William Lane Craig and Presuppositionalism

[@bham7bh]

I'd empty my bank account to see Bahnsen vs WLC

[@jessegandy7361]

I lost it when Sye said 'Theres our circumcision tent' 😂

[@reformedcatholic457]

There is problems with WLC's reasoning he is debating for the position of theism? His belief of Molinism is concerning as it is. Even when an atheist asked him if he could be wrong about God, he said yes. I mean wow, if he could be wrong about God then everything that he reasons with and understands theology is poor as a foundation. Sounds like he is reasoning from human reason instead of honoring God led by the Holy Spirit which is clearly portrayed in the Holy Scriptures. And as James White said what your theology is forms how you do your apologetics.

[@josiahroyer1062]

Anyone have a link to the original video from Craig?

[@jordanbickett4062]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/mKXQcpekg55mhM0 There

[@NathanicusSmith]

I've always enjoyed William Lane Craig's work, but I could never put my finger on that part of it that seemed a bit off. This video highlighted it perfectly for me.

[@MALLYGEEZ1]

Nathan Smith James white is obsessed with William Lane Craig. He loves to slam Craig. People like James white love to say, someone hasn't read this or that. As if the Holy Spirit doesn't use Craig arguments to bring people to Christ.

[@NathanicusSmith]

MALLYGEEZ1 is the point James White is making not an important one?

[@MALLYGEEZ1]

Nathan Smith No, it's not, James White loves to slam Craig. The Holy Spirit has brought many many people to Christ through Craig's debates. And has given confidence and now it's too people who are already Christian. me being one of them.

[@MALLYGEEZ1]

Nathan Smith Craig isn't teaching a heresies

[@NathanicusSmith]

MALLYGEEZ1 White's argument isn't simply that Craig hasn't read certain material. Whether he "loves" to correct him or not is irrelevant. Why complain that a tool that is already useful can't be made sharper? I think White is highlighting a very important distinction, that is worth not sweeping under the rug. I hope Craig and the rest of us considers it.

[@plumlineltd7585]

Sye doesn't know how to not go hard in the paint lol i love it.

[@sunkmeisternolsson8308]

What do you mean by paint and hard?

[@qballbuster100]

@@sunkmeisternolsson8308 It's basketball terminology. Essentially it means that Sye is always giving max effort, in a good way.

[@timottes334]

Lane Craig has proposed a form of Appollinarianism which was condemned as a heresy in 381. Has he given this up? If I am correct, St. Basil said that this leads to the allegorizing of the whole of Scripture. If you watch enough evidential " apologists, " the whole of Scripture is allegorized by them. That is, put 200 in a room... and the whole of Scripture will be allegorized by them through their cherry picking.

[@johnelliott5859]

To use logic effectively, do I require that I know where it comes from? Nope.

[@AtlasBookkeeping]

Exactly. This whole idea of justification and grounding is bullshit. It’s a weaponizing of philosophy by presupps and TAG proponents. I have never seen anyone DEMONSTRATE that anything has to have a philosophical or meta physical justification.

[@carlosa4852]

Atheists DO have views on apologetics. Mostly in degrees of bad. The common view is that apologetics is the practice of saying comforting and reinforcing things to people that already believe, to help keep them a part of the flock.

[@jesuscorona3562]

I agree, apologetics is not separate from the gospel and the work of the church. in apologetics we preach law and gospel to the unbelieving world, law in the sense that we are showing those who say there is no God, that they have just made themselves fools philosophically, as the bible says: "the fool says in his heart there is no God", for they have made all of their arguments unintelligible and reduced their worldview to absurdity by rejecting the only worldview that can make sense out of reality and human experience.

[@benjamingallows]

If you don't trust the power of the gospel in changing someone's heart, you must necessarily rely on evidences to try and convince (through human worldly wisdom) that Christ is King. But since it pleased God to use the folly of what we preach to save those who believe (call it "mystical" if you want to throw the Word of God in the mud), they have to then rely on only convincing people that "A god" exist and cannot bridge their talks into the gospel without awkwardly tacking it on at the end, if they even go that far. If the boldest part of your preaching is the complexity of the eye and NOT the gospel, you are doing it wrong. Christ is NOT a probability, He is our King.

[@LizaFan]

Presuppositional apologetics is a stylized performance, an exercise in conceit designed to reify the apologist's felt sense of certitude.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

If anyone here is a pressupositionalist, I would ask you to be fair to other positions and make sure you adequately understand them before you criticize them. Choose the oath of charity and caution before you just adopt an apologetic method

[@TheGlobuleReturns]

Crazy to me how you guy can sit and say all this with a straight face

[@Zundopolis]

The pagan theists of Elijah’s day are no different than the pagan theists of Romans 1, which is a foundational text for presuppositional folks.

[@gordonreed2736]

Also "they have Moses and the prophets if they don't hear them they will not hear if one comes back from the dead". Don't be ashamed of the scriptures.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Excellent video. Some are idolizing Bill Craig. I am actually pretty baffled at his inability to follow Presup. He's not a dumb guy... he just seems to be overwhelmed with bias on this issue, and that blinds him. He realizes, down deep, that if Presup is correct (which it is) that would be devastating for his own career.

[@RealDonatus]

Yes and no… there is still space for evidentualist apologetics based on likelihood. It’s still correct per se… just grants way too much ground to the atheist. The case for God becomes insurmountabley true when you realise we can defend on both fronts, but let’s be real: the “moat” of presup is so vast and wide and full of perils for the atheist that they’re never getting to the “portcullis” that is evidentualist apologetics.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@donatus1974 The moment you grant the atheist their false system of presuppositions (and try to reason to God that way), the following issues occur: 1. Their false system of presuppositions entails that only inductive reasoning can be used (since they don't begin with anything known to be true, like we do with the Bible) 2. Inductive reasoning cannot arrive at a necessarily true (aka) certain conclusion. 3. This provides the atheist with the opportunity to focus on the lack of certainty, no matter how small, to refuse to acknowledge God if he/she emotionally does not want God to exist. 4. The reason why all atheists are atheists is because they emotionally don't want God to exist (I can give you a syllogism for this if you want). So, in short... it's impossible to actually prove God once you've granted the atheist their worldview (system of presuppositions). Nothing anyone could possibly argue could convince them, since their system of presuppositions entails proving anything is not possible. But, of course, they're selective about the way they apply that... only being pseudoskeptical when it suits their pre-existing emotional biases.

[@carlosa4852]

The problem with presup is that it's a cop out.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@carlosa4852 Do you have a rebuttal to what Presup actually argues? Arbitrarily asserting it's a cop out, without any substantive rebuttal, is a cop out itself. It's just pseudoskepticism again (the tendency to ridicule instead of investigate is listed as a characteristic of pseudoskepticism)

[@carlosa4852]

@@lightbeforethetunnel as soon as someone makes an argument, I can give a rebuttal. So far I have only seen a claim and circular reasoning. It's laughable really.

[@GrolskslorG]

Watching Xtians throw shit at eachother over their own take on bullshit is funny as hell.

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

I think therefore ̶I̶ ̶a̶m̶ ̶God is.

[@AtlasBookkeeping]

Prove it

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@@AtlasBookkeeping I've already had the deductive proof posted for over a year publicly. I've only got 27 to choose from. It's the one "why ONLY the Biblical God has all the attributes needed to justify the pre-conditions for knowledge"

[@AtlasBookkeeping]

@@lightbeforethetunnel It’s amazing!! I’m constantly amazed at you presupps. The way you all actually think that you can prove that the christian god exists by describing his “attributes”. If I told you I had an invisible friend, and you asked for evidence, and my evidence was to describe the attributes of that invisible friend, you’d laugh you ass off. Telling us the attributes of your invisible friend does not prove that you’re invisible friend exists.

[@chadlawrence2240]

First I applaud any brother or sister reaching out to the lost. I have been a campus minister for over 20years. I can tell you evidence does matter for those sincerely seeking. Unbelievers range from I will not believe no matter what.....to....Im open to evidence. For those open to evidence I've seen time and time again God using evidential arguments. At the same time I also have seen the impact of pointing unbelievers to God's Word alone and seeing the miracle of belief occur. I guess I stand in the middle of both approaches.....on the one hand if a person is willing, I take them to read the standard for all truth which is the Bible.....if they have questions on Bible reliability, validity, historical evidence for Resurrection, Cosmology, Teleology, or moral law argument I will go through the evidence with them. Francis Schaeffer is one of the greatest apologists in history....he used both approaches. I have seen first hand BOTH approaches working......this should not be an EITHER.....OR....discussion but a BOTH....AND.....discussion.

[@tshirtjay]

The mental gymnastics that you pressups put yourselves through to try and denounce WLC is always amusing to watch.

[@skylergerald3546]

I wouldn't want to denounce WLC however, WLC (being an evidentialist) seems to approach apologetics more pragmatically than exegetically. The presuppositionalist is reasoning with the scriptures to develop a theology of apologetics that is exegetically based which, I would argue, is more than the evidentialist can say and that is where the disagreement usually comes from. Now, Hernandez is a classical apologist so I would not bring the same critique upon him.

[@ryanbrown9833]

I don’t see the issue really, presupps are biblically consistent and has ways to where they can actually argue for the Christian god Specifically. I honestly don’t get the reason why people hate presupposionalism so much other than “It’s circular”(which vahntil has already refuted)

[@BRNRDNCK]

Guarantee you have no idea what Presuppositionalism is about... I’d bet half my earnings you think it’s “logical fallacious because it reasons in a circle” like all the other pseudo intellectual evidentialist “apologists.”

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@5:00 - A situation doesn't have to be the same to be applicable. The relevance, it seems to me, is that this demonstrates that it is not wrong to use evidence to change the mind of an unbeliever. The objection that they are theists is not really true. Sure, they believe that some God exists; however, the God that they believe exists is nothing more than wood (or stone, or metal, or some other created material) in an interesting shape. This makes it obvious that it is not wrong to use argument and evidence in a discussion with a person whom, in fact (despite what they think, believe, or feel), does not believe in God. @7:12 - Their reasoning is impacted, yes, but the point being made in the video seems to be ripping this point out of the context immediately preceding it, namely, that logical reasoning is how God created man to be, and to use logical reasoning with the unbeliever, therefore, is not wrong. I'm not claiming that the point that the classical apologist is making is true, although I do. @8:28 - Again, the point here is unfair in that the classical apologist is not seeking to show that his attributes, such as existing (even though that's not an attribute proper) and ability to reason, are non-derivative; rather, the classical apologist is using these points to show that Sye is wrong in claiming that presuppositional apologetics is a must. I mean, do you really think that a Lutheran apologist doesn't think that these things are derivative, that a Lutheran apologist doesn't understand "Theology 101"? Come on, man. Dr. White, you don't have to straw-man everybody's position in order to demonstrate your point. The merits of your ideas should be enough. No derision necessary. @8:53 - You can't have a Christian worldview without logic and reasoning. @13:54 - It is primary for the classical apologist as well. That doesn't mean that I have to use presuppositional apologetics when I'm talking to my wife about the football game I saw last Monday. There are different tools to achieve different objectives. Just because we don't feel the need to use a yardstick to hammer nails, that doesn't mean that we are doing anything wrong in using a hammer. You don't have to use presuppositional apologetics in the task of apologetics. If you claim that you do, then what is your reasoning or evidence for this claim? That's why Dr. Craig was saying "I don't see any reason to think that that provides the guideline to apologetics method. Of course everything derives from God! That's not in dispute, but the question is, how do you effectively present a case for the Christian faith." when Dr. White stopped the audio. @14:05 - Neither does the classical apologist. That's just a caricature. Does anyone think that it would be wrong to ask the following question (because I hear it from presuppositionalists all the time)? Suppose that God does not exist, then why believe that anything you think is true? Of course not! You can believe one thing while, for the sake of conversation, supposing it were not the case. @16:08 - As a good Calvinist, you should know that God can use whatever means He desires, even rocks or sinners, to convert others. You don't have to provide a robust Christian theology in order to do apologetics. God uses means. @19:28 - I guess Sye's point is that we need to kill the people that we engage with presuppositional apologetics, huh? It sure doesn't show that it is unbiblical to use arguments and evidence with unbelievers. @27:22 - You are presupposing the truth of Calvinism here, Dr. White. A person doesn't have to be lead by the spirit to accept God's gift. No, you do not, necessarily, have to be regenerated first. It's possible that you are regenerated when you accept the gift, not before; therefore, prevenient grace, whether you believe in it or not, may enable the unsaved man to be open to the things of God. His reasoning, then, may be quite critical to his salvation. I'm going to stop here because the biases and, possibly flawed, presuppositions (maybe on both sides) seem to be at the bottom of all of the issues here.

[@timottes334]

Let's say that everyone's intentions are pure. It seems to me that we would all agree that the unbeliever is " suppressing the truth. " I believe evidences, but I am a believer in God. How does the Cosmological argument lead one to the conclusion that the world was created by a kind, loving God? If the atheist gets convinced to the point of a deity, isn't theology needed IMMEDIATELY, if not sooner, to prevent him/her from concluding a demiurge? This argument could actually lead one to psychologically reject the claims of a kind, loving God as there is no theology in it to explain the fallen world. Christianity is theology with some philosophy, not philosophy with some theology ... it is a religion, not a school of philosophy. Therefore, Dr. White is correct. Theology informs the apologetic. Lane Craig's theology is applied when, and what is it? Seems to me...

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

​@@timottes334 *"How does the Cosmological argument lead one to the conclusion that the world was created by a kind, loving God?"* It doesn't nor is it meant to. The Kalam is part of the case for simply any monotheistic creator. Further steps are needed once that is established. *"If the atheist gets convinced to the point of a deity, isn't theology needed IMMEDIATELY, if not sooner, to prevent him/her from concluding a demiurge?"* Yes and no. Evangelism should take place, at least often times, before one turns to looking at the evidence for God's existence. Even William Lane Craig says that he starts with sharing the gospel. Still, sometimes it is enough to just put a stone in the shoe. I like what Greg Koukl has to say here. He says something like, one needn't do all of the gardening themselves. Sometimes it is enough for one person to till the soil and plant a seed. Another can water. Yet another can pull the weeds. Just like I don't have to write a systematic theology textbook every time I talk to an unbeliever, neither do I have to accomplish everything at once when talking to unbelievers. Sometimes Jesus merely reviled the sinners. It is clear that we don't have to make sure that we have every unbeliever we talk to in the pew by next Sunday. *"This argument could actually lead one to psychologically reject the claims of a kind, loving God as there is no theology in it to explain the fallen world."* One argument should stand alone. That is not a holistic approach to apologetics. As I said, we should try to share the gospel. We should try to give other arguments. We should try to make progress, no matter how great or how little. *"Christianity is theology with some philosophy, not philosophy with some theology ... it is a religion, not a school of philosophy."* You are correct, in a way, but feeding the homeless is neither philosophy nor theology, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to share the gospel, or even engage in apologetics, when we feed the homeless. It's not either or. It's not one to the exclusion of the other. I actually don't believe that you can separate theology and philosophy in that manner, except on a superficial level. That is why I agreed to some extent. You can't know, or show, theology without philosophy. Worldviews are philosophy. Since theology is part of a worldview, theology is part of philosophy. *"Therefore, Dr. White is correct. Theology informs the apologetic."* All classical apologists, including William Lane Craig, believe that theology should inform out apologetic. That is not, however, the same as limiting or determining the apologetic. Here is a quote that I like from William Lane Craig that people seem to not want to deal with when criticizing his apologetics. " ... I agree with the medieval theologian Peter Damion that philosophy is rightly the handmaid of theology. Philosophy is a tool that God gives us to help us better understand and defend our faith. But the rule of faith - the so-called regula fidei - the rule of faith is Holy Scripture, and human reason and philosophizing will be a tool to help us understand and defend what Scripture teaches. Now as this listener points out so well, it's not just that you take what Scripture teaches and then you philosophize about it; rather, as he points out, in order to understand what Scripture teaches you will often have to use philosophical concepts." www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/postmodernism-open-theism-and-philosophy/ Therefore, I fail to see how James White is, in any way, correct here. *"Lane Craig's theology is applied when, and what is it?"* All the time. It is a Wesleyan Arminian Theology. *"Seems to me..."* Seems to you, what?

[@timottes334]

@@Real_LiamOBryan In my view, Craig is dishonest and hoping that his victims are philosophically ignorant. It is an absolute non - sequitur to conclude supernatural deity from the universe began to exist. Any philosophically minded atheist will call one on this immediately if not sooner. One has to presuppose it, as you say Craig does, to conclude it from naturalistic causation. The remotely intelligent atheist will tell you that he sees event a and event b, and that's it. And he's correct from the naturalistic point of view. The transcendental... CAUSATION... doesn't jump out of the ether when you see events, as Hume pointed out. In short, he's like a used car salesman, to me. Especially since he claims apologetics and theology totally separate things. Christian apologetics is a systematic defense... of the worldview of Christianity... not theistic creation... and it doesn't even get one that... There it should start, then. Craig and his ilk, vehemently exclude what they presuppose as a starting point. Natural theism or arguing for generic deities has long been condemned as heresy. It leads to indifferentism. The culture of the western world today is its fruit. It digs the hole that it claims it is attempting to get out of deeper. I've had classical apologists tell me that my monotheism needs to be rethought on their terms. From the bottom up, lol! In my view, whether one concludes a Platonic or Judeo/Christian view from evidence, or innately presupposes one or the other, this entails a hierarchical shift to a top down view of being and thus one's argumentation. These arguments ( Naturalistic ) buttress atheists in their atheism. These arguments - Thomism - are why western Europe is for all intents and purposes atheist, and why the US is increasingly secular and basically atheist/indifferent, as well. And how you get Vatican II and Pachamama... Seems to me you are wrong... Craig claims a strict separation between apologetics and theology. He adamantly claims he is NOT doing theology in his naturalistic philosophy. So, it is not applied" all the time " in the strict sense by his own words.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@timottes334 *"In my view, Craig is dishonest and hoping that his victims are philosophically ignorant."* What evidence do you have of this? None of what you have said supports this. I would be careful of guessing at people's motives. Humans tend to be terrible at doing that because their biases tend to inform their decision more than any form of reasoning. *" It is an absolute non - sequitur to conclude supernatural deity from the universe began to exist."* The problem here is that you've denied the conclusion of an argument of the form of Modus Ponens; therefore, you've got to show how Modus Ponens is an invalid logical form. How does Q not follow from P in an argument in the form of If P, then Q; P; therefore, Q? The attributes of the cause of the universe in the cause are corollaries of The Kalam Cosmological Argument. That means that they follow, deductively, and necessarily, without any need for further argumentation. The conclusion follows from the argument and the corollaries do as well. *"Any philosophically minded atheist will call one on this immediately if not sooner. One has to presuppose it, as you say Craig does, to conclude it from naturalistic causation."* I don't recall saying that Craig presupposes anything in the argument. Also, the argument isn't from "naturalistic causation". More properly, the argument concludes to the agent causation, and event causation, of the universe by a transcendent agent (those corollaries, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, personal creator of the Universe). How, therefore, does he conclude it "from naturalistic causation"? *"The transcendental... CAUSATION... doesn't jump out of the ether when you see events, as Hume pointed out."* It seems that it does when the only possible cause for those events is a transcendental creator. You'd have to argue for this. *"In short, he's like a used car salesman, to me."* Why should we care about your personal psychological state? That doesn't show anything to be the case. *"Especially since he claims apologetics and theology totally separate things."* I don't recall him saying anything like that but it seems obviously true. Apologetics is a defense of something. Theology is the study of deity and religion. He didn't say they have no relation whatsoever. On the contrary, he said that philosophy, which is an integral part of classical apologetics, is the handmaid of theology; therefore, philosophy and apologetics (classical apologetics, that is) are to aid in, and be subservient to, theology. *"Christian apologetics is a systematic defense... of the worldview of Christianity... not theistic creation... and it doesn't even get one that..."* Again, you need to support these claims. It seems to get to Christianity and, a fortiori, Theism ("theistic creation") to me by abduction. *"There it should start, then. Craig and his ilk, vehemently exclude what they presuppose as a starting point."* Huh? In the argumentation, God's existence is not presupposed; otherwise, Craig would be a presuppositional apologist. I doubt, then, that you would have any qualms with his arguments; rather, his arguments conclude to a transcendent creator and, in the case of the Historicity Argument, the God of Christianity. *"Natural theism or arguing for generic deities has long been condemned as heresy."* If you are talking about natural theology, when you say natural theism, then so what? If you mean to say that Craig is trying to prove a generic deity, then that is false and your claim that he does, then, needs support. *"It leads to indifferentism."* Not necessarily, no. I came to Christianity through classical apologetics, by the grace of God. I've now, because of classical apologetics, by God's grace, been a believing Christian about 10 years. Again, then, we need support for this claim. *"The culture of the western world today is its fruit. It digs the hole that it claims it is attempting to get out of deeper."* I don't see that as being true. This claim will need to be supported as well. *"I've had classical apologists tell me that my monotheism needs to be rethought on their terms. From the bottom up, lol!"* I'm not going to claim that that is true, but it does seem to me to be true. The presuppositional apologist just uses bad philosophy to inform his worldview while trying to avoid using philosophy at all, in my opinion. Again, I'm not claiming that this is true. I'm just saying that I don't share your derision of the idea. *"In my view, whether one concludes a Platonic or Judeo/Christian view from evidence, or innately presupposes one or the other, this entails a hierarchical shift to a top down view of being and thus one's argumentation."* "Top down view of being"? Classical apologists believe in top down causation. I guess I don't get your point here. If, by this, you mean to say that one type of apologetics concludes to God the other starts with it, then you are just making a distinction between classical and presuppositional apologetics. That seems to be what the conversation is already about. It isn't a novel idea. After all, if there were no difference then, as earlier, Craig would be a presuppositional apologist and, therefore, fall in line with your apologetic methodology. Could you clarify this point? *"These arguments ( Naturalistic ) buttress atheists in their atheism."* Again, I'm not going to comment on claims like this except to ask for evidence supporting them. *"These arguments - Thomism - are why western Europe is for all intents and purposes atheist, and why the US is increasingly secular and basically atheist/indifferent, as well. And how you get Vatican II and Pachamama..."* This is a huge claim that needs some evidence in support of it. Furthermore, at least part of this claim is just false. The arguments are not "Thomism" or Thomistic. William Lane Craig even has a Q&A article on this. He says this in that article: "The arguments, while drawing upon metaphysical concepts and insights which appear in various systems (concepts and insights many of which have become generally or at least widely accepted), are independent of those systems in which these concepts may have been initially enunciated." www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/are-my-theistic-arguments-dependent-upon-a-metaphysical-system/ *"Seems to me you are wrong... Craig claims a strict separation between apologetics and theology. He adamantly claims he is NOT doing theology in his naturalistic philosophy. So, it is not applied" all the time " in the strict sense by his own words."* I don't see where he claims a "strict separation between apologetics and theology". He only claims that in doing one, that does not imply that one is doing the other. That doesn't mean that the apologetics are not informed by theology, which he elsewhere claims to be the case but I don't care to go hunting for the quotation. His theology is applied all the time. That doesn't imply that when he drives his car, or does apologetics, he is doing theology, whether or not those actions are informed by his theology. That seems to be the error in your thinking here.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

I hope and pray that one day James White would stop his overly sarcastic and uncharitable conduct. Let me illustrate 1. He doesn’t even respond to Craig until the 13 minute mark and in the meantime he mocks and accuses Craig of never having read original resources. This is a serious problem with the apologia crowd, because they will accuse someone of being ignorant simply on the basis that there’s a criticism to their view. 2. Let’s suppose for a moment that Craig has never read Van Till’s books. Craig is responding to a specific argument from Sye Ten Bruggencate, who I would argue is the worst example of apologetics that we have, but that aside, Craig is responding to Sye. If you make an argument, I can offer a response based on the argument itself, I don’t need to have an exhaustive knowledge of the system by which the persons question rests upon. It can help, but it doesn’t invalidate the refutation. Apologia church falls into this fallacy a lot and quite frankly it’s annoying and not helpful to anyone, it only builds up the pride of the Apologia crowd. 3. Mocking Eric by saying this is theology 101 is incredibly uncharitable and demonstrates that you don’t listen. I used to be presuppositional, but it is truly not a helpful apologetic method. This video is a wonderful example of it. But even though I have read Van Till and Bahnsen, the pressups are going to accuse me of ignorance of the method because I’m giving criticism. William Lane Craig, though I don’t agree with everything he believes, is a much better and more respectful apologist than James White and Apologia church and for that reason he is more in line with 1 Peter 3:15 than apologia church

[@BugattianVeyronian]

The irony is that, you brought up 1 Peter 3:15 yet you don't agree with presuppositional apologetics which was utilized by Peter to explain the flood in 1 Peter 3:18-22. I would imagine that WLC would take the historical or philosophical approach if asked about Noah's flood and Gilgamesh flood. There is only difference between evangelism and apologetics for evidentialists but to presuppositionalists, the two are the same and that is why the apostles never define the differences and they did both in their epistles. This is Paul's writing and he is a presuppositionalist. 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 1 And I, when I came to you, brothers,[a] did not come proclaiming to you the testimony[b] of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3 And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4 and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5 so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men[c] but in the power of God. 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 The epistle to the Hebrews is an apologetic epistle but observe how the author started the epistle and pay attention to his arguments throughout the whole document. In fact, presuppositionalism can be summarized with a verse in Hebrews - By faith, we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible (12:3), it was never by observable evidence.

[@andrewdavidson8167]

The reason I bring up 1 Peter 3:15 is to highlight the last part of the verse. Pressups will usually tell people to focus on the first part of the verse which says to sanctify the Lord in your heart as holy. I’m saying pay attention to the whole verse which would require us to respond to questions with kindness. James White and Apologia studios, including Sye Ten Bruggencate, are often not kind in their responses. But your comment about 1 Peter 3:15 illustrates another problem with the pressup view that ultimately led me to leave the apologetic. You say 1 Peter 3:15 is essentially a pressup verse correct? Putting aside the fact that the Greek word apologia means to give a legal defense which would require the presentation of evidences, the burden of proof is on you to prove that this verse is explicitly pressupositional. Simply because a verse says something pressups agree with, doesn’t mean that the verse is exclusively held by the followers of Van Till and Bahnsen. Basically what I’m saying with that last point is that pressups make claims but never prove their claim to be true. So many non circular Christian’s sanctify Christ in their heart

[@andrewdavidson8167]

I agree with you that evangelism and apologetics is interconnected. No dispute there. However that does not mean you are automatically pressup. I personally would identify myself as classical with a hint of reformed epistemology and yet I can fully affirm the connection between evangelism and apologetics. BECAUSE THE TEXT DOESNT MANDATE PRESSUP APOLOGETICS

[@andrewdavidson8167]

Here is the last problem I have with pressupositional apologetics illustrated in your usage of those verses. Those verses do not require pressupositional apologetics, because none of those verses lays out the TAG argument that is central to your apologetic. An evidentialist can fully affirm what Paul says in those verses, they just believe that there are good reasons to believe Christ rose from the dead and to deny the resurrection has to be done in spite of the evidence. Again, you illustrated a simple problem which I already highlighted. You claimed those verses are pressupositional. Yet you never showed from the text how those verses requires Van Tills Epistemology. But I guess that makes sense since pressups fight against evidence. So if you want to prove that scripture is pressupositional, then you need to do a few things 1. Show in scripture that the TAG argument is the central argument in scripture 2. Demonstrate how evidentialists would and have had denied what Paul teaches in the passages you referred too 3. Show how the word apologia in scripture would not require evidences being presented to non believers

[@BugattianVeyronian]

@@andrewdavidson8167 There is no need for me to prove anything for the Greek term "apologia". I am asking if any evidentialists were asked of Noah's flood, would they explain it the same way Peter did in vv18-22. I am pretty sure they will not. TAG argument can't be any more obvious when we examine the starting point of Paul's (again 1 Cor. 1-2), Peter's (throughout his epistles), Apollos' (Acts 18:26-28) and the writer of Hebrews' (Heb. 1 and throughout the who book) arguments. All of them started their argument from Christ/the Scripture. Presup is known to argue from top to bottom while evidential from bottom to top and the apostles never attempted to reason their ways up with the non-believers/their opponents. This is even more evident when we look at how Paul gave all his testimonies in Acts. Regardless what the Jewish leaders and the Roman government believe about Paul and Jesus, Paul started his testomonies with Christ and the crucifixion. Evidentialist would use the exact opposite ways. The best way to prove the gospel is by showing the Jews signs and the Greek wisdom. As simple as that.

[@HumanAction1]

WLC has specifically said he will not debate other Christians because he's not interested in creating division, like you guys are.

[@aduenamz2569]

White vs Graig NOW!!!

[@davejohnson9462]

I've always wished James White would debate Craig in person. Bagging on other Christian defendeders isn't cool. It's why this vid has so few views. There are many ways to present the gospel.

[@acolytes777]

Problem is that evidentialists tend to be arrogant with presupp hence don't want to debate

[@sonofnun1917]

Craig refuses to debate him. White has offered to debate Craig on many subjects, but WLC won't do it.

[@option-sh9yd]

@@sonofnun1917 really? Where did you read that and ill be sure to send craig a letter on why he doesnt want to, its so unlike craig.....no you sound like one of those guys who keep trying to get ravi with the raviwatch.com type of stuff

[@sonofnun1917]

@@option-sh9yd JW has said it many times over the years that Craig refuses to debate him on any subject. One example is found here between the 5:30-6:30 minute mark (kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4CsgnVjbNCoj68) BTW, listen to the whole segment about WLC (from 0-25min mark). I know JW can have a harsh tone, but notice that he's criticizing the *ideas* being put forth, not WLC as a person. JW makes clear in that video that WLC won't debate him. There are 2 reasons. 1) In general, WLC won't debate any christian. I watched a video of him talking about the discussion with Catholic Bishop Robert Barron. WLC said that he doesn't like to debate catholics or christians because he feels it isn't fruitful and leads to division. 2) However, even if WLC regularly debated other christians, I highly doubt WLC would have any interest in debating James White. WLC appears to really not agree with reformed theology, and is not a fan of James White at all. I think WLC doesn't really even want to give JW any acknowledgement or time of day. Which is sad, because I think it would be very telling to have WLC debate James White. Also, please don't misunderstand me. I don't think we should "bag" or "bash" on fellow christian brothers themselves, but we should challenge the ideas of each other and make sure they are biblical. I'm a big fan of WLC and RZ. But I don't agree with that Raviwatch or any other stupid conspiracy sites. What I think we all should be doing is calling each other out when the *ideas* of that person (not the person themselves) are problematic or otherwise cannot be supported by exegesis of scripture. (Obviously if the person is sinning, then call them out, but that's not what I'm talking about here). I used to be completely in line with WLC's thinking, but after years and years of using his apologetic, and listening to his theology, I've recognized that his theology of molonism isn't grounded in scripture, it's grounded in philosophy. Again, don't misunderstand me. I still consider WLC a brother in christ. But the power is in the proclamation of the gospel. Yes all of his arguments and evidences are helpful and can be useful, but ultimately our conversations should focus on the gospel. Expose people's sins by walking them through the 10 commandments, then proclaim the gospel. As the video I linked to shows, it's completely backwards to undercut scripture when it is the only thing that we have on earth that is breath-out by God.

[@brianmgrim]

Dave Johnson: It could be that ‘thinking is hard hence so few participate’ is another possibility for why this vid has so few views. And it looks like you got your wish for a debate between JW and WC.

[@illinoisgospelfan650]

Presuppositionalism-antidisestablishmentarianism-expialidocious!! wtf kind of word is that?

[@timottes334]

P1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2) The universe began to exist C) Therefore, Jesus is God incarnate, was born of a virgin, was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died, and rose from the dead after three days. Ummm, non sequiter, and this is Christian apologetics???????????? Ummm, and WLC is some kind of philosophical heavyweight?

[@danglingondivineladders3994]

@Nicholas Kayban that is his point though. it should be.

[@solomonherskowitz]

So you actually don't think there's such a thing as a real atheist

[@oracleoftroy]

Correct. Romans 1, "what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them" but "by their unrighteousness suppress the truth".

[@a7432music]

This is disgusting. This isn't just a disagreement with someone's views but White is outright mocking and denigrating Craig with no semblance of respect.

[@EssenceofPureFlavor]

It's especially bad because WLC would never do that to him. Everything White points to of WLC supposedly being a jerk is more confusion than anything else. But White makes it personal. He's arrogant and puffed up. And doesn't have anything to back it either, since he's 10 times stupider than WLC.

[@dennistakashima2449]

@@EssenceofPureFlavor your language shows a nature of being puffed up and arrogant. WLC is not a humble man (in the context of his intelligence, which is very much vast and respectable). He let's his apologetics guide his interpretation of Scripture. It should be reverse.

[@EssenceofPureFlavor]

@@dennistakashima2449 No. You're completely, 100% wrong.

[@dennistakashima2449]

@@EssenceofPureFlavor 😂 if u say so.👍 God bless.

[@gavin_hill]

@CaptainShea What's disgusting is WLC who is clearly arguing that proclaiming that Jesus is the truth, and without him you cannot account for truth. Is an incorrect method of apologetic reasoning. Dr James White rightly calls out WLC for his incoherent approach to scripture and his wishy washy dance to appease atheistic frameworks. WLC thinks that you can provide reason to an unreasonable person, without Christ. WLC is on record saying that you dont need to consider the Virgin Birth to come to Christ. He is on record saying that he is not arguing for the God of Christianity but merely a monotheistic framework from evidence. Do not just suppose that Dr James White is here to divide, WLC is rightly recieving the reward for his labour; love from the world for him not condemning them in unrighteousness and elevating them to the position of Judge over God. And reprehension from a sound biblical stand point. Acts 17:23

[@emanuelswords877]

That was hilarious

[@KBrimstone]

I find James White and those who think like him deeply dissuasive. I wonder if their worldview lends to a noxious form of communication.

[@lukehumphrey7517]

That's actually one of the main points of the video: he's not concerned with being persuasive but trying to proclaim the truth.

[@KBrimstone]

@Jacob Kutschke Why not both?

[@KBrimstone]

@Jacob Kutschke Why do you have to be noxious?

[@KBrimstone]

@@lukehumphrey7517 Why not both?

[@joehinojosa24]

I was HOPING WE WERE ALL ON THE SAME SIDE, AGAINST ATHEISTS

[@ipsizm9265]

you and Sye would last about thirty seconds discussing anything of philosophical import.

[@brannicon]

Typical approach of James White to interject ad hominem attacks instead of sticking to critiquing the arguments or comments themselves. White is such a pompous arrogant snot. Not all Calvinists are for Presup Apologetics, but those who are tend to be the unbiblical extreme type that make God the author of sin and appeal to mystery when they encounter a contradiction. This smacks of Gnosticism on so many levels. Such foolish nonsense!

[@oracleoftroy]

Yeah, he should have learned how to interject ad hominem attacks from you! _"pompous arrogant snot"_ - Good one.

[@brannicon]

@@oracleoftroy Your criticism is out of contest my friend. I wasn't addressing an argument made by him or you. I was merely stating what is apparent about White's behavior. If I was challenged with an argument or proposition that I didn't agree with and instead of giving a reasoned response and merely resorted to name calling you would be correct to cal me out, but that simply isn't the case here.

[@brannicon]

@@oracleoftroy By the way, this is in fact what White does so often... Instead of just addressing the argument he has to also resort to ad hominem attacks. I've also seen where he tried the old "poison the well" tactic before a debate with someone where right before the the day of the debate he'll post a criticism of his opponent to get people to think of his opponent in a negative light. He acts more like a conman than a theologian.

[@timottes334]

Lol, the entire paragraph was an attack upon person, lol!!

[@duanehensley8835]

@@timottes334 If you are trying to imply that I'm merely doing what I am criticizing James White for you would be mistaken. You apparently do not understand argumentation and how the laws of Logic apply. Ad hominem attacks are logically fallacious arguments used to refute an opponents ARGUMENT, "poison the well" so to speak, and typically appealed to when that person doesn't have a good counter argument to their opponent's. In my case I'm not making any kind of argument against any specific argument that James White is making. I was merely giving an overall, general critique about James White's awful, unchristian like behavior. Huge difference! According to you, no one can criticize anyone for using ad hominem attacks because that in and of itself would be an ad hominem attack. That's silly and irrational. That type of stance is not at all in the context of what an Ad hominem is? You sound like a James White fanboy.