The Book That is Changing Christian Apologetics (with Christopher Watkin)

[@ewene2656]

I knew Christopher at University! He used to lead our student Bible studies at our church. He was a Phd student while I was an undergrad. What a blessing to see him on one of my favourite KZbin channels! 😇

[@ewene2656]

@YAJUN YUAN no, he’s British.

[@ewene2656]

@YAJUN YUAN that’s correct

[@radscorpion8]

oh boy!! Too bad Christianity is a dying religion, according to the pew polls . GOOOOO ATHEISM

[@rainysaint26]

We're reading this book in an honors theology survey class at Liberty University! Great to hear his perspective on the channel. Thank you Gavin and Dr. Watkin!

[@dennis_nicholson]

can confirm-lovely book!

[@richardbeall9174]

Absolutely fascinating conversation - I shall definitely check out the book. And as always Dr Gavin, thank you so much for your channel.

[@vngelicath1580]

I know that "critical theory" is a scary concept nowadays (and in many ways, for good reason)... But I do think it's also helpful to acknowledge when/where ideas on the 'far left' _originate_ within the Church: the prophetic tradition, most notably. Heresies always have a major piece of orthodoxy lodged within them, and our job in the Church is to do the heavy lifting of distinguishing baby from bathwater (lest we overcorrect and end up producing the opposite heresy). Tom Holland has convinced me that the "Culture War(s)" isn't so much a war between the Church (rightwing) and the anti-Christian secularists (leftwing), so much as a _civil war_ within post-Christendom wherein each side is grappling with the Christian inheritance; each holding to halves of a broken whole. The Church's mission should be to unite the broken fragments through critical engagement, not to simply pick one side and enter the fray.

[@edalbanese6310]

I agree with you but find me some loving catholics and we can have a conversation.

[@zacharyforget]

I never knew Spiderman talked so much about culture wars and Christianity! . . (Sorry, couldn't resist making that joke. I'm 99% sure you're talking about a different Tom Holland.)

[@sebastienberger1112]

This was a good interview. Thank you. I have seen Christopher's book pop up here and there on the internet but I never took the time to actually look it up. This conversation convinced me to purchase the book. I'm eager to read it.

[@JoelFischer]

I’m about halfway through the book, and it’s absolutely delightful. Thanks Christopher for writing it and thanks Gavin for having him on!

[@NomosCharis]

This was delightful! I love the idea of diagonalism. Our culture’s false dichotomies are reductionistic-heresies. Brilliant! We’re not introducing a new third-way. Rather, we are returning to the first and better way, which both encompasses and refutes all other ways. Fantastic stuff.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

Francis Schaeffer's "Escape From Reason" does a good job tracing through the history of modern thought relating to this stance of dichotomy ( @15:33)

[@davidlarson4647]

Great interview. Looking forward to reading this book.

[@bethsaari6209]

I love it! Can there be a better “filter” than the Word of God to base a world view on? The one thing I’ve learned from my study is people are people are people are people. The people Noah faced are the people Elijah faced are the people Christ faced are the people the apostles faced…..GREAT interview!

[@thomasmilavec3754]

At first the name of book alarmed me, but after listening, this seems like a great book!

[@jacobmierendorff1833]

So excited to watch this! I just finished the book 2 weeks ago 😊

[@Roland96351]

I am halfway through after I found it on Hoopla audiobook. Watkin is a powerhouse intellect who weilds a mastery of Western thought delivering a critical transfusion of Biblical truth into the withered veins of our culture.

[@CC-lf7ff]

Beautiful discussion

[@johnny.musician]

Excellent ‘new’ way of thinking. First became aware of Christopher through Mike Bird, and am saving for it. Really good interview, and thanks so much.

[@Swygard]

I love the example of grace based confrontation in Acts 18 when Apollos was preaching the way “accurately” and Priscilla and Aquila took him aside privately and did not call him out but taught him the way “ more accurately.” There are right and wrong situations but I think personalities and zeal can turn accuracy questions into divisive fights. Most of our debates among believers should be framed in the accurate\ more accurate way.

[@socc3r43va]

This was one of my favorite videos that you’ve done, Gavin. I could see the “praise” and joy on both of your faces throughout it as you were rejoicing in the Lord together. Question for you. I always assumed that you weren’t a fan of Van Til based on some of your other videos on apologetics. Was this a faulty assumption? Do you find presuppositional apologetics to be helpful when VT’s methodology (or, at least the fruit of it) is applied to cultural analysis, such as is seen in Christopher’s book? Would love to hear your thoughts on this often heated topic. Thanks!

[@CamGaylor]

I'm not gonna lie most of this is over my head 😂

[@sphagbog]

Congratulations on your 20K 26 Feb 2023, Truth Unites: DIScussion NOT DISunity.

[@erhardtharris8727]

One's response to the intellectual assent of "by God's grace alone through faith in Him" SHOULD be carefully parsed, as that IS a real line in things. It isn't only in our imaginations or intellect. It IS a fact of relations. It is something to be aware of and on guard about, one of the biggest things. But not the only thing - there are OTHER day to day needs.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

Wow, I felt both the glasses AND Paracetamol examples 🤣

[@Welleher]

I agreed with pretty much everything he said, except for the part about there being complete peace in the Garden. God orders Adam and Eve and also all of humanity to go forth and CONQUER the earth, to put it into submission. And other creation themes in the Bible and even Genesis seem to point to God actually fighting chaos and random destruction when He created the world. Other than that, I agreed with what he said.

[@jonharris722]

I feel and understand the same.. and though it shouldn't inform my belief of biblical matters - such makes the most sense in light of anthropological studies and the millions of years of death (at least in the animal kingdom and in the kingdom of those created somewhat like us: Cro Magnon/Denisovan/Classic Neanderthals/Advanced Apes) ; and yes that lets the cat out of the bag that I'm an old-earther and espouse to the Genealogical Adam and Eve theory that suggests our 'first parents' were created from miraculous microevolution approximately 12,000 years ago rather than the classic miraculous 6th day creation chain of events or an equivalent 1,000 year span creation chain of events theory going from no microorganisms - to advanced life - to Adam and Eve.

[@abbyschubert5637]

To subdue and STEWARD the earth is different than to war against and conquer it-to *tend* something that submits to you is different than to beat it into submission. The garden in Eden depicts creation as it was meant to be, in harmony and flourishing. All four kinds of human relationships - man to God, man to others, man to himself, and man to creation - were at harmony as God created them to be. Man’s properly ordered vocation *over* the rest of creation does not imply struggle between the two, just as man being head of the wife should not imply struggle between the two (that came as a consequence of the Fall). It is the harmony and flourishing in Eden that affirms the essential goodness of God’s creation, and gives us a foretaste of the peace, flourishing, and rightly-ordered-ness to come in the New Creation. Likewise, chaos, randomness, evil, etc. don’t ultimately exist, not in and of themselves. God is the only ultimate, non-contingent existence, and he is order, purpose, and goodness. Chaos, randomness, evil are not their own things but are privations and twistings up of the order, purpose, and goodness that is in God. So God took what was formless and formed it, what was empty and filled it. But I don’t see some cosmic battle between God and evil in the beginning. I’m fact, the Christian creation story is just about the only one (or THE only one?) that doesn’t begin with conflict. That’s something really important. And it also tells us that evil and chaos isn’t on a level playing field with God - they’re temporary. They weren’t here in the beginning, and they won’t be here in the end, in the New Creation. Sorry for the long comment-this is my understanding of the matter, but anyone please correct me if I’m wrong.

[@Welleher]

@@abbyschubert5637 i would suggest looking up Michael Heiser's (RIP) research on this topic. The words used in the Genesis passage do indeed mean to violently subdue, as they are used in the Bible to refer to war. As to the 2nd claim, all you have to do to see the chaos before creation is look at other creation passages. The passage in Job about God creating Leviathan and slaying him is about God fighting chaos. Leviathan was an ancient near eastern symbol for chaos. God destroys chaos and creates order on the earth with mankind. Now, obviously, the chaos did not predate God. But the fact that a type of disorderliness existed before "creation" does seem to show that not everything was sunshine and rainbows in the Edenic earth. The Genesis account of creation is really about God taking a universe in disorder and making it orderly, so that mankind could flourish and His plan could be accomplished.

[@abbyschubert5637]

@@Welleher thank you for both the clarification (chaos not predating God) and the Heiser recommendation. I will look into his work on it!

[@abbyschubert5637]

@@Welleher I suppose I’m just bad at searching, but would you be able to point me to specific talks/articles/books that he addresses that in? I haven’t been able to find his content on subdue/conquer

[@fernandomiranda4714]

Please somebody help me. How is this book thesis is different from Tom Holland's Dominion?

[@TruthUnites]

see 43:03

[@fernandomiranda4714]

Thanks!

[@314god-pispeaksjesusislord]

​​@@TruthUnites Why is it so imperative to have a TRINITY discussion? That's virtually nonexistent in the new testament. I know you will, like other gentile scholars relying on the standard model of Roman Catholic history assert that this was revolutionary and central to theology, but it's not, and it's only addressed in various implications of how God interacts within the debates which actually do exist in the new testament. There was no opposition to the "trinitarian" language of the apostles, so it was a NON ISSUE and therefore a non sequitur to promote it as something new to the revelation of Christ. The actual debates concern Jesus as the singular person of YHVH manifest in the flesh as the proper definition of Messiah and from there the understanding from the Tanach by which the gentiles are included in the covenant. COMPLETELY ABSENT is ANY preface to either debate explaining how there are three DISTINCT PERSONS who are one God. Again I emphasize the "requirement" of a distinction drawn, absent ANY scriptural support that the word PERSONS is either in Moses, the Prophets or the Apostles. In fact Paul goes to great lengths to emphasize that the fullness of the head of Elohim is bodily ONLY in the person of Christ Jesus. Simply review in the Tanach where the word YACHID and it's conjugations are used. It comes from the shoresh root of ECHAD, which may indicate a unity, but YACHID is an emphatic singularity, NOT a unity. The use of YACHID is very specific and is found only in Messianic prophecies. IF IM WRONG PLEASE CORRECT ME, but at least research it. I don't consider these trinitarian philosophies necessarily apostasy but without a direct statement of hypothesis espoused and the consequence taught they are by definition heresy. We're this a minor issue possibly it could be overlooked, but it is required by scholars with little knowledge of hebrew or the Tanach in Hebrew and Torah in Hebrew as Moses delivered it, and so I demand to know by what authority? Private revelation and tradition? If you are going that route you may as well venerate icons.

[@314god-pispeaksjesusislord]

​@@TruthUnites Here's an example of the debate in which "trinitarian" language is used, but it doesn't include separate persons as you would expect if that is what they actually taught: Excellent show, if I could add my two cents worth for discussions sake, it would be this. There is no discussion I can find among gentiles nor messianic Jews regarding the PRECHRISTIAN debate within Judaism regarding proselytes and shabbat. The only modern discussion I can find is among Orthodox Hassidic judaism, and it references Talmud which explicitly says it was debated both before and during the first century. It involved proselytes who wished to live like Jews in the diaspora and among the hellenestai, the Greek or hellenized Jews who had large settlements in Alexandria, Crete, and Turkey, the latter two being called Romaniote jews. There were elements at play in the debate. First, are gentiles FORBIDDEN to keep the Sabbath? Because it is a SIGN given specifically to identify ISRAEL, and gentiles being outside the covenant are to work continually because seed time and harvest do not cease for them in the day and night. The gentiles who were ALLOWED shabbat were those within the house of a Jew, such as a slave or a gentile in aretz Israel who was NOT in himself keeping shabbat, but was honoring shabbat for the sake of the Jew so that the Aretz Israel was not polluted and they only the blessing attached to the Jew by proxy (this is how the word of Isaiah concerning gentiles and shabbat was interpreted). Additionally, gentiles were also forbidden from establishing any formal shabbat, even on another day. Now, with the proselyte, does he become a Jew through baptism only or must he also be circumcised? Because baptism was NOT a profession of faith, but A CEREMONY before the Bet Din which told the kahol the proselyte had been accepted. NOW, if he is circumcised and baptized, which shabbat is he honoring? And that depends on whether he is in the group that keeps either a solar or lunar calendar? AND, we don't know precisely which calendar Jesus kept because they both synchronize at various times. Exact same debate we see today. THIS IS THE BACKSTORY FOR PAUL'S WAR WITH THE CIRCUMCISION, and he declared his victory in Galatians where not even Titus was forced to be circumcised and after that Paul appointed UNCIRCUMCISED TITUS as head of the messianic kahol in Crete among the Romaniote synagogues. And following the victory on the issue of circumcision Paul FROM THAT BACKSTORY AND CONTEXT addresses the calendar and shabbat issues left to conscience where each one should be convinced in his own mind. HOW DOES PAUL MAKE THE CASE? He draws from Jesus statement that circumcision is performed on the Sabbath from Moses to give precedence to circumcision for Sabbath keeping, otherwise they would not circumcise on the Sabbath. Then, he moves to the FINISHED work of Mashiach FOR BOTH JEW AND GENTILE, that Christ who is our SHEKINAH, indwelling, has included all who trust in him in one kahol of which he is the mishkan and he is in shabbat for all having SAT DOWN, at the right hand of the Father, continually doing the shabbat work on our behalf in the heavenly temple after the order of Melchizedek (I argue that HEBREWS was a collaboration between Paul and Barnabas and possibly Apollos sent the Alexandrian community during the first pogrom and to the messianic congregation in the "jurisdiction" of Philo directly before Philos mixed delegation of Orthodox and messianic Jews who would travel to Rome to appeal to Gaius Caligula). To confirm that Messiah is in shabbat on our behalf the RUACH HA KODESH is sent on SHAVUOT (same shoresh as shabbat) to make the circumcision without hands (non physical) and become the SHEKINAH of messiah in us. And he gave evidence of the inclusion of the gentiles by speaking in tongues, and the gentiles speaking in tongues (the SIGN of shabbat, see 1 Corinthians on speaking in tongues where Paul quotes Isaiah 28 which says the tongues are the SIGN that the REST AND REFRESHING has come through and to the gentiles). So, if their circumcision is without hands the shabbat is without calendar THEREFORE if TODAY, WHILE IT IS CALLED TODAY, if you hear his voice don't harden your heart. NOW, I will say this is my OPINION which I hold in clear conscience, and won't go any further in trying to PROVE THE CASE, because I think it deserves debate and discussion since this argument seems to be absent from present conversation. So far the only response I've received from messianic and SDA who argue for shabbat and protestant, catholic and oriental Orthodox is, INTERESTING I'LL HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. SHALOM SHALOM.

[@markmurthen7068]

Oh my ! Chris isn't wearing a V-neck sweater!!

[@kylekloostra5659]

This argument would be fair if the only metaphysical options were Christianity vs. Mechanistic Naturalism. The issue, however, is many other metaphysical frameworks are available. To name a few: Neo-platonism, Vedanta, Buddhism, Panpsychism, Idealism (Hegel), Spinoza's Naturalism, let alone all the other various forms of pan(en)theism.

[@randybrown1801]

Yes, but, the Christian Worldview is adequate to answer the questions of alternative worldviews, because they either have their genesis and/or terminus in man. The Christian Worldview argues for a genesis and terminus in God as the highest good for man.

[@kylekloostra5659]

@@randybrown1801 Neo-platonism, Vedanta, Idealism, etc. say the exact same thing.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@kylekloostra5659 what kinda of God/ gods do they purpose: they are weak substitutes for The tri personal God of the Bible .

[@kylekloostra5659]

@@davidjanbaz7728 Vedanta, for example, is trinitarian as Sat, Chit, and Ananda together from the one essence which makes the ground of all being. So, the concept of a trinity or diversity in unity is not unique to Christianity.

[@BeTheIron]

I think the truth is that the Christian and the Mechanistic Naturalism metaphysical options are the most PLAUSIBLE and most REASONABLE position. It isn't a matter of what frameworks are possible (of which we can say that there are MANY), but which are PLAUSIBLE and reasonable to BEST explain our universe and also to explain the HISTORICAL person of Christ (of which those other views fail to account)

[@frederickanderson1860]

Peter statement regarding the identification of jesus was not revealed by apologetics or university degree. Consider jesus reply.

[@godisreality7014]

@32.30: we need "technology" to "do it better over time"?

[@ameliacoburn4787]

It seems like the Cultural Theory that he's talking about is what others call a "worldview". It seems really similar anyway. I'd be curious if Christopher Watkin sees a difference.

[@zacdredge3859]

34:20 I think this segment was less coherent than others. He makes the idea of a distinction between medicine and transhumanism seem 'silly' but every one of his seemingly rhetorical questions can easily be addressed by pointing out that restoration of function(such as eyesight) is not the same as enhancement. He doesn't actually substantiate that we are supposed to improve ourselves in outward ways from a Biblical perspective and if language is supposed to be an example we can refer back to it being the very thing by which God created the world and was conferred to us, not something we invented. Changes in dialects and the language we use aren't congruent with physically altering human beings via technology. Also not sure why the argument for transhumanism needs to have anything to do with certain ethnic demographics. So where his first example of 'diagonalisation' portrayed a both/and approach(which has some value where applicable) this one seems more like 'ew, neither' and doesn't carry the same weight. This is the problem with assuming one tool serves all functions.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

The bit about drawing the line between inside and outside grace has some merit, but I think it is inadequate because one cannot see that line or tell who is on either side of it. My own answer to the issue to the in group out group question is to admit the limits of my knowledge. I may very well be someone's better in a particular sphere. It would almost have to be the case, unless I happen to be the worst person alive in every way. I may be more logical or honest or caring than another or even most people, BUT not only is it truly hard to tell if this is even the case outside of a particular situation (we cannot judge character or even general performance by a bad or good day someone has), unless the person I am comparing myself to is a rather extreme case of habitually illogical, dishonest, or cruel. Even more important though, is the fact that I still cannot see the whole of what they are working with (what effort it takes them in particular to be "good" compared to myself) or the whole of their lives to see that, while they may be my obvious inferior in one way, they may be my obvious superior in another that I simply have not been privy to seeing. Maybe Stalin loved his mother more than I do. Maybe I simply lacked the ambition to rid myself of those I hate like he did. Ect. Ect.

[@frederickanderson1860]

You can't go back to another culture and people so far different to our own . Especially 2,000 yrs or more compared to the Jewish historical narrative.

[@somedude6653]

I see critical theory and I just think Marxism and I'm curious how that thinking has influenced this book

[@godisreality7014]

@41.30: Liberation will take place first, when the Messiah, the true Messiah, returns. Until now, the Hebrews have been in captivity and are still under the yoke of Esau, which God Almighty will soon break. (Jeremiah 30.8), Redemption is not "the only thing that happens in the new testament". (?)

[@godisreality7014]

@33: we don´t need "improving" - we need the Messiah, who is the Creator and we must finally recognize our need of Him and give up this pride that we are not wholly dependent upon Him and that "we can do it better with technology". This latter is the lie of the serpent.

[@frederickanderson1860]

Friedrich Nietzsche said it long before this guy. God is dead and he did see the fall of philosophy science and morals

[@danielboone8256]

I don’t see how transhumanism Is inherently trying to make a person like a god. I often hear this point, but I don’t understand how people come to the conclusion that this is the goal of transhumanism.

[@Angel-cu5mf]

Perhaps the quest for immortality and lack of limitations-- becoming all knowing, all powerful etc

[@judahivy]

Because most of the big name promoters of transhumanism have spoken and continue to speak of it as a step towards a sort of deification. Yuval Harari's "Homo Deus", or earlier Ray Kurzweils "Singularity is Near", or virtually any treatment of it in science fiction that drives the public and administrative imagination ends up speaking about it in terms of "godlike" power. Usually in the context of something like Teilhard de Chardin's Omega Point.

[@lkae4]

Yup, immortality and the ability to define what is good and evil.

[@abelovedchildofgod7383]

Is he gay?

[@kencowen4154]

Are you a moron?

[@danreich4320]

This was utter nonsense.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

But you watched it: shows your stupidity!

[@HearGodsWord]

Dan, the only nonsense here is your comment.