Tag Archives: knoweldge

Skepticism Just Ate Its Own Lunch

It is always dumb to disagree with the bible.

A rational, public starting point given by an omniscient God—who causes His elect to know it by His power—is the only coherent definition of a worldview axiom. There is no other way to define it without the Bible, which declares itself true and every rival false.

“Axioms are the product of not being omniscient, and being capable of assenting to propositions. Any first principle would lead to skepticism under such a standard.” – Johnny Billy

The reply looks tidy on the surface. He claims axioms are merely the product of finite, non-omniscient minds that can still assent to propositions. Under the demand that a starting point deliver knowledge, he concludes that any first principle collapses into skepticism. That is the claim. It is also the problem.

Start with the self-refutation, because it is immediate. If every first principle under that standard leads to skepticism, then the first principle underwriting his own sentence also leads to skepticism. The statement “any first principle leads to skepticism” is itself advanced as knowledge. By the rule he just announced, that statement has no ground left. It cancels itself. You cannot know that all knowledge foundations fail without already standing on a foundation that, according to you, fails. That is not a minor technicality. It is the claim eating its own lunch. Skepticism of this kind is impossible for the same reason the law of non-contradiction is non-negotiable: you cannot affirm knowledge while denying it. The biblical system treats the law of non-contradiction as part of the Logos Himself. Jesus appeals to it. Paul distinguishes grace as grace and law as law. A position that requires you to know what it says cannot be known is already finished.

Even if we set the self-refutation aside for a moment, the conclusion still does not follow from the premise. He moves from “the mind is finite and not omniscient” to “therefore any first principle collapses into skepticism.” That leap only works if the first principle is treated as a bare human product limited by the same finitude that produced it. The biblical first principle does not fit that description. It only logically follows if you assume empiricism.

On its own terms the starting point is not merely a set of propositions. It includes the full metaphysical package: an omniscient, omnipotent God who actively causes finite minds to know those propositions and to assent to them. The limitation of the human mind is real, in that it cannot hold a true beginningless infinite amount of propositions as God does. However, this is already accounted for inside the system. God supplies both the content (the Bible as the public starting point revealed by God) and the ability to grasp it with certainty. The bible is a subset of propositions from the Mind of God revealed to man as a public starting point. It is so substantial that it covers all life and godliness. It is so extensive and perfect it labels itself as interchangeable with God. It is a worldview.

So what about the finite human mind? The finite is not left to bootstrap its own knowledge. The infinite Source does the causing. Finitude is swallowed by the infinite power already articulated in the first principle itself. That is why the “not omniscient” premise does not force the skeptical conclusion. Human-originated axioms have no such resource. They remain products of limited minds trying to generate certainty from limited materials, and they collapse. The biblical first principle starts with the unlimited Mind and includes the claim that this Mind sovereignly causes knowledge in limited minds. Once that metaphysical claim is part of the axiom, the limitation of the receiver no longer functions as a barrier to certainty.

This is exactly the move Vincent Cheung called out years ago in “Blinded by Atheism.” A critic treated Scripture as a locked safe and occasionalism as the combination sealed inside it, then complained of a vicious circle. Cheung’s reply was simple and devastating: Where is God in the analogy? God is the defining factor in both the metaphysics and the epistemology. The Almighty tears the door open or simply imparts the knowledge. Once you quietly delete God from the picture, of course the system fails. The whole thing is about God. Cheung even grants the point without embarrassment: remove God and the apologetic collapses; with God it stands.

He is running the same pattern. He defines an axiom as the product of a non-omniscient mind, then treats the limitation of that finite mind as an inescapable barrier that sinks every first principle. But that framing evaluates the biblical starting point while God is already removed from the equation. On the system’s own terms the limitation of the finite mind is real, yet it is completely overcome and dominated by God’s limitless power to cause the mind to know and to assent. The first principle itself includes that claim. So the critique is testing a God-powered epistemology under the assumption that God is not there. Of course it looks broken once the central Agent is deleted. It would be like doing an internal critique of empiricism while completely ignoring sensation. You cannot internally critique empiricism without the definition of the senses. The same thing is happening here. Without God nothing in the apologetic works. With God everything does. That is not a hidden weakness. It makes Christian apologetics unstoppable.

There is still a deeper problem. His definition of what an axiom even is already contradicts the only standard that matters under the biblical system. Scripture is not human interpretation or a finite mind’s invention. It is given by God. The Christian public revelation is produced by omniscience and given to finite minds. God does not need an axiom for Himself. He creates and supplies one for us. The origin is the unlimited Mind; the recipients are the limited ones. So the axiom is not a product of non-omniscience. It is a product of omniscience designed to help those who are not omniscient.

Once the Bible is the sole public standard for knowledge, that is the only coherent way to define a real axiom: the infallible one the omniscient God gives. Anything that originates from finite minds instead of from that divine source is not a true axiom. It is an anti-axiom—a starting point that cannot deliver knowledge and therefore collapses. The production line is the other way around. The omniscient One is the source, not the customer who needs the product. That single reversal undercuts the premise that leads to his skeptical conclusion.

The Christian system is a system of propositions. God Himself is also a system of propositions—His infinite, eternal, and immutable. Ours is finite. God’s sovereignty is involved in knowledge absolutely and directly, as He is with everything else. With our finite minds and our system of propositions, He makes us know which propositions align with the Bible and are indeed true. The Bible says we can know, and the sovereignty of God ensures it. That is occasionalism. God does not leave finite minds to guess which propositions are true. He causes the knowledge and the assent. The limitation is real, but it is dominated by the One who is not limited.

This is also why the Christian apologetic is the Bible itself. Showing the self-refuting nature of opposing positions is a useful method, but the apologetic is the Word of God. That is why the definition of an axiom can only be intelligently defined as coming from an omniscient mind—because that is how the Bible defines it. Every other way is an anti-definition of axiom. It is the same pattern we see with the Trinity. The biblical definition of monotheism is the Trinity. Every other definition is an anti-monotheism. The Bible defines it one way, and that is the only intelligent, non-refuting definition. The same holds for “axiom.” On biblical terms an axiom is the infallible revelation produced by the omniscient God and given to finite minds. Anything else is not an axiom at all.

God’s sovereignty is not an afterthought added to shore up a weak epistemology. It is the center. The finite mind’s limits are real, but they are not decisive because the infinite God is the one who causes the knowledge, the assent, and the coherence of the proposition in our system of propositions. God’s power swallows up all human limitations. The system does not pretend to work without Him. It insists that only with the omniscient, omnipotent God who reveals and causes knowledge does any of it stand. Once that is left in place, the finite-mind limitation is only a problem if you leave the biblical worldview.

The claim that every first principle collapses, the inference from finitude to skepticism, the definition of axiom as a product of non-omniscience, and the quiet removal of God from the critique all fail for the same underlying reason. They evaluate a God-centered starting point under assumptions that have already deleted the God who makes the starting point possible. The biblical system does not apologize for that dependence. It announces it with triumph. Without Him there is no knowledge. With Him all limitations for the elect are lost under an sea of God’s endless power and ability. That is not a side point. It is the entire point.

Pseudo-Neutrality

The Objective Believer said: “Dr. Heiser saying the quiet part out loud: we all ‘cheat.’ We all bring our presuppositions and assumptions to the table. Do we like to admit it and talk about it? Not really. It tends to remove the gravity of whatever claims or accusations we’re making in the moment. We prefer the ‘God Stamp’ so we come across more authoritative. Here at The Objective Believer, however, we encourage people to lower the RPMs, the hysteria, take a deep breath—and let’s chat.”

Oh, how tidy that sounds. Half-right, I’ll grant you; every last human being does operate from first principles, but also that no amount of raw observation can ever bootstrap this into existence. Neutrality is a myth, plain as the nose on your face. No one reasons from a blank slate. But right there, at the very moment the admission is made, the whole thing collapses into the same tired autonomous nonsense that has shipwrecked every non-Christian system since the eggheads in Athens tried to pat Paul on the head in Acts 17. Admitting you have presuppositions does not magically create a polite stalemate or a coffee-shop standoff where we all “lower the RPMs” and chat as equals. It simply drags the battle to the only ground that ever mattered: the presuppositional level itself. The real question has never been whether we have presuppositions. The real question is which presupposition can sustain knowledge, logic, uniformity of nature, or even the bare intelligibility of the sentence “we all cheat.”

Jesus had something sharp to say about eye surgery and hypocrisy. He commands the hypocrite to first remove the plank out of his own eye. Notice the interesting presupposition baked right into the command: you can remove the wrong assumptions from your own eye and then have the ability to help others remove the speck from theirs. Of course Jesus is not saying just anyone can pull this off. He is saying that believers—those born of the Spirit—are able to do it. He does not command the hypocrite to become neutral or presupposition-free. He commands him to remove the plank first so that he “will see clearly” to take the speck out of his brother’s eye (Matthew 7:5). The plank is not “presuppositions” in general; it is hypocrisy, self-deception, and the leftover autonomous rebellion that still refuses to let Scripture be the sole axiom.

Therefore, since some Christians actually have enough respect for Jesus to obey Him, they have removed the wrong assumptions from their own eyes. That means there really are Christians who can read the Bible and read others without cheating by smuggling in alien presuppositions. To slap a blanket “we all cheat” across the board is to call Jesus a liar. The bible does not say we are all cheaters when we read the bible and do philosophy. It lumps the renewed believer in with the unregenerate who still suppress the truth in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). It denies the power of regeneration. It denies the sufficiency of Scripture. Some Christians have obeyed. They have removed the plank. They do not cheat with wrong presuppositions. They see reality as the Bible shows it because they cannot do otherwise. That is not a flaw; that is victory.

The “we all cheat” slogan is exposed as the self-refuting nonsense it always was. As Vincent Cheung writes in “The Christian’s Self-Definition”:

“You may complain that it is impossible to approach anything, including the Christian faith, without bringing to it our own backgrounds and presuppositions. This is true. But if you are a Christian, then you are a new creation in Christ—you have a new background. And if you are a Christian, then the Bible commands you to renew your mind—get a new set of presuppositions. Reorient your thinking, and enthrone Christ in your mind as the reference point by which you define yourself and everything else. Then, you will find it impossible to approach anything apart from your Christian background and presuppositions. Only then can you be assured that you have a firm grasp on your identity as a Christian.”

Spot on, and it lands like a hammer. The Objective Believer’s own statement trips over its own feet the moment it opens its mouth. It declares that all claims lose their gravity once presuppositions are exposed. That is their hidden axiom of pseudo-neutrality dressed up in humble-brag clothing. And so the claim that “all claims lose their gravity once presuppositions are exposed” loses its own gravity toward all people; it has no logical relevance to anyone. The standard applied to itself means we should treat the O.B.’s statement as without any weight and worthless. And so I encourage to do just that. If it is true, then it is false at the same time. It denies the law of contradiction that Jesus Himself appeals to in Mark 12:35-37. Cute.

Because God puts substantial innate knowledge in all of us (Romans 2:15), and this knowledge only is by God and no one or nowhere else, then by logical necessity, there is no neutral presuppositions. There is only divine revelation.

Lower the RPMs? Take a deep breath and “let’s chat”? That is precisely the fatal maneuver of pseudo-neutrality. Paul did not sit down with the Athenians for a calm exchange of assumptions. He confronted their presuppositions of idolatry, declared their ignorance, and proclaimed the true God who commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30). No deep breathing exercises. No neutral ground. Just the blazing sword of divine revelation cutting through the fog and commanding men.

The moment you pretend neutrality is even possible, you have already smuggled in the very autonomous starting point you claim to expose. It is like a thief lecturing the bank manager on security while his pockets are still bulging with stolen cash. The Objective Believer wants us all to pretend we are starting from scratch so he can keep his own starting point hidden behind a smile and a latte. But Scripture will not play that game. Regeneration does not leave you with the same old toolkit of fallen assumptions; it gives you an entirely new mind (Romans 12:2). The old man is dead. The new man sees. That is not arrogance—it is obedience. And obedience always looks like cheating to the one still suppressing truth.

So yes—admit your presuppositions. Good start. Now test them against the only foundation that cannot be shaken. Watch how quickly they fold like a cheap lawn chair in a hurricane. The Bible stands because it is divine revelation from the God. Submit to Scripture or remain in absurdity. There is no third option. And if you still want to play the “we all cheat” card after that, at least have the honesty to admit you are calling Jesus a liar while pretending to be the most reasonable guy in the room. The plank is still there, so watch out or it might smack someone in the face. Or better yet, let the Spirit and the Word yank it out.

I Win No Matter What

I remember Vincent Cheung saying in Blinded by Atheism, “Apologetics is so easy that if it is the main focus of your life and if you become any good at it, you might become disillusioned with boredom and with a lack of purpose.”

He is correct; if you use biblical deductionalism or rationalism. If I choose not to be nice and always take apologetic arguments to the presuppositional level straight away (supposing my opponent even has the intellectual ability to go there), I win no matter what happens. If I stick to the scripture, I win. It doesn’t matter what my opponent says; if they say anything, I win. Even if all they say is the word “as,” I win.

The presuppositional level has to do with your starting point for knowledge and to a larger degree the things you must have in order to have any intelligence. My worldview is not their worldview. My Bible says it is true and all others are false. It says knowledge comes from God, not observation or empiricism. Thus, my worldview disagrees with all other worldviews about the presupposition of knowledge. Because other worldviews always disagree with my worldview about knowledge and the Bible is always right, then any knowledge they use does not come from their worldview, and so they never have logical justification for any knowledge they have. It does not matter if it is their own name, if it is knowledge about a tree, bird, or something abstract like “as,” “the,” or logic, or math; all such knowledge does not come from their worldview. Their worldview has no intelligence, or true or false premises about anything in reality; it has no subjects or predicates; it has no logic or math.

Even if I argue my position in a poor way, I still win. If we consider the worldview argument like a tree, the presuppositional level is the axe laid at the trunk of the tree. Even if I poorly argue for a point and my opponent seems to win a small point, they only manage to save a small twig at the top of the tree. However, one swing with my axe and the whole tree comes down.

If they make any statement about reality, or ask any question about reality or my worldview, I am not allowed to accept it, because the Bible says only it is true, says all others are false, and only it has knowledge. They do not have knowledge, and so they cannot use knowledge to make a statement about anything. If an atheist says rock layers show… (it does not matter what the conclusion is; the important thing is the knowledge of the terms rock and layers), I cannot receive his statement without presupposing his epistemology gives him knowledge. But the Bible clearly says only God gives knowledge; all others are false. If I accept his epistemology gives him the ability to use the terms “rock” and “layers,” then I reject the Bible at the same time because the Bible says only it gives knowledge (via God’s direct power) and all others are false. To use empiricism with my opponent is to reject my God at the same time. To use empiricism is to give the tree trunk to my opponent, so that the very best I can do is cut down some of his worldview branches, because I have now lost the ability to chop down the foundation of his worldview.

I would tell my opponent,

I do not use your epistemology of empiricism, which you used to produce the terms of rock and layers. If you are going to question me using an anti-biblical epistemology (the very thing we disagree about), then the logical burden of proof is on you to justify the knowledge of rock and layers. I admit, if I were to use or assume with you your empiricism, I must also reject my Christianity. But this is the very thing we disagree about, or will you just accept the Bible is the only starting point for knowledge? Because if you do, then I win, and you will be saved. I don’t believe in your worldview. I refuse to go further, because the burden of proof is on you. If you do not have knowledge of rock and layers, it is pointless what the conclusions are. You attacked me with the certainty that you have the knowledge of rocks and layers. I do not believe you. I don’t presuppose your worldview.

Ultimate Authority


Imagine being so stupid that when you read 2 Corin. 8:9 you think it is about “spiritual” wealth rather than financial wealth. The words say wealth and poverty. Reading comprehension? Read the words first, before determining what the words say. First rule of reading: read the damn words! Paul’s out here collecting cash, so yeah, it’s about money, not some ethereal nonsense. Only a pastor or theologian could be this delusional.

Even if you can get additional insights from a redemptive historical reading of this passages, it is only indirect and secondary, and it would have zero relevance is negating the direct teaching of the passage.

This money substitute was part of the atonement of Jesus. He took our poverty, and gave us His wealth. It was part of the substitutionary exchange with Jesus. Also, curses included poverty. And Jesus took our curses of poverty, being nailed to a tree, and gave us the gospel of Abraham, which included miracle money. Jesus took our poverty, nailed it to the cross, and gave us his bling. It’s part of the whole Jesus substitution package deal. Mock the money part, you mock Jesus and trample His atonement. You’re not just wrong, you’re God’s enemy, an anti-Christian piece of trash. Such people have an anti-Christian worldview.

They leap from money to a spiritual category so fast, they don’t even bother to read the passage to learn from it. The Bible isn’t their authority; their observations are. The bible is not their final authority or first principle of knowledge, which is why they don’t even try to pretend to read the text. They have a different worldview. They will say things like, “I don’t see all Christians prospering.” They appeal to their observations as their final authority because the bible is not their authority. It never was. They use the bible to make their observations the highest judge. They are ruled by emotions, not scripture, and it shows with “reprobate” written all over their face.

Imagine you manage an Apple store. You hire a new employee, and the next day, you notice Microsoft products displayed on the counter. You pull the employee aside and ask what is going on. “This is an Apple store, and you affirmed that we only sell Apple products during the hiring process, why did you display Microsoft products?”

They affirm “we only sell Apple,” but then say “Microsoft also has keyboards and screens and so we can sell their stuff.” Of course, it doesn’t matter what the excuse is, it is irrelevant. There is no excuse. They affirmed we only sell Apple products. Thus we have 2 options. They really are that stupid that they don’t see the contradiction of their action to sell non-Apple products. Or they are wilfully trying to destroy the store.

The person I described is a typical Christian, pastor or theologian.

They say the Bible is their only starting point for knowledge and authority on truth, but they interpret a passage so that it doesn’t matter what the terms say or the context. When you point this out, they appeal to what they observe.

2 Corinthians 8:9 is about finances and the context is also about finances. They change the category to spiritual, as if the Bible was breathed out by their words and categories, not God’s.

Imagine how proud Satan is to see a person affirming the Bible is God breathed, but you steal God’s breath and change it to your breath.

Later they say, “but we don’t see all prospering,” or regarding the promises of healing, “we don’t see all healed.” And then they conclude, “it must not be God’s will to heal all,” or “even if you have faith to move mountains, God will do what He wants despite if you believe.” They say God is their authority, but they appeal to the authority of observation and sensation. Like the new hire, they affirm we only sell Apple products, but keeps displaying Microsoft products. Has an Apple new hire been so perverted and hypocritical as to sell Microsoft? I doubt it. And yet Christians are this perverted and hypocritical when they appeal to observation as an authority.

This is a worldview issue. To have different authorities will make your entire worldview different.

I do not address them as Christians but as reprobates and outsiders. I say this, not to be harsh, but to be exact and frank. A worldview is determined by one’s starting point for knowledge. If a person uses their observations for this, then we have a fundamentally different worldview. Not just small difference; we have an entirely different way to view reality. Not just a different take, we’re on different planets here. The moment they say, “I don’t see all prospering or healed,” it is not a matter of theology, but it is now a worldview issue. It is an ultimate authority issue. We have different ways to understand reality, not just reading text. Until they can prove they can get knowledge from observations and defend the irrational use of induction and empiricism, they have no justification for knowledge.

The biblical worldview reveals itself as the only epistemology and rejects all others, including observations. The bible rejects my use of observations to determine if something is knowledge. The bible does not allow me to observe and then use this to determine if something is false or true. If a so-called Christian appeals to their observation, “I don’t see all healed,” it means we view reality differently. The reason an atheist and I have different worldviews, is because I appeal to scripture for knowledge, and they appeal to observations.

The bible does not allow me to appeal to observations, “if I see people healed or not,” as an epistemology or an authority. Thus, if a so-called Christian appeals to observations to obtain any knowledge or authority, we are now as far apart as atheism is from Christianity. Because we appeal to different authorities, we have different worldviews. Because we appeal to different foundations of knowledge, we have different realities. It is not a matter of context of a text, but of worldviews. My worldview does not allow me to appeal to the authority of my observations, but the other so-called Christian is allowed. It is a matter of ultimate authority, not context. Because observations are not consistent, or justified, and because induction is not a valid conclusion, the dual authority of observation will always leave you room to make the text say what you want. This is why atheist and evolutionist love the authority of observation, because it lets them craft their worldview in their image.

These types of people appeal to the reprobate authority of observation, because, their worldview is a reprobate reality.