Eric Hernandez went on Soteriology101 to discuss Calvinism and presuppositionalism. It wasn’t a very interesting podcast. So, I’ll state a few brief things about it and won’t waste much time about it.

1. Hernandez is simply ignorant of the actual presuppositionalists view of the role of evidence in apologetics. He thinks Van Tilians are against evidence and even quips “Elijah didn’t read Van Til”. Dr. James Anderson stated in an article about “Frequently Encountered Misconceptions of Van Til”:

1. Van Til rejected the use of evidence in apologetics
[A] minority of evangelicals continues to support retrenchment and isolationism. […] Not nearly as extreme [as the view of Eta Linnemann] but more widespread is the legacy of Cornelius van Til, longtime professor at Westminster Seminary and champion deluxe of the presuppositional approach to apologetics. Exponents of his perspective reject the kind of ‘evidentialist’ apologetics of the Tyndale House Projects (or, for that matter, of substantial portions of this book) as misguided, because they think that one cannot demonstrate the probability of Christianity apart from presupposing its truth.
(Craig L. Blomberg, ‘The Historical Reliability of the New Testament’ in William Lane Craig, Reasonable Belief, Wheaton: Crossway Books, 1994, p. 202)

[It is true that Van Til maintained “one cannot demonstrate the probability of Christianity apart from presupposing its truth”, but it doesn’t follow that historical research and evidences are worthless and inappropriate for use in apologetics. On the contrary, Van Til explicitly endorsed the use of such evidences and even admitted to employing them himself on occasions! (See the quote in section A.III.1.) His concern, however, was that since all empirical evidence is subject to interpretation according to one’s basic presuppositions, evidences presented in support of Christianity will not function as evidence for Christianity when interpreted within an anti-Christian philosophical framework (e.g., metaphysical naturalism or epistemological antirealism). Thus, one should not “talk endlessly about facts and more facts without challenging the unbeliever’s philosophy of fact.”]

http://www.vantil.info/articles/vtfem.html#BI4

2. Eric claims that presuppositionalist don’t understand the difference between ontology and epistemology. Sye stated something about logic belonging to God and thus implied atheist can’t use or know anything about logic. Eric unsurprisingly missed the point that he isn’t saying the unbeliever doesn’t know anything about logic but rather given his presuppositions or his ultimate commitments about reality he couldn’t know anything at all. It is as if Eric hasn’t read any standard presuppositionalist that labor to make this point(e.g. Frame, Bahnsen, Oliphint. Van Til, Anderson, etc). The issue is that Van Til recognized that epistemology isn’t separate(as many philosophers have thought, especially in the aftermath of Immanuel Kant). Van Til is focused on an outlook or an entire worldview in which reality is intelligible. That requires that we have a metaphysic that makes sense of the reason we can have something like logic. It can’t be narrow like the cogito ergo sum “I think, therefore I am” because it needs to unify and explain all things grounding intelligibility of everything. So, every statement about knowledge has metaphysical implications. William Dennison speaks to this issue in his work which I quote here:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2018/02/20/van-til-and-common-grace/

3. Eric constantly can’t distinguish between evidentialism and evidence itself. He also operates off a simple-minded to positivism that makes have this “let’s just talk about the facts”. Facts are important but so is the way we interpret facts. Classical apologist thinks they can simply ignore the issue of presupposition in the midst of giving evidence. This is why Bahnsen criticized them for trying to be neutral.

4. Dr. James White states that something to the sort that TAG doesn’t work on other theists. I think he’s wrong on that and takes a strong view about what TAG can demonstrate. I’m not committed to all of Dr. White’s and Sye’s commitments.

5. They speak about the issue of determinism and whether that is inconsistent with a Holy God. If God determines everything, then he causes everything and thus is responsible for every evil deed. Leighton and the flower patch kids haven’t read anything I have written. But the issue is they don’t distinguish between causal responsibility and moral culpability. Don’t tell Leighton or Eric that because I’ve said it for going on two years now and they still haven’t listened:

http://spirited-tech.com/COG/2017/04/25/how-to-flunk-soteriology101/

A bit of irony is having a Pelagian and a Molinist speaking about how Calvinism is bad theology makes me chuckle inside.

6. They say if Calvinism is true, then they aren’t morally culpable for believing falsehoods because God caused them to believe what they do. Well, the obvious issue is they assume it is true but then compatibilism is true and they are responsible. So, they aren’t actually granting that, but the issue of why does God use falsehoods in order to save people? Well, why did they libertarian God create a world knowing that I would freely believe I lack this freedom and thus teach others they don’t have that freedom? Why have people become Christians by listening to Greg Bahnsen on freewill theism? Wouldn’t God want to reveal truths to believers instead of letting them besmirch his character? Wouldn’t it be avoided if God would’ve just said it to them in a dream Calvinism is false or do we have freewill dreams? Obviously, neither position is defeated by these more simplistic and not compelling questions. God uses falsehoods for his redemptive-historical purposes. I’m not arguing with what God decreed, I’m actually doing as God decreed me to do, but I believe that change is real. So, God can decree me to be the means to correct you and thus you can be decreed to change your mind. It isn’t even analogous to objecting to God for being morally wrong for predestining your silly philosophical speculations. Plus, when Eric debated Tyler Vela he showed that Eric was of no difference than the objector of Romans 9.