There are a least three problems I (I got these objections from a different group on facebook) have with this approach: 1) If the noetic effects of sin are what these folks say they are then why think a transcendental argument is going to be more successful that any other kind of argument? It is just another kind of argument? 2) There is nothing around or about man that is not from God. Seems that as Christian we have a responsibility to speak of all of God's revelation as rightly His 3) The example we find in the NT is one in which the appeal leverages both general and special revelation to engage. Acts 26 is an example “I am not insane, most excellent Festus,” Paul replied. “What I am saying is true and reasonable. The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner." This if anything is an argument appealing to history and at minimum a form of evidentialism, the very thing that Bahnsen's article argues ought not be done. Since I have said much here perhaps you can help me reconcile the tension between Acts 26 and Bahnsen's conclusion "The Impropriety of Evidentially Arguing for the Resurrection."