How to Answer the Fool

I like Sye but the logic is a little cheesy.

It comes across as arrogant to use the problem of justified belief to insert your presupposition.

Christ and the apostles did not use logical sophistry, they just declared people's sin.
 
I like Sye but the logic is a little cheesy.

Explain. Ground level can seem a little basic to those who are used to Frame, Bahnsen, or Van Til...but it's functional.

It comes across as arrogant to use the problem of justified belief to insert your presupposition.

It comes across as arguing for the opposition when you don't believe the basics of the Bible.

Christ and the apostles did not use logical sophistry, they just declared people's sin.

Christ had no need to "use" anything. He knew. One would assume the apostles wandering about raising the dead, curing disease, ect had something similar.

We have God's Word and the promise that it will not return void.
 
And his opening statement is exactly what I based my paper upon. All Theology must begin with who God is, His nature and character which is Immutable. He hooked my right off the start and now I will listen to the rest of the video to see where he goes with his opening statement and premise.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also I'm with him with God being on trial as a wrong apologetic and the evidence. God is self evident as we know from many places especially Romans 1. God is a fact and doesn't need proof or evidence since its clearly to be seen by Creation which SCREAMS God exists and is the Creator of everything we know and see around us.

And I have all those apologetic books he referenced in the video. So I'm rethinking my aoplogtics with unbelievers, agnostics/atheists ( an oxymoron) according to Gods truth in His word. :)
 
It's not a difficult re-think. It's simply believe the Bible and cede no ground too the atheist/agnostic at all. "Middle ground" does not exist. By all means be gentle about it but there is no "but I could be wrong".

Evidential apologetics are for believers to teach and build up. Not unbelievers.
 
And his opening statement is exactly what I based my paper upon. All Theology must begin with who God is, His nature and character which is Immutable. He hooked my right off the start and now I will listen to the rest of the video to see where he goes with his opening statement and premise.

Calvinism at its worst..... Close to half way through he downplays the preaching of the Gospel imparting knowledge to mankind. He appeals to regeneration convincing man of the need of the Gospel. Utter rubbish.
 

The video is an oxymoron. It appeals to giving an answer through teaching fools yet denies that answers can be known through that self same teaching.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Explain. Ground level can seem a little basic to those who are used to Frame, Bahnsen, or Van Til...but it's functional.

I see it as the pride of intellect that we want to figure out how to prove God with logic.

Instead humbling ourselves as children and being dependent.

Revelation alone brings truth, and it offends us that effort and cleverness and logic just can't get to it.

Everyone in the Bible had a direct experience of and with God, and spoke from that—and Scripture promises us that same revelation.


However, Sye can be funny and make a good point once in awhile.

This is my favorite debate of his:

 
I see it as the pride of intellect that we want to figure out how to prove God with logic.

Nothing needs be proved. It's known. And God is logical.

Instead humbling ourselves as children and being dependent.

Horseradishes...even if we could comprehend how prideful we still are we'd be off the mark. This is just virtue signaling. Our life, ability, and breath are all dependant upon God. As is our intellect. We are commanded to Love God with that intellect.

Revelation alone brings truth, and it offends us that effort and cleverness and logic just can't get to it.

More horseradish. Truth is truth. Truth exists without "revelation". God exists with no need to reveal Himself. Special revelation is needed for man to apprehend God. That sort of revelation is given by God but the ability to comprehend it is already there. Natural man simply refuses to acknowledge God. Indeed he cannot acknowledge God.

Everyone in the Bible had a direct experience of and with God, and spoke from that—and Scripture promises us that same revelation.

Eh...you sure you are reading the Bible? I can point too several thousand folks at once who had direct experience with God and had no idea what so ever regarding the fact. In fact most of the "experience of God" in the Bible is men haring after things that are decidedly not God. Romans 1 would agree.

However, Sye can be funny and make a good point once in awhile.

This is my favorite debate of his:

I enjoy his humor as well.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top Bottom