Does Presup Apologetics Have a Biblical Foundation? Mike Winger vs Sye Ten Bruggencate
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 09. 2024
- Sye Ten Bruggencate is a well known proponent of a certain style of evangelism called "Presuppostional Apologetics" which tends to discount all other forms of apologetics. I (Mike Winger) think that this method seems to go against biblical teaching and examples. Listen as the two of us talk through the issues.
Link to Sye's movie "How to Answer the Fool" - • How To Answer The Fool...
Link to Mike's critique of presuppositional apologetics - • A Biblical Objection t...
Link to Sye's CZcams channel - / proofthatgodexists
If you are watching this and wondering about where I stand on this issue please see my original video where I analyzed presup bibically. It's not as exciting as an exchange with Sye but it will hopefully clarify. czcams.com/video/6MovatsIoDU/video.html
Dude you got destroyed in this debate and you're logically inconsistent with what you say about people having sufficient enough knowledge of God for there condemnation yet they don't know that God exists that makes absolutely no sense...
Are you willing to discuss the Clarkian presupp?
I'd like to discuss the Clarkian presupp.
What does it consist of?
@@anticalvinist4803 I want to know if Mike wants to discuss it
I'd like to.
Tell me about Clarkian presupp.
Mike, I admire your willingness to debate/ discuss this on a live stream. I believe you were gracious and willing to admit that 'you are nee to this apologetics work' but I think you did a grand job defending your position.
I was amused when at one point, Sye was using
some very deep philosophical terms, you looked perplexed, laughed and said something like "I literally have no idea what you just said!!". I appreciated that you were honest and real enough to admit that. I think you did an excellent job, and Lord Willing, will continue to grow in this area. May the Lord continue to use you to help so many us 'out here' who are hungry for the solid meat of the Word of YAHWEH.
A great example of Humbleness
"I'd rather have messy evangelism than none." Fantastic quote!
A beautiful display of how two Christians *should* disagree. God bless you both.
Exactly!
Hey Mike, kudos for your patience here. I wouldnt have had the patience to sit through a conversation with Sye. He doesnt seem to care what people have to say. He listens to respond, not to understand anothers perspective. You, on the other hand, display so much wisdom admist confrontation! I enjoy listening to you stand against opposition while maintaining peaceful speech and conduct. So thanks Mike :) Ive been enjoying your channel lately and I want to thank you for your hard work and study, as well as upholding Gods Word. God is using you in spectacular ways and its awesome to watch this channel grow :)
I thought Sye's interaction was very respectful.
I listen to Sye, James White, Jeff Durbin, MacArthur, Paul Washer, David Platt, John Piper, Frank Turek, Matt Slick and you Mike. I love you all! God bless!
Kyle Heck yeah brother! Jeff Durbin is one of my favorites, he's the guy that got me really wanting to learn apologetics and start doing street ministry. It's been such a rewarding experience so far, praise God! Know most of the other guys too but thanks for a few new names to check out.
Kyle Mike "vs" James White, now that would be something. I put "" around vs cuz we are all one the same side and its just good and fun.
banzaiduck definitely I'd like to see that one too!
do you listen to Christ and the Holy Spirit? are you being taught by them? do you search the scriptures to see if the things they say are true and more importantly are they telling you to search the scriptures to not just believe what they say. Acts 17:11 should be everybody's hallmark
psalm kydland as christians we should all know that the holy spirit is teaching us. John 16:13. Scriptures are clear about the elect its in rome1 efesian 1, 1cor 1and2. And if you want to listen to jesus john 6, Where people gets so angry when jesus explains election they walk away from him.
Cant speak for the others but James,Jeff and mike are solid pastors and would not hesitate to encourage you to look up scriptures.
If every apologist purely took on a presupposition approach, I’m not sure I’d be a Christian today (at least not yet). I was once an atheist, but evidential apologists have made far more of an impact on my walk. However, I do believe there’s a time and place for both approaches. It just depends on the nature of the person you’re witnessing to and the flow of the conversation. That’s where I appreciated Mike’s attitude in this video. He clearly took a side, but it looks to me that he was still engaging and open to the other side. Sye took a side and closed his mind off completely to the other side. Nonetheless, excellent points from BOTH Sye and Mike!
You came to faith because of God, not because of the type of apologetics used. And I’m grateful He called you into his kingdom.
@@darrellshoup and that is exactly what I thought. Who cares what type of apologetics you use, if we say we are saved only by the Grace of God, my preference of how I share the Gospel has absolutely nothing to do with it. 🤔
Wow...just wow. Mike, I think you handled this conversation respectfully and graciously and were able to stick to topic with almost superhero strength. Now I see why you don't like debates, but in my opinion you won this one and ARE consistent. Thank you for all the hard work. Way to represent 👍
Mike, I loved the video. Seeing two Christians work through a disagreement is refreshing. Keep up the good work. I'm actually on Sye's side of the aisle here. However, I thoroughly enjoy your transparency and content.
I also totally agree with this, it took alot of humility to admit he didn't fully understand.
Mike, I watched and participated in this debate, and I just wanted to let you know that I think you did a great job, and really appreciate you taking this on. I know you don't have a huge following compared to some "big name" preachers and apologists, but I have to say, without intent of flattery, that you are probably my favorite bible teacher, because of your heart to be faithful to what the scripture really teaches, your logic, reasonableness, and approach to all of this. I found your retoric in this debate to be far more faithful to the texts presented, and more consistant, than Sye on this issue. Keep up the great work brother.
Chris Bucklin I completely agree with everything you said - even though I'm not an expert on this subject.
Agreed. Grateful to have found his channel. I'm learning much!
I don't know if you know anything about Chuck Missler or koinonia house ministries but Mike seems to me to have a similar anointing which in my view is awesome. brother Missler recently went to be present with the Lord but left a wealth of material behind.
Chris Bucklin
Very true!
I do watch his video everyday from the time I watch his video about the variant manuscript if I remembered right...
Here's an idea - use the best of BOTH apologetic methods. I simply do not understand why the "presupp" method and the "evidential" method have to be in conflict with each other. People may disagree, but the whole point of apologetics is to be able to proclaim the gospel. WLC is completely wrong when he wants to separate apologetics from theology. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing through the word of God proclaimed. The whole point in talking to someone about God isn't to have a philosophical discussion, rather it is to PROCLAIM THE GOSPEL.
The method that I use is a hybrid of the two that can adapt based on the hostility of the person with whom I am speaking. Ray Comfort is a good example of this. He is able to sense the level of hostility with the person who he is speaking with. If they are militant, then you can go the route that sye uses in his video. But if they are willing to have a conversation, then you don't need to be so abrasive, but instead simply ask "do you believe in objective truth"? Then show that the only way that we have objective truth is through the bible. Then use the evidences showing that the Bible is not like some history book from barnes and noble, but instead revelation from God. Then quickly transition to proclamation of the gospel. Remember, it is NOT my argumentation that will make someone a believer, bur rather it is the Holy Spirit who gives a person a heart of flesh and removes their heart of stone.
Of course, this method demands the highest view of scripture - which sadly - many people do not hold.
The conflict is that with the evidentiary methodology, you ascent to the unbelievers assertion that they do not believe. Scripture says all know God so they are without excuse. When someone says, I don't believe, give me evidence, they are asking you to pretend that they really don't believe, something you know they do. Then they ask you to present evidence which they may use their reason to judge. The very reason they do not have without a biblical worldview.
Literal Word That’s interesting. So your advice is to turn off our brains and not think too hard. That’s when people get into trouble. Interesting advice.
@@schulenburgstudio I am not offering any advice although you accuse me of doing so twice. I was answering a question as to how one methodology could be seen in conflict with another. But since you bring up the topic of using our brains, in general, by what authority do you consider your reasoning valid?
@@literalword8443 Let me just say I do not have a problem with Jesus. I have a problem with presuppositional apologetics and illogical thinking. It seemed like you were echoing Sye’s claim that people should not try to reason about God. Don’t make yourself the judge. Don’t think about it too much. Just accept it. In answer to your question I would say I make no claim to a higher authority to consider my reasoning valid, yet it is all I have to go on. I have to make it through life making decisions and I make them to the best of my ability.
You name yourself "Literal Word" so guess it goes without saying you believe in the literal word of the Bible. It comes from God. God’s word is eternal. His morality is absolute. No moral relativism, that’s for atheists. God says what he means and means what he says. Listening to Sye I’m pretty sure that is what he believes. PA is based on presupposing the truth of the Bible. Absolute truth.
Here is a quote:
Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
This is a direct quote from God. Because I know you believe in the absolute truth of the Bible I have to assume you agree with God’s word here. If some states decide they are entitled to states rights and they once again legalize slavery, it would not be against the law. It would be okay. And if people beat their slaves with a rod it would be okay, as long as they slave does not die within a day or two. You can beat him or her within an inch of their life as long as they don’t die. Well noted.
That’s your belief. That is not mine. I decided for myself that I do not agree with this philosophy. You can claim a higher power gives you the authority to have a slave and beat him. (you don’t have to try to claim you do or don’t agree, I already know you defer to the word of God) I have used my own personal power of thought and reason to decide I will not accept this philosophy.
And it’s not a matter of Old Testament/New Testament. God’s word is absolute and never changing. No moral relativism. This is just one example of why PA is problematic. Oh wait... you say you "cannot use evidentiary methodology, because you ascent to the unbelievers assertion that they do not believe." So I guess you can just forget everything I just wrote. Or you can fill me in on why I am off base.
@@schulenburgstudio Perfect, thank you for your response. You claim you do not appeal to a higher authority and that your reasoning is morally relative. I would also guess you do not believe in absolute truth from your comments but do not wish to put words in your mouth. Is all of that correct?
It sounds to me like Sye is saying to the unbeliever, “you know God exists, you know who he is, now admit it!” That’s not apologetics at all and it isn’t evangelism.
Wrong, he is not saying that to the unbeliever, he is reasoning as if it is true (which it is biblically); he is acknowledging that the point of contact with the unbeliever is that both he and the unbeliever are created in God's image, only that the unbeliever is suppressing knowledge of God's nature etc. It is a good place to start a discussion, on common ground.
Don't worry, the unbelievers are okay with the hell that apologists in the 1st/2nd century created to intimidate morons.
What Sye seems to miss here is that when Scripture says all men know God exists, it's not because of some presupposition. It's because the evidence of God is seen throughout nature so that they are without excuse. This isn't something that argues for presuppositionalism, it argues for evidentialism, and the evidence for God is so obvious through nature, itself, that no one has an excuse for denying God exists, at the end of the day.
Yup we presuppose what the Bible tells about God's general revelation is true.
He’s not missing that at all.
Sye's view is heavily flawed, he needs to just take a step back and see that his view does not accord with scripture at all.
Absolutely loved this! I wish more Christians would have conversations like this, "you will know my disciples by the love they have for one another". I am hoping Mike Winger gives himself some time to reflect on this and give his commentary. Personally, I lean more towards what Sye was saying. However, Mike has pastored me towards truth faithfully for a while now, he has God's fingerprints all over him and I'm immensely grateful for his clarity in thinking and handling of scripture. I do agree that at first Sye can be abrasive but that's a GOOD thing!!! Sometimes pruning can feel bad but it's necessary.
Before you plant the seed you have to break the soil in some way, it will look kinda dirty with all the worms and bugs but it has to be done, one plants, one waters, and God gives the increase. Amen
Hmm. I say: Everybody knows that christianity is a fictional story. Before we even talk further you cant know anything without giving up christianity wich is a false worldview.
Mike: *breathes*
Sye: Let me tell you why you’re wrong.
((Jokes aside, this was an interesting debate, and you guys became pretty respectful))
Sye is right
Christian apologetics is a great method of loving God with all of your mind. In my personal experience apologetics has expanded my mental capacity which is greatly edifying.
@@sespotlhaselo9315Sye is not right. He's a broken, malicious twat.
I think Sye was trying to argue just to argue. He was being intentionally confrontational just for the sake of being confrontational, and never really had a point. His point was always nothing more than "you're wrong, and I'm going to hammer you with questions, but I'm not gonna give a stance of my own."
@@markwildt5728 that's exactly what presuppositionalism is about. It's an inherently disingenuous approach that has nothing to do with civil discourse. It's a malicious manipulation tactic employed by emotionally stunted, fragile people who refuse to accept criticism.
Sounds more like a methodology to defend Calvinism not the Gospel.
Pressup is hard to understand yet so simple at its base. I used to be an evidentialist till I truly understood pressup. Never been more certain in my faith. It’s the atomic bomb to truth suppressors. Love you both. Sye’s method honors Jesus best.
Amen to that Sye really shows how to never forfeit God’s authority to folly ideology.
I would argue that it doesn’t honor Jesus best because it relies on the fallacious idea of circular reasoning. If we believe Christ is logical, then to accept fallacious reasoning as valid isn’t honoring Christ
Hmm. Psye never gives any reason as to why we should believe the bible or christianity is true. He just says what he believes to be true without convincing anyone outside christianity
Presuppositionalism is. Awful. What if I told you that you don't believe in Christianity at all, you're just suppressing the truth out of fear?
Would that not be incredibly disingenuous? Well, that's what presuppositionalism does.
I think Presuppositional Apologetics is biblical, but it's not useful. I wouldn't prescribe it. In every interaction I've seen it being used, it falls flat on its face and often pushes a skeptic further into the trenches of their position. By all means, use a Kantian or Transcendental Argument in a debate, but please don't lead with the line "deep down, you know for a fact that God exists." That's the quickest way to shut somebody down.
The Bible talks a lot about God saying choose, choose, choose. So God asks an unbeliever to choose, but the person cannot choose? By grace through faith!
Here's how I know that Sye is wrong about the evidential method:
I wouldn't now be a born again Christian without it. Though a series of awesome experiences I came to believe in God, but the Christian God? No. I fought internally against that for a long time due to bad personal experience and, because of that, a belief in the mass amount of polemics against Christianity. Without Mike and people like him a lot of us would still be lost.
I understand but at the same time if you are basing the reason why you believe because of evidence then you have made yourself the judge, the scriptures say we suppress the knowledge of God or truth by our unrighteousness. So that’s why there isn’t an excuse for all men. People don’t go to hell for not knowing Jesus, people go to hell for their sins of the God they’ve sinned against. That’s the argument.
@flawedandbeautiful4166 And therein what you said, you proved Sye right and yourself wrong according to scripture, because scripture says that a person believes because God, by His grace, has given it to them to believe - not because of evidential apologetics that a human being uses, because then your salvation isn’t salvation as it would be from man rather than God.
Sye would say (because it’s what The Bible says,) that you have to start with God: that God saved you by the power of His Spirit through using men to tell you evidential apologetics, not that you were saved by evidential apologetics.
P.S. That’s👆🏽not to say that you’re not saved - I don’t know if you are or aren’t. It’s just to say that you’re not correct in saying it was evidential apologetics that saved you because if you (or anyone) are saved, it was God who saved you. So you need to correct that according to scripture (use scripture to correct yourself to it) in your belief system and the way you say it.
PPS. I also understand that your comment was from 4 years ago, so you might have already corrected yourself (or really God Himself may have corrected you since then since He reveals truth to correct us from our error) as I said above.
Still watching through this, but I think you nailed it right there @1:19:00 when you said that a probabilistic argument doesn't mean that one is saying God is probabilistic. Sye seems to think that, and I think that is the disconnect, like you said. In my view, who cares if someone gives the unbeliever an evidential or classical argument, if that's the thing that persuades him to read the Bible and ultimately come to faith.
That’s what part of the argument Sye made, that if evidence can persuade someone that Christ is real, then evidence can also do dissuade that Christ doesn’t exist.
I'm Reformed, but Sye appears more committed to his own logic and the Reformed system than to Scripture. Mike, I appreciate your humility and gentleness. Sye, take a lesson from your younger counterpart here.
"I don't know ... aaaand it wouldn't stop me." Right on, Mike. Right on.
I am a presuppositionalist but I believe that there is place for evidentialism when you are engaging with people who believe in a false god.
I was hoping to guess your name, but there are so many options; what a riddle. Sye definitely supports presup as a foundation to a more complete apologetic. Seems that Sye is doing solely presup in order to complete the total apologetic of the present Body Of Christ, so he is supplementing the lack of presup that we see out there. Just my thoughts anyway.
Did the presup argument convince you?
If not, do you use it with non-believers? If so, do you expect it to convince us?
If your intent is not to convince others with it, why use it?
@@JMUDoc are you a professing atheist?
@@MyNameMeansGiftFromGod Yes.
I am also an atheist, though I doubt you can be convinced of that.
@@JMUDoc for some reason I cannot respond in full. Please read comments section (not this thread) for my reply.
In Acts 17 in Athens Paul encounters the "unknown god". He then exposes the false suppressed god of the Greeks and unpacks and reveals the true God. Paul presupposes God theoughout. Look I totally agree with Sye. I was an evidentialist for a long time until I met Sye personally and talked with him. He was so gracious. Evidentialism was a very frustrating endeavour that often led to a stalemate. "Your evidence against mine". When evidence's are used as the foundation as to whether God exists you're essentially putting God on trial. The fallen sinful creature becomes the final determiner as to His existence. But according to the bible God is presupposes. The creation, miracles, etc. merely give witness to the reality of God's existence.
Exactly. Which is why if we start the conversation with "what is truth", then we can show that the atheistic position is silly. No need to be hostile about it. The focus should be proclamation of the gospel, not debate over the sufficiency of the evidence.
Son of Nun
AMEN!!! Evidences only leads to probabilities. But if truth is relative, as the atheist assumes, then the whole endeavor of evidentialism is a waste of time. He has no foundation for truth on which to argue anything. And that's the problem with evidentialism apologetics. It never gets to the foundational issues of life. The Gospel takes a backseat is never shared and God is not glorified. Why? Because the focal point is the wisdom of man, through evidence, NOT God through his eternal son Jesus Christ!!!
This is like the “Baptism required for salvation” debate. My own personal experience tells me Mike is right. I FIRST found the prophets to be true. That required weeks and weeks of work. Then I went through a process of seeking God earnestly in my heart and when I truly accepted Him into my life I could feel His indwelling. Evidential apologetics is so remarkably important.
Sye doesn't make much sense to me. Was he saying that a Christian should never be open to evidence changing their mind about God? And if science is included in the knowledge and reasoning that we can't have without God, as he mentioned near the beginning, does that mean non-believers can't do science? 😕
Ty for pointing this out. Yes people can reason without God. But sye would say those "non believers" know God exists they just suppress it. So they can still do science because they "know" God exists. Personally I would listen to what people believe instead of telling them what they believe
He was directly implying you aren't saved if you hold that belief, he literally implied Mike wasn't saved and it was absurd. I know I'm saved and like Mike I agree if Jesus bones were found then obviously Christianity isn't true, and by Syes words that means I'm not a Christian. it was ridiculous
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is not an isolated fact. The reason why Jesus rose from the dead was to show that Jesus finished paying sin's penalty.
I’m personally not a fan of Sye. His presup method absolves Him from actually articulating his position and of extensive study for those who topic so he just ignores them and sticks to this circular routine he has of saying the same thing
Seems to me presup only works on other Christians. "We start with the idea that The Bible is true and God exists and that proves that the Bible is true and God exists!" Imagine talking with a Scientologist: "We start with the knowledge that Scientology is true and work from there. We know YOU believe in Scientology, it's just that you suppress that reality." Or a Mormon who believes "the book of Mormon is the word of God. And we know you believe it, you just aren't admitting you do. Because it's real!" The Book of Mormon tells us it's real!" Why should anyone outside of that faith be convinced by these arguments? Sye actually tells people they are not to judge God, quoting from the Bible. He is saying not to think to hard about it. Don't use your reasoning. Just accept what we are saying because you know that's it's true. Unfortunately that's what Scientologists say, and Mormons, and Moonies, and Jehovah's Witnesses and on and on... Just follow. Don't ask questions.
I agree with Sye that all truth and ability to reason comes from God. Where I disagree is that we can't be used by God through the sharing of evidence in order to demonstrate his truth. Jesus seemed to care about evidence while still declaring that the Father does his work in the heart of individual.
Plain reading of scripture shows that Mike's view is correct. Sye reads his view into scripture. It's similar to what Calvinists do with scriptures that invite people to repent and believe. Calvinists deny that it is even possible because their theological framework does not allow it. In their view, no one can hear the call and believe. Sye's framework does not allow scripture to teach an evidence based apologetical method even though it's clear in the plain reading. He also uses false piety to bolster his argument.
Im pretty sure I understand the entire issue here after 1:23:54.... Mr. Winger is having the same issue that I was having the first time I was listening to "How to Answer the Fool" - this is an amazing Apologetic and also mind boggling. But what I began to realize the more I listened to Sye's debates and the "Fool" video is that I, myself, might be having an issue with just belief in scripture ALONE. If this introduction to Presup has done anything for me its RADICALLY deepened my love for scripture and THE GOD EVERYONE knows exists... Since running across Sye I have found more awesome men like Jeff Durban & James White who have challenged my thinking on "what I've always thought." I don't EVER want to close myself off to opportunities to increase wisdom BUT I am very guarded after a horrific church split in 2013. SO I WOULD JUST END WITH - if what Sye is saying sounds weird how about examine YOURSELF! Not because Im choosing sides but because we should all examine ourselves FIRST... AND Mr. Winger you are a true Gentleman and seem very humble and I APPRECIATE THAT! :-)
casey desocarraz a point mike made was that it seems sye was forcing his presup views on the text. Saying eve wasn’t deceived and making other assumptions that didn’t seem to follow scripture. Scripture says no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. Though it’s evident that God exists. Salvation comes from faith in Jesus Christ. There’s no way of knowing that without having it preached to you or I guess these days by reading the new covenant. Like Paul said faith comes by hearing. And Jesus said my people parish for lack of knowledge. He didn’t say they parish because they have the knowledge but suppress the truth in unrighteousness. No they don’t have the knowledge because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. And don’t get me wrong there’s a lot of things I agree with in the “how to answer a fool” movie. But I just Love What Paul says in Corinthians how he didn’t come to them with lofty words and impressive speech. He resolved to know nothing except Christ Crucified, and demonstrated the Spirits power so that their faith would not be in man’s wisdom but the power of God. This of course is paraphrased see 1 Corinthians 2 for actual verse.... I’m just hearing a lot of fancy words and confusing word games and Paul says that there is simplicity in Christ.
I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ
2 Corinthians 11:3
Strange that the verse I was looking for about the simplicity of Christ also brings up Eve again.
Lol it’s funny that I came back to this comment years later and saw I commented. This was around the time when I was first introduced to presup and couldn’t really wrap my head around it, but I definitely agree more with Sye now. I guess I was having the same issue.
@@calebbasile2219 funny that I somehow missed this comment from 2 years ago and just saw it tonight! You know I find that mind bending gets harder as you get older lol 😂 at 45 I still have to bend my mind! I can say that there have been passages that I’ve read in the past that I never really got what I would consider a solid answer that “flowed” with my old belief system... I analyze everything and I get worse as I get older but words like predestined, foreordained, chosen, elect, those words never got explained to me in a way that made sense with “we make the choice” how can you decide up against all these words? I heard a lot of lengthy explanations. I just thought that it couldn’t be that complicated? Well turns out it wasn’t lol
I also know that our church split because you had to 2 choices to make. 1. Put your Bible down and believe the preacher 2. Pick up your Bible and believe it. Hard to swallow the very fact that you can’t trust your PREACHER???? Scared me to my core... so that being said, hearing people say read the words and form your walk with God instead of take your opinion and pick scripture to back it made so much sense to me. I’ve taken that approach to the best of my ability ever since and it’s been sobering to realize how much of my beliefs were actually based on my opinion and NOT the Word! I’m just thankful that the Lord’s SOVEREIGN hand was upon me and not my own.. I’m glad that Gods will is accomplished without my help lol I’ve learned that I don’t want to be in charge... AT ALL!
The issue I had with his method in the fool video is that he said he refused to discuss scripture with someone who didn’t accept God as the basis for truth.
I don't understand Sye's logic here...He seems to think that because everyone is condemned (without excuse), that there's no point in talking to them about if God is true. He seems to think that if there is an absolute truth, then we don't have to bother talking about if it's true, but there are people who deny that thing, so do we just walk away and assume God isn't interested in them?
The point of the police man showing his badge is to give the person confidence that the policeman is a policeman. Sure it's epistemically true that he *is* a policeman, but the point of apologetics is to defend truth, which the policeman does when he shows his badge
great discussion. I agree with Sye, if Mike became a presup apologist he'd be a great one. get well soon Mike!
having used to going to a Calvary chapel they are very anti-Calvinist and in answer to Sye's question yes if Mike became a Calvinist he would be asked to leave. first hand experience those of us who are reformed are quiet about it.
in fact I remember one time talking to one of my brothers after a Wednesday evening service we got to talking about Brian Boderson and his apostasy Calvinism came up and he stated using the term "evil Calvinists" I chuckled a bit and informed him I'm one of those people. we still have love for one another.
most often though the most vocal of Calvinists are usually hyper-Calvinists. Now those guys are nasty. maybe Mike could cover that in the future. those of us who are reformed are often misrepresented sadly.
Mike have you seen the Steve Tassi, James White debate from a few years ago?
Adam:
Knowing Calvary chapels are very anti-Calvinist makes me want to check them out!
I assumed they were Calvinist.
Adam Boyd calvinism is heresy
@@GODHATESADOPTION care to back up your assertion?
Hi Mike! I've enjoyed your videos quite a bit since finding your channel...
Regarding Eve being deceived; the serpent deceived Eve by reshaping the argument away from the commandment of God to focus solely on the consequence of breaking God's single law. Eve was not deceived on what God had commanded, she told the serpent what God had commanded, and the serpent did not challenge God's commandment. Rather, the serpent focused on the penalty, she was deceived into thinking the penalty for breaking God's law was something other than death... In her case, that she would be like God.
I don't know if this is any different than most sinners even today. It's not always the moral law itself being questioned; it's often the penalties for breaking these laws that are most often assaulted.
"In her case, that she would be like God."....knowing good and evil, not simply "like God".
I'm presuppositional in my apologetic. I actually have zero problem showing the consistency of the fulfilled prophecies because they are in fact Scripture.
Outside of supposed Messianic prophecies that could be argued to have retroactively been fitted to Jesus’ life, what prophecies of the Hebrew Prophets in the Ne’evim do you think are impressive, and why? Also, is there any way we can know they are truly prediction and not post-diction by textual evidence alone? Thanks.
Why do you need to show supposed consistency when you already believe it’s there?
@@ManoverSuperman sure, because the majority of the OT prophecies regarding the Messiah are not understood until the revelation given in the NT.
They are all impressive because of the hundreds of years between them. If you aren't impressed, then you are confused.
@@streetsdisciple0014 Hmm. Could this be aliens and not a god?
Could it be aliens that created the bible?
Very interesting debate. Mike and Sye presented their arguments robustly, treating each other with cordiality and respect.
Mike seems to get a lot of compliments for being a nice guy. For being patient, gentle, good listener friendly etc. These are all great quality and evidences of the fruit of the spirit! However, lets keep in mind that if Mike is the nicer guy and Sye is more aggressive or a "bully" this has nothing to do with whether or not what they are saying is true. Sye could be impatient at times, not a good listener or whatever and everything he says could still be true. I just know that for some people, they get easily swayed and convinced because of the person themselves and how they speak rather than the truth of the arguments and scriptures being presented. Don't be deceived by the smooth talkings of men.
Apologia:
Does Jesus love the nonelect goats?
Apologia5 You are a very objective thinker, only if most people would realize this.
The fruit of thd spirit isove, joy, peace, patience...
Hmmmm You will know them by their fruit. I guess what that really means isnt fruit but correct systematic theology?
@@danielcartwright8868 - apparently Sye reads this - "The fruit of the spirit is Authority, sound doctrine and systematic theology.....seems like he is overlooking something important.
Eve was deceived as to the penalty of disobeying God. She was not deceived concerning God's existence.
Mike Winger is a nice guy, some Reformed folks can learn from him lol btw.. I am Reformed myself.
Yes, Mike is a good man and a good witness.
And wrong on this issue
Vincent Lancon True that.
Faith is definitely not a work. Everyone has faith, but we all have to decide where to place our faith. When Sye says it is a work he is going against scripture. There are many passages about the differences between faith and works. You also take away man's responsibility for his own sin when you say his decisions are all determined by God.
Vince and BC:
Does Jesus love the goats He creates?
Do either of you love anyone personally, regardless of their status as a goat or sheep?
Here are some questions for Sye: if everyone knows/knew the (same) God of Abraham, then what was the purpose of showing the miracle that He did, and He even went so far as making it physically as difficult as possible, in order that they recognize His power?
So why doesn't Sye believe that sending Missionaries is a work, Sye?
Isn't thinking we are doing something in order to be saved the point that works was taught against?
When the crowds were increasing, he began to say, "This generation is an evil generation. It seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.
Luke 11:29 ESV
must be because they already know God exist....
Kudos to Mike for his grace and patience with Sye. Like Sye mentioned, I do agree that he gets a little to caught up in the argument, which is easy to do.
Brian Stevens said it well: ”I'd love to hear a presupper for Islam argue against a Christian presupper.”
Rocio what about a Christian evidentialist vs. Islam evidentialist?
IndependentAbolitionist that’s the thing, you can’t find a Classical Islam apologist because truth is truth weather you believe it or not so they have no case. That’s the problem with presup.
Fndr R but GOD says in Romans 1 that they know HIM and they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. That is why I know that we must use “presup” if we are ever to effectively reason with others. Presup causes their whole base of knowledge and truth to fall.
@@ThereforeGo - I think there are merits to using a presup approach and would have no problem "agreeing to disagree". My issue is that most presups will not give that and turn it into a Gospel/Salvation issue. We are to treat each other with charity and grace above all. If this issue was worth dividing it seems like it would be addressed outside of a few select verses indirectly. Notice how regularly we are instructed in how we treat believers - yet we are supposed to disregard this because of 1 disputed verse?
@@ThereforeGo - Galations 5: 1
"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."
How can Sye , being a calvinist, say “If evidence lead you in, it can lead you out” if God ordained you to be saved , you cannot get out even if you where saved throught this classical/evidentialistic method
As I watched this I think Sye is a really great example of a perfectly good mind being limited by the bounds of Calvinism and PreSuppositionalism. It is kind of sad. Presuppositionalism really defeats the purpose of even trying to engage non-elect, and seems to confirm the Calvinism in his pride in a man-made philosophy.
J 336 you have no reason for saying that because you made no argument.
@@b-manz neither did you.
Epistemic Certainty: “I know to a valid and reliable standard which is justified” vs “I believe with psychological certainties strong emotional confidence”
And what exactly is a _"valid and reliable standard" for justifying the proposition "God exists"?
The point in the fall is this:
God said you will die if you eat. Satan said you will not die if you eat. So we have two contradictory propositions that exclude each other.
Before the fall Eve was in everything wholly dependent on God. When she began to consider the two statements she distant herself from the dependecy. She 'stepped' back from the dependence and reasoned outside of God (she doubted Gods word). She began to reason autonomously. The fall took place here.
And yet everything the Serpent said became objectively true. They didn’t die “in the day” they ate, and they did “become like God, knowing good and evil.” The divine voice itself confesses this in the same chapter! Genesis 3 with the Christian interpretation is a farce; other interpretations make it thought-provoking and instructive.
@@ManoverSuperman
No, that is not true. Some things the serpents said were true, others weren’t.
The point I made was this: Eve had two propositions before her and she made herself the judge to decide which proposition was actually true. Instead, she should have taken Gods word as it was, believing Him no matter what. But she made God a potential liar. That was the fall.
Adam and Eve did die that day, not physically, but spiritually. After the act, nothing was as before. Everything changed.
We acknowledge the qualitative difference between God and us. Therefore, we cannot take everyhing in an univocal sense. We rather hold to an analogy, where the creator-creature distinction is always respected. We have never hold that men become ontologically like God, as you suggested, which is absurd in theology
"God said you will die if you eat. Satan said you will not die if you eat."
The serpent said that; the idea that the serpent was also Satan is dubious, at best.
Also, did they die? No. Thus, the serpent told the truth, and Yahweh did not.
"He meant they would die _spiritually_"? Prove it. Because the Bible says "die", not "die in spirit".
@@JMUDoc Wow. With this exegesis you basically make God a liar. Incredible.
@@Gisbertus_Voetius "Wow. With this exegesis you basically make God a liar. Incredible."
Only "incredible" if you come in with the assumption that Yahweh cannot lie.
I can't help it if the plain text paints him as a liar, and bending over backwards to come up with a way to make him the honest one is the less reasonable path, IMO.
When you mentioned Romans 1 and Psalm 19 about creations echoing proof that there is God, i wanted to shout, “Yes, Amen!” They are without excuse!
The Romans passage stands on the obvious existence of GOD and gives support for GOD's Condemnation for the unbeliever, not Salvation. It shows that GOD is just to send these to the abyss.
🤔 It is interesting that in Psalm 19 we also find the phrase ...
"Keep back your servant also from presumptuous sins;
let them not have dominion over me!
Then I shall be blameless,"
Romans is wrong. I don't know god exists. I'm telling you I don't.
@@dutchchatham1 You cannot believe unless God grants you belief/faith/repentance. I cannot force that on you. No one can. We can profess the glory of God and that he created everything in existence, and my prayer is that you come to a saving faith through Christ Jesus. However I cannot force you to believe, nor should I try. Most importantly, I pray that God’s will be done.
@@Kyle-vb3fz Very good. I'll wait to see what happens. How long should I wait before I get to conclude that god doesn't exist? Certainly you're not framing this as a completely unfalsifiable claim right?
@@dutchchatham1You are free to conclude that now if you want. I cannot force you to feel or believe any certain way.
If Sye is right, doesn't that mean that we shouldn't practice any form of apologetics including presuppositional apologetics? Why would we if everyone already knows the answers to their questions about God?
Cole Perkins Romans 1 is God’s general revelation not the gospel (special revelation). The general revelation of God applies to everyone. But the gospel must be heard.
@@CaldwellApologetics Which Gospel?
will haynes The gospel of Jesus Christ
@@CaldwellApologetics The Gospel that Jesus preached that was only for the lost house of Israel?
will haynes Jesus Christ’s public ministry was limited to Israel according to Matthew 15:24 and other passages; however, the gospel was for the entire world according to Matthew 28:18-20 and other passages. Christ fulfilled the Tanakh prophecies by first preaching to his kinsmen. The apostles fulfilled prophecy by taking the gospel to the whole world.
As an atheist, and former reformed calvinist, it's fun sometimes to listen to these debates. Sye really shows his biblical illiteracy and dishonesty in debates like this. Even if he was right, I would leave and go listen to another christian because he acts like such a condescending jerk.
The question Sye posed, would this brother "lose his job if he became a Calvinist?" Since he works for Calvary Chapel - the answer is with he would have to - resign or they would dismiss him!
I think it is silly to attack evidential methods when it is FACT that some have come to faith in this way. J. Warner Wallace comes to mind. He used his skill set as a detective to proof the scriptures true evidentially and came to faith in Jesus Christ. I think he is rocking the apologetics world with his methods and perspective.
Agreed, and that kind of objective evidence is likeliest to use on actually rational unbelievers (assuming some of them are).
We the people:
You must be one of the worst writers on CZcams. I've read three of your comments and don't understand any of them.
WTP
I'm saying that you must be an awful writer if neither I nor Mr. Mabe can even understand you.
You may be the noblest anti-Calvinist I've ever met, but I have no idea what you're even talking about -- which is strange.
God brings them to faith, and he can use a bent arrow to strike a strait blow.
Wow, the resurrection doesn’t prove Jesus is God! Why does he think it doesn’t? Mike good job knocking that out the park. Atheist have accepted that. Sy is lying. Many atheists came to Christ because of the resurrection
I'm not gonna lie- this kinda stressed me out!🤣 As always, I'm amazed at your biblical knowledge and humility
I've watched Sye evangelize and I've seen him debate and I honestly don't like his style AT ALL. It always seems to try to win an argument rather than win a soul. He tries to expose an atheist has a circular reasoning (without recognizing the circular reasoning in his own presuppositions). He'll refuse to debate because his opponent supposedly admits they can't know anything for certain. If I were an atheist, I would be completely turned off by this.
Mike, I appreciate your conversation here. I have heard different viewpoints on presuppositional apologetics, as well as different methods of going about it, than simply what Sye is presenting. The form of Presuppositional Apologetics I learned is, recognizing that everyone has presuppositions or worldviews through which they see reality, and that you want to help them see that their presuppositions don't match up with the way things are and that the Bible and Biblical Christianity does. Would you be willing to give your feedback about this? Thanks.
I actually like that kind of presuppositonal apologetics. It’s something I hope to learn to do better and better.
@@MikeWinger Thanks for your feedback. I have personally found that form of the presuppositional method helpful in my own life as well.
@@MikeWinger Isnt it true that humans use fictional stories to understand reality? Like human rights or christianity?
Sye: "I mean, Jesus did that, but I wouldn't..."
Haha. He was just being honest. Sye certainly does not think more highly of himself than he should. I can tell, Sye is hoping to inspire apologists better than himself.
I find Psy to be dishonest. He cant admit that we all can be wrong. He can be wrong about christianity being true. But I think human psychology plays a big role here. Namely status within a group. When Psye says that he starts with the god of the bible it doesnt matter whether its true or not. Its about the outrageous positon and that he gains respect and status from his piers. We all do this.
Actually, even though RC Sproul did that Bahnsen debate, you can actually hear Sproul using presuppositional apologetics when he was on BAM, the Bible Answer Man. He took a phone call from an atheist who was saying that Christians can't account for dignity. Sproul said to him, "you're trying to tell me that we evolved from non-life and you're trying to argue about dignity. I don't think so. Your bases for human dignity is ultimately founded on nothing!"
I had a difficult time with the tone of your guest. You were great, as usual.
This was a great discussion. I really enjoyed it. I'm not a Calvinist in any way shape or form (I'm Arminian), but I think Sye's arguments regarding everyone knowing there is a true God is sound and scriptural. "…what can be known about God is evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For from the creation of the world, his invisible attributes, both his eternal power and deity, are discerned clearly, being understood in the things created, so that they are without excuse."
Romans 1:19-20
Having said that, Mike's teaching on faith not being a work is sound and I agree with that over Sye's.
1:17:17 I believe in Jesus because I had an encounter with him.
*but I think Sye's arguments regarding everyone knowing there is a true God is sound and scriptural. "*
That argument is only convicing to existing Christians. And presup isn't for existing Chrisitans.
Below I will highlight the key difference between presuppositional apologetics and historical apologetics.
Historical apologetics is the simple position that belief in God/Christianity is a rationally justified belief. From this position the historical apologist attempts to show that this is the case; that holding a belief in God/Christianity is rationally justified (and it is irrational not to).
Pressuppositional apologetics is the position that unless one first believes/presupposes belief in God/Christianity, then one can not hold any other possible belief X in a rationally justified way. From this position the pressuper does not (directly) attempt to show that belief in God/Christianity is rationally justified, rather the pressuper attempts to show that unless one first believes/presupposes belief in God/Christianity, then one can not hold any other possible belief X in a rationally justified way (one can not have knowledge on the JTB model). This is why pressupers use the method of 'reductio ad absurdum' so much; they believe that any belief/knowledge claim some one has/makes can not be rationally justified unless it is some how linked via a line of reasoning to the belief God/Christianity is true.
I believe pressup is erroneous and hold to the historical position.
I also hold to Reformed Epistemology, which is simply the position that belief in God/Christianity can be a rationally justified belief without having to believe it based on inferential reason/argument/evidence - i.e. it can be a rationally justified non-inferential belief.
Reformed Epistemology can be implemented in many ways; including epistemologies commonly accepted by secular academia. The usual implementation is:
Foundationalism --> Reliablism --> Externalism.
I personally study philosophy and computer science a lot; and one area of interest for me is machine learning/AI. I think if any pressuper tried to code a computer to correspond with the way human belief forming/assessing mechanisms work (which is a passion of mine), they will realize that pressup is nonsense.
It is a shame that much of the debate conflated these issues:
1. Belief in God is needed for rational justification of any possible belief X *CONFLATED WITH* God's existence is needed for rational justification (or anything) to exist.
2. People have a belief in God despite their profession to the contrary *CONFLATED WITH* people need a belief in God to be rationally justified believing in anything else.
I am not pressup but I believe to a degree that all people believe in God. I will explain what I think is happening in the psychology of these professing non-believers (who most likely believe in God).
It is not that (for the most part) I believe they are - in full conscious awareness - lying when they claim they do not believe in God. Rather, it is that they have conflicting beliefs.
I believe what is happening is:
1. The professing non-believer, believes in God.
2. The professing non-believer, believes that they do not believe in God.
Obviously, belief #2 would be false, but it would still be honestly held.
God bless
Presup does seem kinda awkward...
The nuance that Sye refuses to see is that a vague sense of Deity, which can arguably be said to be inborn in humans, is not the same as knowing that the God of the Bible is the true God.
Thus his presuppositional apologetics is a waste.
If all humans really know that the true God exists, there is no need for the Bible or missionaries.
Each individual must only decide for themselves to accept or reject the true God, who they
supposedly know exists and sent His Son to die for them.
I've had a couple of responses to my former comments (after I was responding to their comments). But now I've listen to the second half and I must say: I get it; I get what Sye is saying; and I love it and I love him for bringing this new light to my old problems. Thank you Sye! I see now how evidential apologetics is working from NOT the base. The base IS God as presupposition...this way of thinking clears up so many problems I've had with even Bible studies. Foundational - "...not a tool, not a tool box, but rather the foundation on which the toolbox sits."
I'm very glad to see the maturity of Sye's thought. Thank God; Praise God.
Praise God!
JJ and Answer:
What problem did Sye solve for you?
@jjroseknows777 Have to agree, interesting i'm coming to a lot of this by studying the Bible and asking God to show me what is true and right. Looking at all the stuff i have been not sure i line up or how to Calvinism and Reformed, might assert one might be both or just one, that being Reformed is more the base upon which Calvinism seems to stand on. While it seem to me God is the one that provides everything, grace, faith any and everything that is worth noting... May still need to study and pray a bit more but what Sye is asserting seems like the thing that is the glue that makes it all fit together. Or to say it another way the mental model, all models at least the good ones i grew up building required glue, and no i wasn't sniffing it ;) I love the point we can't reason without truth or God for that matter. And the inference that men suppress the truth, not establish it because God is the "The Way, The Truth, and The Life" so truth is established simply by His existence and established more as fact... Sure wish in the discussion Mike didn't over talk and jump to as many conclusion that he did, the talk was pretty good as a whole but felt Mike either side steps some key major points or dismissed them, but to his credit he did say he would need to study and consider it a bit more. But that is like all of us, we are all a work in progress... But i'm glad to have watched this as it gives me a more tangible and articulated view of what it seems i've been coming around to by simply reading the Bible and fitting the pieces together.
You do understand christianity is a fictional story?
This is so frustrating. They want to make God separate from proof and evidence and act holy by the confidence they have but it’s just assumptions that are taken so far that they can’t be knocked down and instead of answering our toughest questions leaves young people trying to cling and claim a giant faith while the pillars are filled with sand and air. Just answer the questions! Ask the hardest questions and Lord save the church from the assumption and fear of YEC and this method of apologetics that runs from evidence You’ve given us and blessed us with so richly! Let them see how the refusal to discuss evidence unless the assumption is granted makes the great great evidence we have seem nonexistent.
I’ve always found “hardcore” presup guys to be simply cold and wooden when it comes to outreach. Just my experience.
When you convolute the simplicity of the Gospel....confusion ensues.
...and this is what you're watching...smh.
This is a great example of where the 'intellect' runs contrary to the Word.
..."For my thoughts are not your thoughts"...
It seems like Sye's interpretations of the Elijah and the prophets of Baal story are clearly coming from his preconceived opinions and not from the clear reading of the text or from other Scriptures.
Katherine Witherell Maybe you should think harder?
@@b-manz No Sye was definitely coming at it from "My reformed theology is correct and it's my presupposition so clearly the bible has to agree" instead of looking at it the reverse way. He predecides what it says based off Calvinism being true and that was blatantly obvious. I've thought of this a lot and your response is just more of why Calvinists can be absurd. "Think about it more" - yeah because that's the only reason she could think that right? She just hasn't thought about it and Calvinism is right so just think and you'll realize that. It's ridiculous
When a presup tells an atheist that the Bible says all know Yahweh exists, do they really think the atheist hasn't heard this before?
What are you trying to accomplish, if anything? Or are you also presupposing that the atheist knows that the Bible is Yahweh's word...
I love to witness to people! What greater joy could one receive than being used by God to lead someone to christ. I'm still undecided in my approach to apologetics, but have quite a hunger for doing apologetics in general, and I've watched many debates, find them all fascinating, and most of them helpful. This is definitely one of the helpful ones, so I thank you Mike, and thank you Sye. You both have a clear heart for honoring God so may God bless both your ministries. I believe a good apologetic is a vital tool to witnessing and is also a biblical command. This video will definitely help me in my journey of finding my own way of doing apologetics. Just curious if this jumped out to anyone else: 1 Kings 18:37 "Answer me, O Lord , answer me, that this people may know that you, O Lord, are God, and that you have turned their hearts back." ESV.
BACK? Back to what? To me it almost seems to indicate he is wanting their hearts to be turned back to a place of knowing God. To me, this would imply they knew him to begin with. Sye you may be on to something! I'm honestly surprised Sye didn't point this out. Not saying Mike doesn't make good points, but this is a verse he used to support his thinking and it still seems to indicate a previous knowledge they had of God. Not set either way and Mike I love your ministry brother! Anyone have any thoughts???
I haven't read this in context recently. My answer is based off of past Bible readings, studies, and current understanding. (TLDR Conclusion at bottim.)
"...turned their hearts back." My first question is, "Who is 'their'?" I say 'their' is the people of Isreal. Before these people where born was Abraham. God made a promise to Abraham and Abraham followed God and passed the teachings of God to his children and their knowledge of God continued through the generations.
These Generations born of Abraham's blood (some adopted and married into the people as well) became the Nation of Israel and because they've known God all this time, they had the ability to rebel against Him.
So one metaphorical moment they're worshipping God and and following his commands. The next moment they worship idols. Then they turn back to God and later turn back to the idols. This process is repeated throughout the Bible. When Israel worships God, they're blessed. When they worship idols, they're punished.
Conclusion: This verse is speaking of the people of Israel and is not evidence that those who are not of Israel (nor modern day Christians) know that the one true creator of this world exists.
You don’t lead anyone to Christ … God is drawing them.
The whole Faith discussion made me angry. It's obvious Sye Ten Bruggencate is a Calvinist. Faith is not a gift in the sense that it's only given to the "Elect". Faith is given to everyone. The question is will you place your Faith in Christ.
Thanks for this Mike. I know I’m a little late in showing up to this. I just came off of watching some of Sye’s debates, and while I think he is an excellent debater and teacher, I have to lean more towards your straight forward Biblical view on presup. Great job to both of you guys!
The biggest problem with Sye's Presuppositional Methodology: He denies Atheistic Presuppositional Methodology. Therefore, he DENIES that which he insists upon. This is akin to throwing up a wall - to protect yourself - from a wall being thrown up. It is useless NOT BECAUSE GOD DOESN'T EXIST, but because respect and gentleness is the ONLY WAY to convert unbelievers.
You can't insist that you are right - BECAUSE you are right - while denying those who oppose you (BECAUSE they aren't right) claiming they don't have any validity in THEIR insistence THEY ARE RIGHT... and be right about THAT.
Even if you are right about your premise, you are wrong about your methodology. No matter where you stand on ANY issue, using the methodology, presupposition denies ITSELF, through the practice.
Wow, the argument that Sye uses to try to make faith a work is the most nonsense thing I've heard. And he had the audacity to say you were using bad logic? If you define faith as running a marathon or building a tower, then it is obviously a work. Well, that is not how faith is defined in the Bible. This is eisegesis to a great extent. He is redefining the word faith. He is ignoring where the Bible explicitly says faith is not a work.
As a non-Christian, Sye is damaging Christianity. At least Mike doesn't claim to know what other people think.
Sye is clever with words, but tricking people to say something they don't mean doesn't make anyone turn to Jesus. What is real? What is true? Etc.
If you make a graph in which every piece of knowledge that you have is a node, and an edge between x and y represents that x proves y, you quickly realize that since you, as a human, have limited pieces of knowledge, in that graph, there exists at least 1 piece of knowledge that doesnt have a proof. Either that, or you force a proof and create a cycle, in which case you what we call "circular reasoning". So, by using graph theory i just proved the following statements: Omniscient beings know an infinite amounts of things, and they have an explanation for each of those pieces of knowledge. Non-omniscient being know a finite of things, and they have at least 1 piece of knowledge that is not proven. Sye argument is this "you have at least of piece of knowledge that is not proven, therefore God exists." Which translates to "you are not omniscient, therefore God exists" which can be countered with an argument just as stupid "You are not omniscient, therefore God doesnt exist, because you are unaware of the reasons for which God cant exist". This argument is also wrong, cause then we cant have an opinion on anything if we start from this. And there lies his stupid argument.
The problem with Sye is that if you would tell him my argument, he would say "How do you know thats true?". Basically, when Sye asks "how do you know your reasoning is valid?" he wants you to prove your reason is valid, without using your reason. This is a contradictory statement. The moment Sye uses the word "know" in the sentence "how do you know your reasoning is valid" , he admits that you are capable of knowing things and the question becomes pointless. If he would ask "Do do you know that your reason is valid?", you could just simply say "yes" and when he would ask "how" you would have the same problem again.
My last favorite way of contradicting Sye is making him admit that revelation from God is how he knows that his senses are right. Then tell him "Ok, a second ago, the aliens that created this universe, stopped time, and told me that this universe is just a computer simulation to see what kind of live can this universe support. They also told me that they wrote the entire bible thing just for fun, and nothing in that book is true". They told me this, and i know this because they revealed to me. And since my revelation is the full story of your world view, I am right. Prove me im wrong Sye. Now you turned the tables and you have access to all his tricks. In the end, he will be forced to admit that he cant prove you are wrong, and since revelation lead to 2 different stories about reality, it cant be a good way of finding out whats true.
Well played.
Despite learning some philosophical lingo, Sye seems to have no concept of how big-picture truths can correlate with the *means* by which these truths play out.
Here’s a question Mike Winger: did you come to faith in God by reason or by faith? Why try to convince someone of God’s existence by methods of reason if your own belief in God isn’t based on reason?
Are you trying to reason me out of reasoning?
Mike Winger whoa! Awesome you replied! :D
So are you saying the existence of God is proven on reason? Is the truth of God’s existence predicated on our reasoning or by faith?
you can say I’m “reasoning you” to realize that you can’t reason God’s existence when God is simply the “great I am”. Otherwise philosophers would know God but the Bible clearly states the foolishness of the gospel confounds the wise. So our reasoning capacity is not the right tool. Do you agree or disagree?
Mike Winger almost always explains things in a clear, concise, and respectful manner that just makes me go, “Yeah, that makes a ton of sense.” And the best part is, he backs it up with Scripture. Sye just leaves me confused most of the time.
Study philosophy it isn't confusing at all
@@AR15andGOD No it definetly was. Some assertions made was ridiculous. sort comments by recent and read my comment. He literally implies Mike isn't even saved
@@AR15andGOD some people are on different levels as well. But all are equal in Christ
Im not confused at all and Sye speaks a deep spiritual revelation. What Sye is speaking of is confirmed by my own spiritual experience which is the main basis for my testimony in Jesus Christ.
What I experienced is best explained by Sye's presuppositional apologetics...or more accurately, by what I experienced and witness of God, I can confirm Sye's apologetics.
I pray that all can see that we all have truly started with God and in God. God is the basis for all being. It starts with man's spirit, not man's mind. Ask God for revelation and to unveil the Spirit.
You cannot reason your way to God, it is by faith which results in revelation. Evidence is comprehended by man's mind. God is comprehended and experienced by man's spirit. Ask what the "spirit" is and may God reveal that to you
This guy sounds like the type that always has to be right and always has to get in the last word on a subject. I could see how debating with him would be extremely frustrating and unproductive. No offense to the guy, but... Aren't we as Christians not all on the same team?
Unfortunately (and I sincerely mean unfortunately) most high profile Calvinist seem to have a ‘mini-god’ complex.
In that they are the elect and it’s a shame about the others but ‘who is the clay to say to the potter “why have you made like this” taking that quote way out of context and seemingly caring little for the enteral souls of those walking in darkness
That’s just the way their arguments have come across to me.
Which is weird because Calvinist are the reason for my sola scriptoria worldview
@@iistheknight you said exactly how I’ve felt about some Calvinist. I sense a little arrogance. It almost makes me cringe knowing how unworthy we are to even have the gift of salvation. Definitely will keep them in my prayers.
Mike, you've been a gracious host for this discussion. Thank you.
I agree with Sye, no believer should ever argue for the existence of the One who is Existence.
Its absurd.
38 minutes in and I'm about to find something else to watch. Winger's assertions were thoroughly and systematically dismantled by Sye. He really shouldn't have invited him on his show. The last 2, and only 2 videos of Winger I've seen have overwhelmingly demonstrated he is not someone to rely on for sound doctrine. Winger surely now realizes it was a mistake to "critique" someone who has a vastly superior understanding of apologetic methodologies. Ouch!
I appreciate your work Mike. I had to stop an hour and a half in because this guy is a very contentious and tricky snake. You have searched the scriptures and although I disagree on a few things I will love to meet you some day and if not here then in heaven
This guest makes my brain hurt... he's gotta be the most confrontational person you've ever had on. by far.
He's Dutch, aren't they all like this? ;)
A gift is still a gift even if you use your free will to open the box. Sye is talking nonsense.
Personally, I found this video rather difficult to watch. It appeared that Sye was just constantly nit picking every little word, completely misunderstanding the greater point, and putting words and arguments in Mike's mouth that he never said or claimed. It seemed like Sye didn't have anything of substance to say, but rather just a bunch of gotcha questions, and claims that he spent a lot of time saying he could back up but never did. He starts off by saying "I think we'll find we agree on more things than we don't" then proceeds to repeatedly just say how everybody is wrong. If there's a class of Christians in which I can't even begin to comprehend, it's Calvinists. What's weird is Calvinists twist scripture even more than Catholics, yet the common response when asked why someone became Calvinist is "because I read the Bible." The first red flag of whether or not your religion is false, is whether or not your religion is named after a man... I would even argue that the term Christian is even suspect. Nobody in the Bible was ever a confessed "Christian." The term Christian is used only 3 times throughout the entire Bible, and all three times it was used by nonbelievers who used the term as a pejorative... Followers of Christ were not called Christians, they were called Nazerines.
1 Corinthians 15:17 "and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins."
Sye said "if there there is evidence that could change your mind, then Jesus isn't the Lord of your reasoning."
Apparently Paul thought there is evidence that could change his mind.
PS. Great discussion Mike and Sye!
God bless you guys!
I think its important to NOTE: mike has been asked to defend God while his friends played the devils advocate and refused to do so because in his opinion it was wrong to question God moraly
Hang on - at 8:08, did Sye say "if they concede the fact that they can't know anything without Yahweh (that is, concede that Yahweh exists), then I will go over evidence"?!?!
"Concede my point, then I'll prove it."
Utter, utter lunacy.
I don't think you understand brother. Its the fact that because of people presuppositions evidence won't do much. Also because the fact that if you give them evidence they become the judge and decide if God is innocent or not.
Why would it be lunacy to not put God-The Almighty Judge of the universe- on trial at the fake judgement seat of fallen God-hating sinners?
@@jesusisrisen1202 Judging the evidence for Jehovah's existence is not the same as judging Jehovah himself.
That is a dodge, on your part.
JMUDoc
Can you show me in the Bible where sinners are called to “judge the existence of God”? Especially when it already unequivocally teaches that everyone inherently knows He exists per Romans 1?
If I were to judge your existence, would I not be judging your actual being itself? Especially since it’s indisputably true and correct that you actually do exist?
Is not such a distinction laughable at best? And nonsensical at worst?
To make such a minuscule, fatuous, and hairsplitting distinction such as that would be to dodge the truth of what I’m saying.
@@jesusisrisen1202
*If I where to judge your existence, would I not be judging your actual being itself?*
No. That's ridiculous.
The issue of whether or not a person exists is ENTIRELY independent of that person's (alleged) character.
"Your god is evil" is a judgement of the god; "I don't think your god exists" is a judgement of the claim.
I know presups WANT the two to be equivalent so they can unspool their "evidence is presented to the judge, and my god is the judge" shtick, but they aren't. (And, in any case, evidence is presented to the jury, not the judge.)
The Art of Presuppositionalist apologetics
1) Question: How do we know if the Bible is really word of GOD?
Answer: Because Bible tell us so.
2) Question: But why believe the Bible?
Answer: The Bible is infallible.
3) Question: But how do you know it's infallible?
Answer: The Bible is the word of GOD
Repeat 1 to 3 infinite amount of times until the atheist gives up and walk away.
For Muslims, replace "GOD" with "ALLAH" and "Bible" with the "Quran"
For Jews. replace "GOD" with "Yahweh" and "Bible" with the "Torah"
For Hindus, replace "GOD" with "Brahman" and "Bible" with the "Vedas"
For all other religion, simply replace "GOD" with your the name of your divine and "Bible" with the religious scripture you base your beliefs on.
Sye is the most mind numbingly difficult people to have a conversation with I have ever heard. He is right up there with Aaron Ra. Can’t imagine this guy has ever had a meaningful impact on a single person other than giving people a brain aneurysm out of frustration.
Seems like you couldn't reason against his argument, so you just attacked him.
@@morojkiller5418 - his argument is circle. Hard to reason with someone content with using an unintelligible epistemology.
@@fndrr42 Again, you are not even addressing any of his points
@@morojkiller5418 - I really don’t care about any further points if they epistemology is fallacious from the jump. Moderate realism gives up nothing and has none of the faults.
@@morojkiller5418 “The mutable aspects of one’s preunderstanding can then be adjusted as the truths of the text interact with the understanding of the interpreter, and adjudication between conflicting interpretations can proceed with reference to first principles that are the same for the interpreter and the text. Also, it is not the case that the interpreter becomes the judge of the text since both the text and the interpreter have the same self-evident first principles, which are the same for all people, at all times, in all cultures.”
- Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation by Thomas Howe
Presuppositionalism is not an argument. It is a set of assertions, one of which is that it doesn't need to defend its claims.
Another is that no one is allowed to question their premises, unless they first agree with them.
I can't help but feel that presuppositionalism is for people who don't really care about bringing people to Christianity, but rather they just want to stick it to non believers. It seems to attract the worst people like Bahnsen, Sye and Darth Dawkins. Every presupp seems hell-bent on humiliating others.
Pressup is a collection of special pleading fallacies
@@vivahernando1yep. It's "you're not allowed to disagree with me."
It's garbage for fragile as*holes.
Man... what Mike said around a 1:40:00-ish in response to this guy’s question: “how could I have known God if I honestly didn’t know if he existed, as an agnostic.”
Sye said straight up “I don’t believe him, would need to discuss his situation more deeply with him.”, and Mike said he believed the guy, although Mike then asked Sye “do you believe it is possible that he believed in not believing in the God that he knew?” Sye said that was interesting, but ended saying “if he did die as an agnostic, what would his excuse be?” So i agree with Sye (Romans 1:21, 2:1).
I’ll have to agree with Mike to a degree, not just from a philosophical point, but a biblical one. Romans 1:18-25 clearly states that we all know God, but we’ve all suppressed the truth about him in our unrighteousness and ungodliness. It later says we’ve become “futile in our thinking and our foolish hearts were darkened”. For one to be a professing agnostic or atheist, I would assume this falls into the category of “debased mind” towards God (1:28), followed with a list of unrighteous acts (i myself guilty of many as a fallen creature before By God’s grace I came into the light. Therefore this passage sounds like it is talking about all mankind before being redeemed).
With that said, Romans 3:10-11 says that there is “None who seeks for God.” So if we all knew God according to Romans 1, but yet none seek for God, then I would imagine this concept is the opposite of repentance... “unrepentance”. If we are walking further away from God, suppressing the truth about him along the way, is it not fair to say eventually we can be given over to a debased mind of believing that we no longer believe in God’s existence? And what is the difference between being one who “knows God, but became futile in their thinking and their foolish hearts were darkened (Romans 1:21)”, “being given over to debased minds (1:28)”, and “None who seeks for God (3:11)”? All 3 sound like a totally deprived sinner in need of God’s grace to redeem them out of their broken, futile, non-God seeking worldviews.
Bottom line, we ought to be able to use evidence in this presupposition, but start with Christ, counter objections towards the objective evidence they reject by proving they can’t know or make an appeal towards anything unless they start with the one true God of the Bible. If ppl from other theistic religions ask for a reason defense, still same apologetic exposing the inconsistencies their religion has within itself and towards the God of the Bible... Man this Presuppositional Apologetics can get mentally exhausting at times. 😅🤯😭
Sye Ten Bruggencate supports his presuppositional position by saying that probability is not mentioned in Scripture. Probability and statistics, in the modern sense, only goes back to the 18th century. so it's hardly surprising that probability is not mentioned in Scripture. Additionally, probability requires several observations. Elijah went to great lengths to provide as watertight a demonstration as was possible. He didn't require presupposition. Where is presupposition mentioned in Scripture? When Romans was written, most people believed in some sort of God. The policeman example is also invalid as there are plenty of cases of people impersonating police officers.
Hi Mike! You and Sye did an excellent job staying respectful even though you disagree and even while under the weather. My hats off to you, friend. I had a hard time following what Sye was saying most of the time. Perhaps, you could have Jeff Durban on your show? He speaks in a more understandable way and I would love to learn from that interaction. Thanks again for your ministry, you have been instrumental in my coming to faith. Never stop what you do. 💙
I’m generally not a fan of debates, but Mike is very good at being honest and keeping things on target. I appreciate this both for its content, and as an example that debates can bring more light than heat.
My own problem with presupp is on display clearly here, that there can be a difference between how things work, and our understanding of how things work. Presupp is like arguing that everyone who drive a car understands deep down the engineering and manufacturing processes involved with making the car, since I’m fact tue design is a prerequisite essential to experiencing car-driving in the first place.
Evidentialism is going to drivers who deny that cars have designers and reasoning with them to change their mind.
The Bible has a lot of examples of evidentialism, but presupps are mostly Calvinists, so biblical consistency isn’t exactly their strong suit 😅.
Wow. I am grateful for Sye's willingness to be corrected. That's powerful. Love you both!
Mike was corrected far more times than Sye but it seems Mike just ignores it and changes topics. When Mike's worldview (biblical) is questioned by Sye...Mike's logical consistency completely and utterly falls apart.