See Chapter 1) they were God-taught (literal). God-taught, God puts faith into our heart to believe the gospel. We believe not because we have proof from lesser sources but because the Spirit anointed us with believing the Word of the gospel we heard as the Word of God. Hope this helps.

Great point exalting scripture in the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Thank you for the video.

I don’t think Joel does a good job explaining how non pressup methods logically conclude in a rejection of sola scriptura. I strongly disagree that it does

Eerily similar to what the mormons preach.

Thank you for this video-I followed evidential apologetics, it excited me but this has opened my eyes……………

@17:50. That doesn’t make sense. If the pastor tells you that Jesus loves you, that is a fallible authority referencing an infallible authority. But are you saying you shouldn’t trust the fallible authority at that point? Fallible doesn’t mean is always wrong Joel. Stop using that word in that way

Extra-Biblical sources can strengthen classical apologetics, but the authority of the Bible is not contingent upon them. The collection of documents in the NT corroborate each other. Therefore you have corroborating eye witness accounts coming from the ultimate authority, the Bible.

“The Bible is the only authority we can trust” - this is not 1689 LBC and I am skeptical what you are describing is even a Christian position. Self refuting contradiction and error. Mark and avoid

Question: Why is presuppositional apologetics superior to classical/evidence-based apologetics? Answer: It’s not. Presuppositional apologetics can be used for literally every other faith (either supernatural or materialist in nature) to the same effect. Presuppositionalists use circular reasoning and if they have problems with the Muslims using this train of thought to argue for the inerrancy of the Qu’ran, you should not use it for the Bible. It’s literally “The Bible is true.” “Why?” “Because the Bible is the Word of God.” “How do you know that?” “Because the Bible says it is true.”

Great video, thanks. I'm still not convinced, of presuppositionalism, but I appreciate the clarity of this brother. The problem I see with the highest authority claim, is NOT that the Bible isn't the highest authority - I believe it is, however, in order for. person to believe that the Bible is the highest authority, like this gentleman, they (he) has to rely on a lesser, fallible, authority, i.e., Calvin, other presuppositionalists. I've read John Frame's and Van Til's arguments and find them still circular. Dr. David Haynes, a pastor and apologist in Quebec has shown using predicate logic that Presuppositionalism is, in fact, circular.

As much as it pains me Pastor Joel, I have to disagree with you here for a second time. The first being on infant baptism. The Apostle Paul appealed directly to eyewitness evidence in 1 Corinthians 15, and Peter did as well. That's where I almost always start my apologetic arguments, and I trust that in God's sovereignty He will save the person I'm talking to if it's part of His perfect will. Anyway, I appreciate you laying out the differences here in detail, but I still prefer the apologetic methods of Geisler and Turek, but I'm not opposed to using presup methods as well. I don't think they have to be in conflict.

Do you read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek? if not, you're depending on the "lesser" authority of interpreters and translators.

Presuppositional apologetics is an oxymoron.

So, to the questioner, all doubts about inerrancy are answered simply by believing that the Bible is inerrant. Now, if that doesn't quiet those doubts, nothing will.

The contradiction of both classical and evidential method is that they are presupposing the validity of the scripture by using it to prove what Jesus said.By using the Bible to prove what Jesus said about the Bible.They are guilty of doing what they accuse the presuppositionalist of doing.😂😂

I have found that with a evidential approach works well with those who are already religious, and a presuppositional approach is the ONLY way to deal with an atheist.

Exactly...yep...Stallings...guy in my high school...North Haven Connecticut

“I know it clearly sounds like a contradiction and a logical fallacy, but it’s not. I won’t explain how it’s not, but trust me.” “Everyone who has studied reality and can’t find anything in it that matches my beliefs, well, it’s because the all secretly hate my invisible friend. That must be it.” Irrational. Textbook faulty reasoning. Pathetic. Unconvincing.

You spent 15ish minutes bashing our God given reason/intellect, then on the last 5ish minutes you defend presuppositional apologetics by literally singing (17:31), "This I know, for the Bible tells me so". While telling us it's not circular, it just appears to be.

Presuppositional apologetics is like a 4 year old child trying to have a conversation with an adult about any topics. It's the dumbest form of apologetics possible as it's based on 2 silly foundations: - the atheist is lying (as they deep down know that god exists) - it only works for the Christian god Both these assumptions are factually false without both of those, there's no presuppositional apologetics

So the gist of this is to prioritize everything you assume is true over anything to the contrary that is clearly seen in objective reality. This approach can equally support literally any belief, regardless of any evidence for or against it. This is the definition of irrationality. The fact that apologetics has to stoop so low says everything about the likely truth of Christianity. Hilariously pathetic.

I don't actually see why this is a debate. For a Christian who has and knows the voice of the Holy Spirit, yes God himself can confirm the truth of His word. But for the non-saved scholars that we would like to witness to, in our modern culture evidence can be extraordinarily useful. Even for me when I was already saved, hearing evidence based Apologetics cemented my belief in the absolute authority of God. And no, I'm not just going to listen to every whim of science, but I do find it amazing that Archeology and history continue to prove the Bible true and true again despite those very scientists trying to find evidence to the contrary. I also do not believe that God has a problem with us thinking this way. Romans 1:19,20 seems to indicate that we can use external sources to be held responsible for our doubt. And in Matthew 12:24-28 even Jesus himself alluded to the idea the devil cannot work against himself, so I don't see a problem with the argument of saying since the resurrection happened it must have God's stamp of approval.

When I questioned my faith, it was through evidential apologetics that strengthened my faith. I honestly don't understand presuppositional or classical apologetics. Many people I respect, use them, and have benefitted from it. So I don't attack it by any means.

Jude 1:3: "Beloved, while I was making every effort to write you about our common salvation, I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you contend earnestly for the faith that was once for all time handed down to the saints," 2 Peter 1:16-21: "16 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. 17 For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such a declaration as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory: “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well pleased”- 18 and we ourselves heard this declaration made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. 19 And so we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts. 20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." I realize this discussion addressed one person's doubt. I would tell Nathaniel that we have a faith that is also based in eye witness accounts as well as other evidence: manuscripts, archaeology, prophecy. The Bible is not myth, it is not a fairy tail, it isn't fiction. We know, for example, that the accounts in the Bible of events are reliable because with every turn of the archeologist's spade the Bible is proven to be true. Yes, God has preserved the evidence. The manuscript evidence proves that the Bible hasn't been changed over time, an accusation that is hurled from, for example, Muslims. Christians need to know how to answer these accusations. The resurrection was a supernatural event, with hundreds of (not just two or three) eye witnesses who attested to the risen Messiah. The fact that these eyewitnesses actually saw the physical, risen body of Jesus Christ is evidence that the resurrection happened. The Gospel writers included this information of eyewitnesses in their accounts. The apostles were willing to be persecuted and martyred because they had seen the risen Christ. "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 19:10 And then we have the evidence of fulfilled prophecy. Neither archaeology or prophecy validate the Islamic and Mormon narratives. God has not left us without evidence of the truth of the Bible. We don't need to abandon evidence-based apologetics. These tools are additional weapons in our arsenal to defend the faith. Many doubters have come to Christ by examining the evidence for the veracity of Scripture (Simon Greenleaf, for example). Using evidence that attests to the reliability of the Bible does not undermine presuppositional apologetics. We can and should use both. We can defend our faith from more than one direction.

I've never been close to convinced by a presuppositional argument which is just the argument from ignorance in many forms.

They are not, both should be used to help bring people to Christ. Stop dividing over dumb stuff and let’s focus on using all the tools God has given us.

It is not circular reasoning to say because the Bible tells me so. Who says the Holy Bible is one book? It's comprised of 66 books with over 40 different authors over the span of thousands of years!

Nathaniel: Consider how Jesus spoke of the scripture. He never corrected it, he spoke of it as the word of God. And please spare me the nonsense that Jesus used the Septuagint.

Excuse me but if Jesus' bones were found (and that was irrefutably verified) Christianity would no longer be a thing.

"Classical Apologetics" by R.C. Sproul and John Gertsner settled it for me...nothing personal...

it's superior because it makes theists finally admit that there no good evidence for god. Hence, to make their point, they have to come up with some terrible mental gymnastic that start with "let's start with the presupposition I'm right (god exists). If I'm right, then you (atheist) are wrong)". Amazing philosophy. Next level!

Garbage

And now there are differences between Christians in which apologetics are the "right" ones. Alas, both "presuppositional" and "classic" apologetics fail with the exact same frequency: always. It is nothing new that Christians can't agree on what "inerrant" means when it comes to their claims about their bible. Many times, a Christian will claim inerrancy, but only when it comes to the "original manuscripts", which don't exist. There is no way to show that there was ever an inerrant version of the bible. This is a baseless assumption made by the Christian in order to hide behind the "well, you can't prove there weren't" argument. That this god is supposedly perfect, and supposedly wants everyone to come to it makes a good argument that there is no reason to assume that there was a mythical "correct" set of bible stories if it allows the wrong ones to remain.

Wow man! Do you have the integrity to be ashamed of yourself for that presentation?

Lol where do you get thd absurd idea that the bible has any credibility at all?