Covenantal Apologetics

[Don Maurer]

Covenantal Apologetics by K. Scott Olimphint

The subject of "presuppositional apologetics" has way too many terms to learn and philosophical concepts to graps for me. I only started the book, but its written in regular language that just about anyone can understand. Olimphint says some things I have no knowledge of. He says this method is "covenantal apologetics." He says that to title it "reformed apologetics" would be too broad. I must admit ignorance of the specifics of the variety of reformed apologetics. I have heard many of the names, but do not know the differences.

I will have to say more as I read more. I think this books gives good insight into the apologetical task which non-Philosopers can grasp. Romans 1, Peter, Acts, and several texts establish his concepts in the early part of the book.

Pre-suppositional apologetics is a scary subject that can be hard to read, but this books seems an easy read.

Has anyone finished the book?

 

[JM]

Sounds interesting. How does he approach evidence? Does he assume a Christian worldview and reason from his presumed position? Does he mention David Hume or Thomas Aquinas?

jm

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Sounds interesting. How does he approach evidence? Does he assume a Christian worldview and reason from his presumed position? Does he mention David Hume or Thomas Aquinas?

K. Scott Oliphint is a Van Tillian, at least in part, the book deals with the term "presuppositionalism" itself. From what I gather Van Til never really liked the term because what he really aimed for was a "Reformed Apologetic" to somewhat borrow from a title of one of the short pamplets he wrote about his works up until that time.

Dr. Oliphint's suggestion is to replace the generic "presuppositional" term with "covenantal apologetics" for several reasons. Reformed Theology calls for a Reformed Apologetic, Reformed Theology is systematic, a Reformed Apologetic should be Systematic.

Several key points of Van Til's apologetic are really the apologetic implications of total depravity, such as the role of "self-deception". Van Til's apologetic is also intertwined with Reformed distinctives such as Soli Deo Gloria while also touching on total depravity at the same time with the distinctive of the "myth of neutrality" and the implications of the authority of Jesus Christ as Lord of every aspect and area of life. The Reformed doctrine of monergistic regeneration also melds nicely with presuppositonalism, recognizing at the end of the debate, no amount of reasoning, historical evidences, scientific facts, etc. can or will cause regeneration, getting back to total inability.

I have not read Dr. Oliphint's book, but am familiar with the gist of it, it is somewhat of a re-packaging of Van Til, with a goal of writing on a more popular level, or layman level, not so much on an academic level as Van Til did. Bringing Van Til's Apologetic to a broader audience is the goal.

I am interested in how he ties covenant theology with Van Til's apologetic.