I like this man, i have been a postmillennialist a little after my conversion and was thought to be silly. I saw this when i did not know any eschatology, i said this to a brother in Christ, saying it seems the gospel is going to win the nations, i believe this is scriptura teaches .
When living under the myth of Neutrality as the Church did during Sprouls lifetime I could understand why Sproul held this position. If Sproul was brought up in this generation I think he would see why his concerns were only valid in his immediate context. In 2024/2025 we can now all see Presuppositional approach is necessary and superior when handled appropriately but not necessarily in isolation. Negative World demands a Presup response. Modern Atheists are also anti-intellectual so they too must be addressed with Pre-sup.
If you can't be neutral then you're clearly not being HONEST. I agree that Christians now NEED this dishonest rhetoric because you recognise you can't provide even the tinniest scrap of credible evidence.
the source of all intelligibility is actually the quantum field, i cannot be wrong about this as the quantum field doesn't have a mind and therefore cannot deceive me, it permeates the universe, so information goes direct to my brain via the wave function of the universe, and you are misinterpreting this as god as you are an irrational theist, you know i'm right, and you are suppressing the truth cos all you want is the comfort of heaven. presup is childish "i have god on my side i can;t be wrong cos god told me so and god can't lie" it always sounds tome like presup want to bring back the inquisition cos they haven't the guts to be outright psychopaths who burn folks alive.
sdfdewfw Satan mounted a largely successful campaign to deceive believers into thinking that we are at a time when the prophecies written in the first few chapters of the book of Revelation are about to be fulfilled. That deception has led many to believe that the Second Coming is imminent. It results from cutting out the 1000 Year Kingdom (Revelation 20:1-6) and pasting it (mentally) someplace after the Great White Throne Judgment. That deception is a lie supported by changing the order of scripture. In truth, the 1000 Year Kingdom is history. We are living in the final few years of the Short Season that follows it. Most of the prophecies written in the book of Revelation have already been fulfilled. In scripture, we are at Revelation 20:7 and 2nd Esdras 11:32. Analysis, proofs, dates, and timelines at my YT channel.
I like the background to this video: Sproul holds 1 book - the Bible, and Bahnsen is sitting in front of a bookcase full of books. It is kind of irroneous reversal considering their apologetic methodologies.
Not quite. That's a misrepresentation. Was there one point from Bahnsen which you would say summarised his position, which I might share some imput on?
@@nickjones5435 yeah, presuppositionalism never actually defends its claims, its focus is only on what the non-believer can't do, and desperately tries to keep any dissenter on the defensive. It's a disingenuous manipulation tactic. It doesn't concern itself with convincing anyone of anything, hence it's essentially malicious.
Pretrib. Hi friends I have videos for you on Bible Prophecy and the End Times. Please consider going to Papa Joe Fortner or Shockwaves of the End Times or The Watchmen Series with Papa Joe. Thank you and God bless you 🙏
not postmil Revelation 3:10 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. Tereo ek tay-reh'-o Verb NAS Word Usage - Total: 71 1. to attend to carefully, take care of a. to guard b. metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is c. to observe d. to reserve: to undergo something Ek ek Preposition NAS Word Usage - Total: 62 1. out of, from, by, away from harpazō 1) to seize, carry off by force 2) to seize on, claim for one' s self eagerly 3) to snatch out or away
not Postmillennial Revelation 3:10 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. Tereo ek tay-reh'-o Verb NAS Word Usage - Total: 71 1. to attend to carefully, take care of a. to guard b. metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is c. to observe d. to reserve: to undergo something Ek ek Preposition NAS Word Usage - Total: 62 1. out of, from, by, away from harpazō 1) to seize, carry off by force 2) to seize on, claim for one' s self eagerly 3) to snatch out or away
not Postmillennial Revelation 3:10 10 Since you have kept my command to endure patiently, I will also keep you from the hour of trial that is going to come on the whole world to test the inhabitants of the earth. Tereo ek tay-reh'-o Verb NAS Word Usage - Total: 71 1. to attend to carefully, take care of a. to guard b. metaph. to keep, one in the state in which he is c. to observe d. to reserve: to undergo something Ek ek Preposition NAS Word Usage - Total: 62 1. out of, from, by, away from harpazō 1) to seize, carry off by force 2) to seize on, claim for one' s self eagerly 3) to snatch out or away
“Revelation 20 knows nothing of a political dominion of the church over the earth during this millennial age of the great commission. That expectation is a delusion of the prophets of theonomic postmillennialism, who, in their impatience with the way through the wilderness, have succumbed to carnal cravings for worldly power. It is revealing that in order to defend their false forecasts they find it necessary to scorn as losers those whom the Scriptures honor as overcomers, indeed as “more than conquerors” (cf. Rom 8:35-37), the martyr-witnesses who overcome Satan “because of the blood of the Lamb, and because of the word of their testimony, and they loved not their life unto death” (Rev 12:11). One cannot but be appalled at the railing of certain of these reconstructionist postmillenarians against the Holy Spirit’s soteric ministry thus far in the church age. What has been in the eyes of heaven a triumphant working of the Spirit of Christ, effecting the salvation of all God’s elect in every nation and every generation without fail, a sovereign fulfilling of the good pleasure of God’s will to the praise of his grace-this is dismissed by the pundits of this postmillennialist cult as dismal failure and a history of defeat. Nothing betrays more clearly than this blasphemous contempt for the gospel triumphs of the Spirit how alien to biblical Christianity is the ideology of theonomic reconstructionism.” - Meredith Kline, Glory in Our Midst, p.53-54
Bahnsen made it clear in this debate that presup is strong when it comes to arguing for God, but weak when it comes to arguing for the Bible/Christianity, since it is at that point that he turns to an internal critique of *each* alternative, rather than of all of them at once. This leaves the possibility that he's missed one, which scuppers the claim of certainty, which is the whole appeal of presup. I would prefer if we all could get along and use all of the arguments at our disposal, but unfortunately a main feature of presuppositionalism is the insistence that it's the only correct method.
thats because theres no amount of evidence that can change an atheist mind because no matter what, theres someone out there that has an opposite claim. It boils down to the fact that we cant prove christ rose from the dead because we werent there. No amount of evidence will be good enough to change their minds but if you make them realize that they are fools and that they cant make sense of the world without borrowing from the christian world view, thats powerful. You are just playing into their hand and wasting time arguing about evidence. You said you would prefer we “ get along”. I dont think debating is exactly going to war with each other and its rather dramatic to pretend theres some kind of battle between sides.
@@mattverville9227You claim no amount of evidence can change an atheists mind. That's just patently wrong isn't it? I will GLADLY change my mind with ONE TINY SCRAP of credible evidence. Isn't the problem the obvious fact that you can't even do THAT trivial task?
The hole in Brother Bahnsen's argument against the premillenial view is that he overlooks the timescale of "a day with the Lord is a thousand years" which would make the last "day" one thousand years long at the beginning of which "day" Christ returns and resurrects his saints, during which Christ reigns with His resurrected saints, and at tbe end of which He resurrects and judges the unregenerate dead.
@@toolegittoquit_001 i would be interested to see some reasons for your rejection of the inference that a day in God's timeline for earth is 1000 years
I'm curious as to why someone would gravitate toward presuppositionalism. It's not convincing, but but also Bahnsen says only the holy Spirit can convince anyone. So why even use it as an argument? It's just a set of assertions.
because evidence only gets you to the point of probability. Evidence only takes you so far because they will always have a counter point to make. It will never be enough. Presup allows you to show the non believer that he cant even make sense of the world without God. He cant have science, morals, logic, or reasoning. Presup leaves the atheist as a fool and its also biblical way of handling it. Evidentuary leaves God out of the equation
@@mattverville9227I can make sense of all of those things matt. In contrast I don't think you Christians can. You certainly can't justify your asinine claims of Christian morality can you?
@@steevineer Not true. I held to the presuppositional method for over ten years. It has not failed me yet. I use what Scripture tells me to expose the unbeliever’s presuppositions and hatred of God. Trust what the Bible tells you, whether you’re talking to a believer or unbeliever.
At 1:33:17 Sproul says maybe the world doesn’t make sense… my question would be then how can he expect others to make sense of his statement.? He means for his statement to make sense, but what must already be true in order for him to even make that statement? It’s a self refuting statement.
The speaker left out the Great White Throne Judgment comes before the New Heaven, New Earth, New Jerusalem. He called the 1000 years - a gap. It is not a gap but a period of time. Jesus returns in Revelation 19 - then the 1000 years - then one last rebellion (btw, the bible does not say Jesus is "rescued" as the speaker says, Jesus does not need to be "rescued") - then resurrection of the remaining dead, at which time this present heaven and earth are destroyed (Revelation 20:11) - to stand before the Great White Throne Judgment. Ezekiel 39 provides the infallible framework for the end times events. Gog/Magog(v1-16)- then the 7 years - then Armageddon (v17-20) - then Jesus Himself speaking in the text of Ezekiel 39:21-29 having returned to this present earth. I have over 50 years of intense end times bible study.
Re Sproul: Definition of Fideism - a view of religious belief that holds that faith must be held without the use of reason or even against reason. Faith does not need reason. Faith creates its own justification.
Thanks for the debate: Sproul is much more full of Calvin, Bahnsen is much more full of the Scripture .. Sproul seems to be more gracious and gentle ...
A funny, loving, kind, thoughtful man. All that knew him loved him (non Christians included). His wife committed adultery and remarried, and he still deeply loved her.
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...) Sproul should have learned presuppositional apologetics from Bahnsen and utilized it.
yea i agree. When i was trying to find the truth i was looking up debates all the time. I used to look up all the great evidence apolegetics (even rc debates) and i was always intrigued but the skeptic side of me always had a major 60/40 doubt one way or the other. It wasnt until i found presup that actually answered most of my doubts. Its definitely the way to do it in my opinion.
thats unfortunate. To most atheist its the opposite. Your not going to go to the college professor and tell him the evidence you have for the resurrection and have him become a christian. Hes going to listen, go home and research the other point of view and listen to the counter point. He will be left with 50/50 probability at best. classic approach leaves the unbeliever with probability and presup allows the unbeliever to realize he cant make sense of the world with out borrowing from the christians world view
What a grifter this Bahnsen was. At least the other guy was sort of honest. Almost like a foreshadowing of current day emotional based self-entitled "the louder the truer" identity ways.
I see nothing in Rev. 20 that talks about an apostsy taking place at the end. 1 Thessalonians talks about an apostasy that takes place in regard to the revealing of the man of lawlessness which was a 1st century fulfillment. If Jesus is coming back for a spotless bride, it makes no sense that there will be a great apostsy taking place as this would not be representative of a spotless undefiled church.
I used to think so as well and have pondered that statement for about a year. I’m writing a paper on the possibility of certainty right now, actually. To ask the question, “are we in a leaky bucket?” Presupposes that we are not in a leaky bucket because it’s a question seeking an answer. The answer is either true or not true, and truth is absolute, which means it is certain. To question it is to imply what is being argued against.
@@Marco3131-i am beginning to wonder if “are you certain of your uncertainty,” can be answered with an logically consistent “Yes” if it’s specified “about what.” For example- sitting in a train right next to another train and one of them begins to slowly move- it’s impossible to tell which of the trains are being to move. Are you certain about your uncertainty…. About which train is moving? YES! Now can I be certain of my uncertainty that I am not a brain in a vat being stimulated to experience reality like the Matrix? Yes!! I am certain of this uncertainty because it is very difficult to prove incorrect; I could be living in the literal matrix and still identify as a presuppositionalist.
Ok, so here’s the thing about what Bahnsen is saying. He uses skepticism to undermine reason and logic without God. He says he has proven God through the impossibility of the contrary. Is it not possible that reason and logic are just non-existent? I think what RC said about reasonable doubt makes sense. Skepticism is always an option, imo, but that doesn’t make it a reasonable option. One could accept the TAG, reject God, and therefore reject everything that follows from the TAG. Now, you could say this requires that they not argue their case to Christians, which would be true, but I don’t think even this would establish the kind of absolute certainty he seems to want to hold RC to. One could, in theory, also say that the TAG relies on induction. The fact we haven’t discovered other foundations for reason, logic, morality, etc doesn’t certainly establish no other foundation exists. It just establishes it beyond any reasonable doubt.
_"Is it not possible that reason and logic are just non-existent?"_ I'd like to see the argument for that, one that presumably doesn't require reason and logic to prove reason and logic don't exist. The thing some people miss is that Presuppositionalism isn't a completely different thing to evidentialism, rather it is more foundational. Where two people share presuppositions about how evidences and facts are acquired and utilized, it's fine in presuppositional apologetics to argue evidence based on those shared presuppositions. But what happens when they don't share the same presuppositions? That's why Bahnsen is taking a skeptics approach, to point out that there needs to be an apologetic that can address the skeptic as Presuppositionalism proports to. _"One could accept the TAG, reject God, and therefore reject everything that follows from the TAG."_ I'm not sure what this looks like beyond a bare sentence that is expressible in English. Is this really possible? How? It seems to me that one would immediately run into glaring contradictions once they tried realizing this claim that are non-trivial to work out. Not the least of which is that you are accepting the Transcendental Argument _for God_ (TAG) and then immediately rejecting God. If you mean non-Christians can argue transcendentally, sure. Can they do so consistently without running into internal contradictions, I'm not so sure. _"One could, in theory, also say that the TAG relies on induction. The fact we haven’t discovered other foundations for reason, logic, morality, etc doesn’t certainly establish no other foundation exists. It just establishes it beyond any reasonable doubt."_ I agree that this particular claim of Bahnsen's seems more inductive rather than deductive, but I don't think that TAG has to rely on this particular claim. Still, to his point, it's hard to imagine a non-Christian worldview that accounts for and comports with our human experience and reality without just being Christianity with different labels.
I wish we had heard him answer about the Quran. One of my big questions about the presup approach is what to do with other purported revelation from God
As I see it, the Quran is incoherent, contradicting known facts, and contradicting the Bible, and the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ far outshines Mohammed ... The other religions are also incoherent or ineffective in providing a holistic answer to life. Christianity fits real life. Buddhism eg does not.
Bahnsen actually has teachings on all the other religions. He doesnt really use the same method. He basically just points out the flaws in other religions and they dont make sense. Cant remember what his case against islam was but his classes are on apologia studios website under bahnsen university
Pressups usually (unintentionally) abandon pressup method, when it comes to others faiths. They usually point out shady origin of Quran or questionable laws in it, or perhaps use internal critic to decrease validity of such book. Which is strange to me, because if you can judge Quran by evidence and reasons alon, why you can't do the same for Bible?
There is no such thing as “natural theology” their is “natural revelation” but nature does not teach theology in and of itself, God may and does teach of Himself through nature but nature on its own does not teach about God, which is “theology”. Take a savage out of nature and ask him about God and see just how much he can tell you about YHWH.
WHAT an absurd, ridiculous baseless assertion. Did you really just claim god revealed himself through nature? Did you just pull that absurd claim put of your posterior? Do you know how silly that makes you sound?
I'm a Catholic, but surprisingly find myself persuaded that Bahnsen's presupp is the better approach even tho Sproul's tends to "borrow" more from certain Catholic tradition. Ultimately I think it is best to be all things to all people. Some may find evidentialism convincing, others will need a deeper conversion of their founding beliefs. Some will say one is superior to the other but I say only in the context of the soul you are approaching. That said, presuppositonalism has gone to the wayside somewhat since this debate, I'd say it should be given a greater place in the toolbox. Imho.
isn't catholicism just organised crime dressed up in gold drag? has the pope stopped apologising for all the abuse? i have to say it's great that the pope has finally pointed out god's error about homosexuality and okayed gay marriage, nice to see religion finally catching up with real morality, and good of the religists to admit god was wrong. maybe in a few years it'll l be so watered down religion will be invisible. what did they do with the space left by limbo being abolished? ballroom? casino?
it is amazing to listen to your assumed biblical logic and to believe that this logic proves that the post-trib. view is any more decisively taught than the pre-trib. view. Because you have swallowed the red pill you interject your thought process into all these verses. The pre-trib. view does the exact same things with the exact same logic for their position. You make sweeping personal biased conclusions concerning what Christ was thinking that are not in the texts. They are in the text according to your dot connecting but they are not in the texts according to the pre-mill. view. The bible tells you stuff it does not tell others. The textual information that is actually written down by the Spirit can be just as linguistically and logically believed to be true by the pre-trib. believers. Just because you believe something is true doesn't actually make it true. You guys are all over the place finding what you believe is the next verse to substantiate your belief. When the pre-trib. person does the exact same thing using his logically connected verses you consider him wrong. Both camps use the same verses to teach differing outcomes based on personal subjective understandings of these various bible verses. Question does this mean that someone is probably a little more correct than someone else? I think the answer is obvious. You simply don't know---you believe that you know because you find your truth under and in your dot connecting verses just like the pre-trib. folks do. At the end of the day a person just has to look at all the assumed evidence and chose what makes the most sense. I am a Calvinist because it makes the most sense to me and answers more questions than the other views. Same with this doctrine. The post-mill. view leaves me with too many questions that it doesn't answer for me. Could I be wrong---absolutely but it has absolutely no effect on my walk and when you say it does affect your walk, I think you have a spiritual problem with intellectual honesty. The great thing is that when we all get to heaven what a day of rejoicing it will be and we will not know anything about this human controversy. If you happen to be right your sanctified being will have no memory of our human failings and neither of us will utter a sinful "I told you so". We are childish and spiritually immature here but not there.
So I guess we should just throw up our hands and say “I guess God failed the Church; all this is so unclear, no one can know.” Got it 👍🏻. Believe what you’re convinced of and post-mils will believe what they’re convinced of from the scriptures. You sound a little self-righteous to chastise someone who has blessed the Church in more ways you might ever hope, simply because he happens to believe the Scriptures teach post-mill. You don’t like, believe it, or believe God is incapable of clarity in His Word? Fine. Perhaps you should go take up your complaint up with Him since it’s so unclear to you and not others.
I have never heard any pre-trib. teacher teach what you say is the pre-trib. view concerning the dead going one place and the living going somewhere else. You have already made several untrue statements and suppositions in your first 3 or 4 minutes. When you start making statements about what Christ thought are you kidding? You have no idea what Christ thought about this because if we knew there would not be any controversy here. You have a bias just like the other folks and not you find post-trib. imaginings under every bush. Your logic and bible verse connections are no better than those of the pre-trib. view. The truth is that the bible teaches "you" something that it does not teach others. You have the audacity to believe that the Holy Spirit is giving you the truth and not giving the truth to others who disagree with you. I understand why you believe your understanding of this doctrine. I have read all the stuff and listened to all the sermons [more or less obviously]. I follow your dot connections and your personal ideas and concepts about what you believe concerning biblical history and as you weave your narrative and supply your rightly divided understanding you come up with what you believe is biblical evidence that supports your position. The problem is that many folks find your logic and biblical dot connections unconvincing. There are dozens of holes in your logical conclusions that are so real to you but are not real to others. Intellectual honesty finds the better part of wisdom admitting that bottom line we have differences here. And to correct you about one thing you said as a pre-trib. believer, I will not have a problem working with you are any other balanced believer here. As a Calvinist I understand the non and anti-Calvinist and realize that we are both on the same road. It is more likely that he will reject me, but I will walk with him if he allows me to. [ I realize this speaker is with the Lord now].
As a calvinistic post-trib believer, while we may disagree with some topics, I simply wanted to say that I agree with you on the last part of what you said and wanted to express my appreciation for you making that clarification. Many need to learn to have this kind of grace towards others. Bless you.
@@nickjones5435 its not circular and it does have evidence of God because of the impossibility of the contrary. Good try though. Nobody is neutral. Your not coming from a neutral point of view either. Everyone comes into the debate with a presupposition
@mattverville9227 Errr yeah it certainly is circular and so can be dismissed out of hand .....and laughed at. But since you claim the impossibility of the contrary, please present credible evidence that it's impossible, for your god to not exist rather than a baseless assertion.
A key issue with pressup apologetics has to do with what some man asked Bahsen at 1:16:22. He asked Greg how is that an ARGUMENT and notice the silence that follows. Greg got stuck. And that’s precisely where the main difference lies.
I would disagree. The pause wasnt cause Bahnsen was stumped. He seemed to be turning to Aristotle there. The Transcendental argument is an indirect argument. It isnt the normal way people conceive how an argument is articulated.
@@benb412 I agree. Some questions that seem to demand a direct answer have unfortunate assumptions or other baggage that need to be unpacked before addressing them.
I don't get how Bahnsen is "stumped" because he took a few seconds to collect his thoughts before answering the question. I get the pause, it's so obvious that it is an argument that you really have to wonder where the person is coming from that they don't seem to know what an argument is in the first place, like after demonstrating why Einstein's equations for the speed of light work only for someone to ask, "but how do you know 1 + 1 == 2?". It's hard to come up with a clear answer to an abstract concept for someone who doesn't get the fundamentals and to do so respectfully and in a way that benefits everyone in the audience. Bahnsen gave a fairly neutral and easy to grasp example from history to illustrate how it's been used in the past that ought to show anyone who knows what an argument is why presuppositionalism is indeed an argument.
