THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THE QUIZ.
If you are a Presuppositional Apologist
play the video below: it relates to you personally.
If you are NOT a Presuppositional Apologist,
play the video below: It relates to you personally
As you’ve just experienced, Van Til’s apologetic framework depends entirely on knowing whether or not the speaker is a believer or not. Without that disclosure, the system can’t confidently evaluate even the simplest statements like “The Eiffel Tower is in Paris” or "The sky is blue." Without the ability to establish that qualifier, the entirety of Van Til's system is unintelligible on its own terms.
In creating this website and videos, and in a revised statement
made by the the late PhD Greg Bahnsen, I will close by telling you that since you answered all of the 3 final questions
with "I don't know" and
you are a Presuppositional Apologist,
It's not my objective to convince you -
It is my job to close your mouth.
𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐳, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐟𝐞𝐞𝐥 𝐟𝐫𝐞𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐚 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭.
𝐈𝐧 𝐕𝐚𝐧 𝐓𝐢𝐥'𝐬 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐬 𝐚 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧, 𝐝𝐞𝐩𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐝𝐨 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠:
𝐀) 𝐅𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐮𝐩𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 (𝐕𝐚𝐧 𝐓𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧): 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐲 𝐮𝐧𝐥𝐢𝐤𝐞𝐥𝐲, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐥𝐞. 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐦𝐮𝐜𝐡 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐠𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐞.
𝐁) 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧: 𝐈𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐧-𝐂𝐡𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐥𝐞𝐝𝐠𝐞, 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐲𝐩𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐧 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐫𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐫 𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐞𝐬.
𝐂). 𝐔𝐧𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 (𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐀𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜, 𝐃𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰):
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐚𝐥𝐰𝐚𝐲𝐬 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐥𝐨𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐜𝐞𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐬𝐨𝐥𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥. 𝐈𝐭 𝐦𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐯𝐚𝐧𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐮𝐞, 𝐚𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐭 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤. 𝐖𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 "𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐟𝐢𝐞𝐫," 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐀𝐩𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲, 𝐛𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐠𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐬𝐲𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐦 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐤𝐞𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬.
𝐍𝐨𝐰, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐲 𝐯𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐨 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭, 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐟𝐲 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐢𝐟 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐝𝐨 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐭𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐚 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧 𝐔𝐧𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫 (𝐢.𝐞. 𝐀𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐬𝐭, 𝐀𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐜, 𝐨𝐫 𝐚𝐧𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐫𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐤) 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧'𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐝𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐠𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐝-𝐞𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐕𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐛𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐨 𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐝, 𝐩𝐫𝐞-𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭. 𝐈𝐧 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬, 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭, 𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐦𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐫𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐨 𝐭𝐨 𝐲𝐨𝐮, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐫𝐞 "𝐛𝐞𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰."
𝐏𝐡𝐃 𝐆𝐫𝐞𝐠 𝐁𝐚𝐡𝐧𝐬𝐞𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐲 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐕𝐚𝐧 𝐓𝐢𝐥'𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐩 𝟑 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐬, 𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 "𝐈𝐭'𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐧𝐛𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫, 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐣𝐨𝐛 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐬."
𝐒𝐨, 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝐦𝐲 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐥𝐲 𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 "𝐠𝐨𝐚𝐥" 𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦. 𝐁𝐲 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐚𝐤𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐩, 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 "𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐡 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐁𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫." (𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐛𝐭𝐰, 𝐈 𝐡𝐚𝐯𝐞 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐯𝐮𝐥𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐦𝐲 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐥𝐝𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰, 𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐂𝐀𝐍'𝐓 𝐫𝐮𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐩𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐦𝐞).