Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith

by K. Scott Oliphint, William Edgar (Foreword)

Defending the faith can be daunting, and a well-reasoned and biblically grounded apologetic is essential for the challenge. Following in the footsteps of groundbreaking apologist Cornelius Van Til, Scott Oliphint presents us with an introduction to Reformed apologetics as he sets forth the principles behind a distinctly “covenantal” approach. This book clearly explains the theological foundations of covenantal apologetics and illustrates its application in real-world conversations with unbelievers―helping Christians to boldly, knowledgeably, and winsomely proclaim the gospel.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Christian, Nonfiction, Christianity, Religion, Evangelism

288 pages, Paperback

First published July 1, 2013

About the author

Dr. K. Scott Oliphint Is professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is a graduate of West Texas State University (B.A., 1978) and Westminster (M.A.R., 1983; Th.M, 1984; Ph.D., 1994). An ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Dr. Oliphint served in pastoral ministry in Texas before coming to Westminster in 1991. He is the author of numerous books and articles, including The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith; Reasons For Faith; Revelation and Reason; "Epistemology and Christian Belief," (Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 2001); "Something Much Too Plain to Say," (Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 2006).

Reviews

[Andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book was good in more carefully defining presuppositional apologetics as covenantal apologetics, but Dr. Oliphint's denial of divine impassibility does impact his methodology, and without an immutable God we do not have an immutable standard for the preconditions of intelligibility: morality, logic, uniformity of nature, etc. Theology matters, your apologetic is only as strong as your theological foundation. The audience level for this book is for those who have already read some books and materials on presuppositional apologetics, it is more of an intermediate/advanced book on apologetics.

A longer critique of Dr. Scott Oliphint's tenent of Covenantal Condescension and denial of Divine Impassibility is posted at my blog:

https://1689reformedbaptist.wordpress...

I would recommend Greg Bahnsen's book, Always Ready, as a better introduction to Presuppositional Apologetics and because it doesn't present aberrant views concerning God's immutability.

[Benjamin Glaser · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dr. Oliphint attempts (wisely so imo) to ditch the word "presuppositional" and use "covenantal" to describe the Van Tillian approach to Apologetics. In other words the world is made up of two kinds of people, covenant-keepers and covenant-breakers. Everyone is in "covenant" with God. Therefore "Covenantal Apologetics" seeks to help people recognize that: 1) They are in covenant with God. 2) They are a covenant-breaker and their reality is "Oz" vs. the believer's "Kansas", 3) and are in need of being made a covenant-keeper by Christ.

The "dialogues" that are featured throughout the book, between "Covenantal Apologists" and Atheists, Muslims, etc. are very helpful, in my honest opinion.

There is a lot of great, great stuff in this book. I cannot recommend it more highly.

It is also very readable if you may be scared by a book like this.

[Kyle Oliphint · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent! Will reread it every couple of years. This book is rooted in God's Word with the truth of the gospel faithfully communicated/defended for the glory of the Trinity.

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve long suspected that we need to ditch the term “presuppositional.” I don’t think Van Til ever really used it and among both his defenders and critics, engaging the term often reveals hopeless ineptitude. So right off the bat we can judge Oliphint’s book a marginal success, even if he doesn’t get anything else right. But I think he does.

This is a marked improvement upon his Battle Belongs to the Lord, which was so elementary that it was helpful to a very few. I should note my sympathies. While I am an anti-Thomist, I don’t consider myself in the “Van Til” school. I’m rather more of a mix between Bavinck and Schilder. I have affinities with Van Tillianism, but nothing more.

We commend Oliphint for always wanting to go beyond mere “slogans” and platitudes.

Ten Tenets of Covenantal Apologetics

(1) The faith we defend must include the Triune God, not an abstracted Being of Being. Oliphint notes that when we “being with” the Triune God, this doesn’t necessarily mean in a temporal sense. It doesn’t mean we have to begin each apologetic session with “In the Name of the Transcendental Argument.” This point is surprisingly lost on most young Van Tillians.

(2) God’s covenantal revelation is authoritative by what it is.

(3) The truth of God’s covenantal revelation brings a change in man.

(4) Man as image of God is in covenant with the Triune God for eternity.

(5) All people know God and knowledge entails covenantal obligations.

(6) Those in Adam suppress the truth.

(7) There is a covenantal antithesis between Christian theism and its opposite.

(8) Suppression of the truth is total, but not absolute.

(9) True covenantal knowledge connotes God’s mercy, which allows for persuasion.

(10) Every fact is covenantally conditioned.

God as “I Am”

Creation doesn’t change God’s aseity, but it does introduce a new relation. God’s covenant binds him, as it were (Heb. 6:17-18). God has taken an oath, which is judicial, covenantal language.

Paul’s Apologetic

The language in Acts 17:24ff is covenantal: God appointed boundaries, created the world, is close to us (which entails obligations).

Image, Knowledge, and Lordship: By virtue of being created, we are vice-regents. God has committed himself to his covenant and his creation.

Key points:

* If man’s mind is derivative, then self-consciousness always presupposes God-consciousness.

* Everybody is related to a covenant head, either Adam or Christ. Even apart from sin’s entrance into the world, man is in covenant relationship with God (WCF 7:1). Covenantal Apologetics, therefore, explores how this relationship affects our reasoning processes.

Criticisms

* The book’s style is uneven. It goes from dialogue to an evaluation of philosophical essays on eternity, with little warning. And while it makes good points concerning Owen’s distinction between the gifts of the Spirit and the fruit of the Spirit, it seemed tangential to the chapter.

** While the section on the problem of evil was very good (more on that later), his dialogue between Christian and unbeliever seemed more like an essay. This is not how people talk.

*** I agree with him on opposing the false elemental philosophy of the age (Col. 2:8), but this is far more than simply saying no to the Zeitgeist. If we are going to bring up the stoichea, then we need to really develop the thought: elemental spirits, principalities, etc.

**** The danger in writing manuals on presuppositional apologetics is one of the One and the Many (if I may engage in extended punning). None of these books can stand alone. A presup author will say, “X religion fails to account for y.” And since this isn’t a book on X religion, this claim is almost never developed, which calls for a book on y or z. To an extent that’s only natural. At this point, though, the apologist must either engage in the particulars of Islam or Mormonism, or simply concede that he is just quoting bible verses. He has to show why X is false on its own terms and not simply chant “suppresses the truth in unrighteousness.”


To be fair to Oliphint, though, his dialog with the Muslim was pretty good. There are some very interesting suggestions on Allah’s simplicity, which Oliphint doesn’t pursue. Oliphint’s interlocutor does provide some hints: “Let’s suppose that Allah is absolute oneness, as you say. That means that there is no differentiation in him whatsoever. This means, as you say, that even the revelation of his will, the Qur’an, is his eternal speech. But I remain puzzled as to how the transcendent One can have speech at all? If it is identical to him, it cannot be differentiated. “


And Oliphint gives the conclusion: What is speech where there is no difference?

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Presuppositional apologetics has had a difficult time breaking into the mainstream of Christian apologetics. It is easy to see why, when is largely the discovery of Cornelius Van Til, who though a brilliant thinker, is a difficult writer to grasp. He is intellectually challenging, and frankly, out of the intellectual range of most people.

There have been many attempts to popularize him. I’ve read Greg Bahnsen’s Van Til’s Apologetic and John Frame’s Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought, both of which are two of the most popular works on Van Til. The trouble with these two works is they are still geared toward the academy, and are very challenging works. There have been other attempts at popularizing presuppositional apologetics, but for one reason or another, none of them seem to have the far reaching effect that is needed to bring presuppositional apologetics into the mainstream. Enter Scott Oliphint’s Covenantal Apologetics.

This book has received a broad range of exposure on the internet in the last few months and Crossway has gone to great lengths to market the book and widen its appeal. It is easy to see why, as Oliphint has taken great effort to make this book the kind of broad introduction to the method as any I’ve seen.

To begin with, Oliphint has proposed a new name for the method. Presuppositional is a descriptive term, but it is a bit philosophical and Oliphint argues it has worn out its uses. Instead, he proposes “covenantal apologetics.” The “covenantal” comes from Van Til’s argument that all men are in a covenantal relationship with God—either through Adam or through Christ. Those in covenant through Adam are covenant breakers, those in covenant with Christ are covenant keepers. As Oliphint says, “it assumes, in each case, a relationship to God.” (Page 32) It is this relationship that is central to the apologetic that Oliphint faithfully exposits, drawn from Van Til.

If all men are in a relationship with God, all men know God. If all men know God, all are responsible for their covenant relationship with God. Those who suppress the truth of their knowledge of God, are still responsible for what they do know. This also means that the common ground between the believer and unbeliever, the covenant keeper and covenant breaker, is the knowledge of God.

Evidentialists, rather, seek for common ground in reason. But covenantal apologetics argues that there is no common ground in reason. Reason is either the possession of the covenant keeper through the Holy Spirit, or the common-grace gift, which allows the covenant breaker to function in God’s world, despite his otherwise suppression of the truth of God’s sovereignty over creation. Reason is not a neutral position—there is no neutrality!

All Christians already believe in the truthfulness of the Christian gospel. So, if “Christianity is true, so anything opposing it is false.” (Page 27) This fundamental belief is often cast aside in apologetic encounters, in an attempt to begin with common ground—but the only common ground is the universal knowledge of God.

The reason of covenant breakers is autonomous human reason—and is inherently unwilling to submit to the truth they already know, of God’s existence and sovereignty. Their reason has already rejected God, why would we believe that we could put evidence before them to persuade them of the truth? They know the truth, they won’t submit to it, and they suppress it.

Oliphint connects this knowledge to Calvin’s sensus divinitatis (sense of deity). He writes, “It is this all-important truth—the truth that all people, because made in God’s image, know God—that provides the ‘point of contact’ between what we as Christians believe and espouse and what anyone else might believe and espouse.” (Page 129)

The evidentialist approach has been “unduly dependent” upon rationalism, empiricism, and the Kantian synthesis. (Page 137) What has been abandoned is the Scriptures as the foundational source of truth. Oliphint argues this, Reformational principle, is the bedrock belief: “The dilemma is obvious. There simply cannot be sufficient evidential propositions ad infinitum. There has to be some ‘place’—some proposition, some concept, some idea, some foundation of authority—that is sufficient to carry the conceptual weight of what we claim to know, believe, and hold.” With Scripture as the “the proper foundation for everything else that we claim to know or believe,” we have that which nothing can “go behind.” As he writes, “Any ‘going behind’ would necessarily show that there is something more foundational on which Scripture must rest.” (Page 128-129)

This is all introductory to the work, as it is in chapter four where Oliphint begins to show his true purpose in the book. He argues that all apologetics must be persuasive. This is not to say that is the goal, as he later argues, “Our goal in a covenantal apologetic cannot be the conversion of those to whom we speak. That is a goal that we cannot accomplish. It is our prayer, but should not be our goal. Rather, our goal is to communicate, as persuasively as we are able, the truth of God himself, as that truth finds its focus in the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us.” (Page 159) Instead, what he means, is that apologetics is centered on Scripture, and not evidences or proofs. We aren’t trying to pile up evidence in our favor, so much as demonstrate the truthfulness of the gospel and the falsity of all else.

He uses Aristotle’s trivium of rhetoric, ethos, pathos, and logos to show his apologetic method. Ethos is “generally, one’s character.” (Page 139) We are to be holy—that is beyond reproach—gentle and respectful. This aspect of our apologetic is not flexible. We must act as Christians in our apologetic interactions.

Pathos is our understanding of “how those to whom we may speak might feel.” It is our “proper and personal understanding of those to whom we speak.” Pathos is our understanding and relationship to our audience. It will depend entirely on who our audience is and our relationship to them. As he writes, “In persuasion, it is the task of the speaker properly to construe his audience, with a view toward communication that is ‘adequate to the occasion.’” (Page 146) Oliphint spends a great deal of time here, as this is perhaps the most important aspect of the apologetic—knowing how to properly relate to our audience.

Logos, is, of course, the “word” or message we are communicating. This is dictated by Scripture. We must be faithful to the Bible in communicating the Bible. Hence, we must be faithful in the proper handling of the Word.

Once Oliphint lays out his method, he then applies it to some specific scenarios. He begins with the problem of evil, and he interacts with Alvin Plantiga’s response to the classic apologetical “problem.” He even has a lengthy sample dialogue with an “atheist objector.”

He moves on to write of the “wisdom” and the “Spirit of Persuasion” and has another sample interaction with Daniel Dennett’s writings in Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. He ends the book by applying the covenantal apologetic method to false religion—specifically Islam. Here he interacts with a Muslim influenced by Muhammed Abduh’s The Theology of Unity.

While the sample interactions, two with atheists, and one with a Muslim, are helpful, they are not necessarily the most relevant for the average layman. All three interactions are with high-caliber intellectuals, and are necessarily complex and philosophical. Yes, the principles may be applied broadly, but are our typical apologetical encounters going to be with those with Ph.Ds?

My single greatest appreciation of the book is its explicit Scriptural grounding—particularly in his exposition of God’s name, “I AM.” Oliphint grounds God’s aseity in this name that God tells to Moses. How are we to arrive at God by any other means than by his self-revelation? This God who “Is who He is” may not be argued to, or “proven.” Who is qualified to be a judge—God, or man? (Pages 58-60)

While I appreciated this, I would have liked to see Oliphint discuss the significance of God swearing by himself. This is another demonstration of God’s aseity. It shows that God alone can be the foundation to all knowledge. If we abandon God’s self-revelation, what other grounding do we have?

The book is solid, surely not everything everyone will want. But it does faithfully lay out the presuppositional apologetics in a straightforward manner, that will surely make the method more understandable, and hopefully put to greater use.

[Eric Yap · Rating 4 out of 5]

As one of the theological heirs of Van Til, Dr Oliphint's work on apologetics brings many unique and much-needed contributions to the presuppositional school of apologetics. First and foremost, what is most observable and much needed is the contextualising of this method of apologetics to the modern-day dialogue between the believers and the non-believers/believers of other faiths. Van Til has been widely acknowledged to be difficult to read, and often in the elucidation of his method, he engages and critiques various schools of philosophies and apologetics in very ivorian-tower academic language. Therefore it is often hard to follow along with Van Til's line of argument, with many of Van Til's critiques a result of misunderstanding him. Oliphint does a fair job of explaining Van Til's method in a more palatable manner. Additionally, he also contextualizes it by demonstrating how this method of apologetics might play out in engaging the naturalist, humanist, or Muslim in the modern day. Indeed, what Oliphint essentially does in most parts of his book is to "make practical" and show what Van Til's method of apologetics looks like in action. Besides that, Van Til is often criticized for not showing sufficient biblical exegesis and work in substantiating his argument or his method of apologetics, which Van Til concedes and regrets because he often moves with a broad brush, "aggressive" prose. Oliphint does a very important job of explaining Van Til's theological method of apologetics by presenting the case with thorough biblical and theological synthesis from the Scripture.

Second and finally, the other most salient development and contribution of Dr Oliphint to WTS' school of presuppositional apologetics is in his attempt to move beyond the label of "presuppositional" to "covenantal apologetics." The negative reason is that the term "presuppositional" carries too many connotations from continental philosophies and non-Reformed Christian thoughts and methods, and it may even result in unhelpful interpretations due to Kantian burdens. Positively, this is because Van Til's method is ultimately and consciously built upon Reformed covenant theology as its architectonic framework. Hence it can be said that Van Til's method is ultimately theological and not philosophical, which is its main differential feature from other schools of Christian apologetics. In a nutshell, this is probably the best primer for Van Til's deliberately, Reformed, theological and covenantal mode of Christian persuasion and apologetics.

"The point is that we are now speaking of theological systems. When Warfield makes the high claim that Calvinism is “nothing more or less than the hope of the world,” he is speaking of the Reformed system of theology and of the Reformed point of view in general. Other types of theology are supernaturalistic in patches. To some extent they yield to the idea of autosoterism, to the idea that man to some degree is saved by his own effort. Therefore, argues Warfield, “Calvinism is just Christianity.” But then, by precisely the same reasoning, Reformed apologetics is the hope of the world." - Van Til, Defense of the Faith

[Adam · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book, in part, for a ministry I have been volunteering to be involved with for the past several months. Since the reading has gone through an extensive period of time, there are certain sections that are more difficult to remember than others. This is at no fault of the authors, but merely the readers for having read this over the course of several months.

Even so, this text has glaring issues that are confusing and unhelpful. For example, as many others have mentioned, the fictional dialogue Oliphint has with this book is unhelpful and unrealistic. Perhaps these debates would happen the way Oliphint theorizes in a professional debate setting, but that is not how "street apologetic" conversations usually work.

Furthermore, presuppositionalism generally assumes no room for "hypothetical assumptions". However, there is a chapter with a hypothetical of God's existence. This works fine in other forms of apologetics but seems inconsistent with the presuppositional system.

This is not to say the entire volume was bad in and of itself. Despite my apologetic differences from the author, I do think that this book does well by emphasizing that Christians have different ‘world view’ than non Christian. Therefore, it is best to set out those different world views at the beginning of an apologetic conversation as oppose to using their worldview as a basis for logic. As a way of illustration, it would be like letting your opponent pick out his weapon and yours. This has definitely changed the way in which I will approach apologetics, even though this volume has not convinced me of the presuppositional position as a whole.

[JT Stead · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was overall a great book on apologetics. It’s pretty technical at parts but it captures the biblical apologetic and gives examples of how to apply it. I was encouraged and gained a better grasp of defending the faith with the Word of God.

On a theological note, the author has a weird view of what he calls “Covenant condescension” that implies that God takes on NEW properties when he Created man. This view is at best very messy and at worst heretical in that it undermines the immutability (unchanging) and impassability of God. If God takes on properties or characteristics (Grace & wrath etc) that were not intrinsic to who He is then God can change and is not immutable. Therefore we lose all assurance of his word and promises.

I still give this book 4 stars because most readers will not catch this nuance. A great book on the subject of God’s attributes is “none greater” by Matthew Barrett.

[Luke Schmeltzer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oliphint is a leading theologian in the field of Presuppositional apologetics, which is why I was excited to read this book. However, the book starts strong and ends weak. The apologetic tenets he begins the books with are solid gold, but his chapters of hypothetical conversations are unclear and unrealistic. His problematic language of “Covenantal properties” is used throughout.

[Matt Crawford · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not the usual apologetics book. It tries to be a basic introduction to apologetics but it is a bit more than that. It claims to be in the style of presuppositions and Van Til, but it does not really rely on Van Til as much as it thinks. There are sample conversations which some may enjoy. I for one did not. It spend less on apologetics as a whole and more on isolated issues.

[Lady Mac]

I’m not going to give this book a star rating as I feel it would be unfair to those who would and do get something out of it.
This book is dense. I typically consider myself an intelligent person, but I struggled to keep up with the concepts and trails of thought in this book. I’m not sure if it was because of the way Oliphint writes or my lack of familiarity with some of the finer details and concepts of apologetics.

[Hunter Hebenstreit · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good presentation of Van Til’s apologetic, framed in a new light.

[Josiah DeGraaf · Rating 3 out of 5]

While Covenantal Apologetics gives a great biblical foundation for apologetics, it falters in how we should winsomely put those principles into practice.

Pros:

Oliphant made an excellent argument for why we should use the term "covenantal apologetics," as opposed to the term "presuppositional apologetics." I was kind of skeptical at the beginning of the necessity of this change, and while it's still not a hill to die over, he did make a compelling case for why we should prefer the former term.

Where Oliphant excels is in conducting a detailed examination of the theology behind apologetics. Oliphint had great exegesis of several key biblical texts (particularly Paul's encounter with the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17), and argued for very clear and important biblical principles that ought to guide our evangelism. These were definitely some of the strongest parts of the book.

Oliphant provided strong arguments against unbiblical worldviews that hit right at the issue. While they weren't always very practical (see below), they also did a great job in pointing out the true issues and clashes that need to be addressed in these conversations. His chapter analyzing the problems with Islam was particularly well-done.

Cons:

Fictional conversations recorded in the book, while philosophical and hard-hitting, were nowhere near the kind of conversations people actually have in real life. As a result, the conversations could often seem kind of truncated and impersonal. While they often raised great points and strong arguments, unless you commonly use terms such as "hypostatic union," "the Western intellectual tradition," "contingencies," etc. in your conversations with unbelievers, these conversations probably won't be as helpful. They're great examples of how to respond to really smart, academic opponents, but they aren't as helpful for learning how to talk to the average person on the street in a way that doesn't turn him off.

Oliphint's handling of the problem of evil wasn't one of his stronger points. While he raised some unique and helpful points, overall it was conducted in an overly-logical and purely-rational way that I didn't think would convince many unbelievers. It was probably enough to convince the mind of an unbeliever; but, at least from my conversations with unbelievers, it likely wouldn't be enough to persuade the heart. I've seen better arguments on this subject, both for why God can be just even with the presence of evil, and for how to communicate this effectively to unbelievers. As a result, Oliphint didn't add much to the discussion in this chapter.

Oliphint seemed to fixate too much on Reformed doctrine and Calvinism in the work. A Christian's view of the sovereignty of God absolutely influences the way that he conducts evangelism and apologetics. But Oliphint's seemed to be more focused on converting the unbeliever into a Calvinist, than just into a Christian. Embracing the full sovereignty of God is indeed vitally important; but it's also not one of the essential doctrines of Christianity.

Overall:

The book's subtitle argues that this book is written in order to give us "Principles & Practice in Defense of Our Faith." It did a great job in articulating biblical principles. However, it was lacking in the field of practice. If you're looking for solid rationale behind proper biblical principles for apologetics, and a great defense of presuppositionalism, this book definitely has that. However, if you're looking for one that touches more on the practical side of how to conduct it, Bahnsen's Pushing the Antithesis, or Koukl's Tactics may be a better place to start.

Rating: 3-3.5 Stars. (Good)

[Brian Collins · Rating 3 out of 5]

Covenantal apologetics is Oliphint's name for Van Tillian presuppositionalism. Oliphint chooses this name because he finds presuppositionalism an inadequate term (there are multiple kinds of presuppositionalism and the existence of presuppositions is hardly news in a post-modern context) and because a key part of Oliphint's apologetic is that the transcendent God relates to mankind covenantally.
The book unpacks ten tenets:
1. The faith that we are defending must begin with, and necessarily include, the triune God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--who, as God, condescends to create to redeem.
2. God's covenantal revelation is authoritative by virtue of what it is, and any covenantal, Christian apologetic will necessarily stand on and utilize that authority in order to defend Christianity.
3. It is the truth of God's revelation together with the work of the Holy Spirit, that brings about a covenantal change from one who is in Adam to one who is in Christ.
4. Man (male and female) as image of God is in covenant with the triune God for eternity.
5. All people know the true God, and that knowledge entails covenantal obligations.
6. Those who are and remain in Adam suppress the truth that they know. Those who are in Christ see that truth for what it is.
7. There is an absolute, covenantal antithesis between Christian theism and any other, opposing position. Thus, Christianity is true and anything opposing it is false.
8. Suppression of the truth, like the depravity of sin, is total but not absolute. Thus, every unbelieving position will necessarily have within it ideas, concepts, notions, and the like that it has taken and wrenched from their true Christian context.
9. The true, covenantal knowledge of God in man, together with God's universal mercy allows for persuasion in apologetics.
10. Every fact and experience is what it is by virtue of the covenantal, all-controlling plan and purpose of God.

In the course of the book Oliphint emphasizes the goal apologetics is not winning an argument but is persuasion. One of the strengths of this approach is the close connection made between apologetics and evangelism. Oliphint also seeks to bridge the gap between theory and practice by including apologetic dialogues. The opposing lines are based, at least initially, on the published arguments of opponents to Christianity, both atheist and Muslim.

[Steve Hemmeke · Rating 3 out of 5]

Solid defense of Van Til’s apologetic method.

Premise: We should argue for Christianity from its supernatural revelation, not from a natural theology or bare Deism or rational approach. When we critique atheism and Christian skeptics, we should point out their own inconsistencies, rather than argue from "neutral" reason.

For example. In answer to skeptics who ask how an unchanging God can become incarnate, we should appeal to Athanasian and Chalcedonian thought, not fall back to what the modern person would consider reasonable.

Strengths: depth and persuasiveness.
Depth. Christ is Lord cosmically and redemptively. Oliphint makes this point theologically, in the abstract, but also shows how it is revealed in Exodus 3 and John 1. Lots of solid stuff!

Persuasive. The examples of skeptics’ arguments, which he then refutes, are gold.

Weaknesses: language and exclusivity.
Language. Oliphint is a seminary professor, and it shows. This book is not for the average evangelical reader, but I would encourage you to read books that you think are too deep for you! This is a great start. The book is touted as a step toward practical apologetics, from a Van-Tilian approach. And the mock conversations help that a little. But as a pastor for 10 years now, I’d like to see the cookies on a lower, less philosophical, shelf for the average pew-sitter to get.
A second language weakness is that it is verbose at times. Often it is needed to explain his point with enough clarity, but there is also a lot of review and extra.

Exclusivity. I see the merit of the presuppositional approach to apologetics, but also believe, depending on the audience and the course of the discussion with a skeptic, that the classical apologetic appeal to reasoned arguments can also be useful. Oliphint usually dismisses it completely, even seeing it as always unhelpful. I suppose he and Van Til have seen theology by natural reason used in a way that compromises the faith, but I don’t think the method does so inherently.

Highly recommended for those who have profited from listening to Ravi Zacharias, and other defenders of the faith like him.

[Nancy · Rating 4 out of 5]

An Accessible Approach to Reformed Apologetics

Although Oliphant characterizes his book as a translation of Van Til's Reformed apologetics, it broadens the scope and makes it more accessible to a general audience. In fact, he is responsible for making it more Christ-centered and proposing the name change from presuppositional apologetics to convenantal apologetics. Like other reviewers, I find this term much easier to understand and makes clear our covenantal relationship to God.

Chapters one through four lay out Oliphant's methodological approach including the basic biblical content. While these chapters are interesting and important, I found the last three chapters where Oliphant demonstrates his method in three imagined dialogues to be the most interesting. It's easy to read a lot about method, but to see it put into action is most instructive and most likely to give the reader an understanding of how to use the material. Chapter five focuses on the atheistic objector and the incompatibility of the coexistence of God and evil. Chapter six takes on the Darwinian controversy and addresses Dennett's and Dawkins issues with human origin. Chapter seven was to me the most fascinating. It was a dialog between a Muslim and Oliphant. Oliphant arguing that the Muslim God is not the same as the Christian God and that the Christian God is greater.

I highly recommend this book. It is very readable, although I admit some parts need a bit of study, and gives an excellent overview of the present state of Reformed apologetics.

I reviewed this book for Crossway.

[Cris · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book is easy to read, but its aims seem mixed. It should either be a education of Covenant Theology OR a book seeking to change the approach of presuppositional apologetics or a book for high school students and the average joe to read on how to convince their atheist friends that they are 'living' Christianity whether they admit it or not. The book can't be all things to all people.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good book. I think all Christians who find themselves contending for the faith once and all received should take time to read and consider covenantal apologetics.

[Nick Prodromou · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a very good book.

The foreword by William Edgar is an interesting history lesson as to how we've come to this point in apologetics, tracing the development of what will be defended throughout the work as a 'Covenental Apologetics'.

The first 2 chapters are essential reading. They lay the theological and biblical foundation.
The first presents the reformed and biblical teaching on what the Bible says about God, man sin & salvation - as represented by the Westminster standards, it then summarises it into the 'ten tenets' of a 'Covenental apologetic' approach. The second explores Christ's Lordship over all authority, and how that applies to our apologetics - this is pretty standard when it comes to presuppositional apologetics.

The rest of the chapters deal with application of the theological foundations of chapters 1 and 2. The chapters in this book are long, and not easy reading, philosophical ideas are explored at length, and the referred back to in later points in the book. The 10 tenets come up throughout, but they are always footnoted so you don't need to go back to chapter 1 to work out what's being said. The chapters tend to follow this flow: scripture, explain, apply to apologetics, example dialog.

Something to appreciate about this book is how practical it is, and also how grounded in scripture it is. Having read Bahnsen's Always ready, and listened to his 'Against all opposition' I found this easier to follow from a biblical perspective. This is just a repackaging of presuppositional apologetics, but without the baggage that that term brings along.

A note on the dialogues, some reviewers have pointed out that they seem contrived and unrealistic, but I appreciate what the author is doing. I believe that one could profit greatly from reading and studying the arguments laid out, if the chapters are the theory, then the dialogues at the end are the practical application.

Things I liked:
- the way the theology was presented
- The chapter on persuasion and how a Christian can use Ethos, Pathos & Logos.
- how everything stated flowed naturally from the theological foundations of the first 2 chapters
- The dialogue between the Christian and the Muslim at the end is very revealing and memorable, if you've tracked along with the book you'll be able to see holes in the opponents position before the argument proceeds.

Things I didn't like:
- a book like this could use a study guide, so lacking that I consider to be a loss
- The chapters are long
- Some things are assumed, as the author is from the Westminster seminary tradition, terminology from the Vos/Ridderbos/Gaffin camp is used about Christ's Lordship without qualification - which I needed to look into

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Apologetics. Epistemology. Thomism. Van Tillian Presuppositionalism. Terminology can be a beast sometimes. Labels, which are designed to communicate substantial amounts of truth in a word or few, are less than helpful when a person is unfamiliar with them and can become detrimental when either the meaning of the label is debated or the label itself is misunderstood.

I still remember at a church where I was on staff that I found out through the grapevine that I believed only 144,000 people would ever be saved. It seemed that because I had been labeled a "Calvinist" and thus believed in "election" then it was the case that I believed in only the salvation of the 144,000. While I am sure it shocked many in the church that I would believe such, none were as shocked as I was. Labels. They can be helpful. They can be confusing. They can be downright harmful.

Scott Oliphint makes the case in Covental Apologetics that this might just be the case with the label of "Presuppostional Apologetics". Oliphint feels it is time to move away from the terminology "presuppositional" and move towards a label more representative of the method itself, and one without the negative connotations that "presuppostional" enjoys.

Although, for that matter, "apologetics" itself is a word that is a bit loaded in our common vernacular. Oliphint does well to define "apologetics" and then offer an apologetic for its use. While many, from Barth to Kuyper to Spurgeon, have expressed reservations in regards to the discipline of apologetics, Oliphint shows that it is a discipline that is shown in Scripture to be allowable and beneficial, while also being directly commanded.(and one in which all these men engaged, even if they did not do so in a way that they would label as "apologetics")

"Christian apologetics is the application of biblical truth to unbelief. Really it is no more complicated than that. But it is complicated by the fact that there are so many theological permutations of biblical truth and almost no end to the variations and contours of unbelief. Not only so, but there have been, are, and will continue to be attacks of every sort that seek to destroy the truth of the Christian faith. So as one thinks about and commences to defend the Christian faith, things can become complex."

Oliphint makes the case that the Christian apologetic is one that is distinctly covenantal, one that is based on the fact that all humans are in a covenant relationship with God and are either in Adam, as covenant head, or in Christ, as covenant head.

"(B)asic to everything else we will say, we should recognize that every person on the face of the earth is defined, in part, by his relationship to a covenant head. That is, there are two, and only two, postions that are possible for humanity, and only one of which can be actual for each person at a given time. A person is either, by nature (after the fall into sin), in Adam, in which case he is opposed to and in rebellion against God, or he is in Christ, in which case by grace a person is not guilty before God but is an heir of eternal life. This is the covenantal status of humanity, and it assumes in each case, a relationship to God."

This is the crux of a covenantal (presuppostional) apologetic. Using Paul's argument from Romans 1, Oliphint shows that God has made Himself known to all men and men either receive this and acknowledge Him, or they rebel against Him and suppress this knowledge. As covenantal creatures we enjoy a sensus divinitatus, a "sense of the divine". This "sense of the divine" influences how we form our arguments with unbelievers and how we approach the discipline of apologetics.

Oliphint offer ten tenets to guide the Covenantal approach to apologetics. These tenets are:
"1. The faith we are defending must begin with, and necessarily include, the triune God--Father, Son, and Holy Spirit--who, as God, condescends to create and to redeem.
2. God's covenantal revelation is authoritative by virtue of what it is, and any covenantal, Christian apologetic will necessarily stand on and utilize that authority in order to defend Christianity.
3. It is the truth of God's revelation, together with the Holy Spirit, that brings about a covenantal change from one who is in Adam to one who is in Christ.
4. Man(male and female) as image of God is in covenant with the triune God for eternity.
5. All people know the true God, and that knowledge entails covenantal obligations.
6. Those who are and remain in Adam suppress the truth that they know. Those who are in Christ see the truth for what it is.
7. There is an absolute covenantal antithesis between Christian theism and any other, opposing position. Thus, Christianity is true and anything opposing it is false.
8. Suppression of the truth, like the depravity of sin, is total but not absolute. Thus, every unbelieving position will necessarily have within it ideas, concepts, notions, and the like that it has taken and wrenched from their true, Christian context.
9. The true, covenantal knowledge of God in man, together with God's universal mercy, allows for persuasion in apologetics.
10. Every fact and experience is what it is by virtue of the covenantal, all-controlling plan and purpose of God."

These tenets are fleshed out beautifully throughout the remainder of the book.

There were many outstanding moments in this book. One of the more memorable for me was Oliphint's chapter on the role of persuasion in apologetics and how he moved from the classical, educational Trivium (grammar, logic, and rhetoric) to the theological trivium (the principial nature of Scripture, the sensus divinitatus, and God's universal mercy) to the trivium of persuasion (ethos, pathos, and logos). The mixture of theology, philosophy, history, and Scripture applied so beautifully to the discipline of apologetics, specifically persuasion, and showing how critical the pathos of the apologist is, was wonderful. Chapter 4 alone is worth the price of the book.

And if chapter 4 alone is worth the price of the book then the reader should be ready to receive much more than they have paid for. This book is a great book. Oliphint deals with a broad range of subjects and he does so in a manner that will not easily lose his audience. There are a few spots where it feels like the current may sweep the reader away, but Oliphint does a fine job helping the reader find solid, familiar ground pretty quickly in these cases. The discussion on probability as it relates to a naturalistic worldview get pretty heady pretty quickly, but it is definitely worth looking at and was especially edifying to me.

Oliphint includes three model-discussions to see how a "Covenant Apologist" would deal with different worldviews. These discussions are informative and challenging, and frankly, just fun to read.

If you have any interest in knowing what Van Tillian, or presuppositonal, apologetics proposes, this is the book for you. I have to be honest, I get lost in Van Til quotes and have never been able to convince myself to dive into his work. Frame and Bahnsen are good, but as far as clarity and an engaging style, Oliphint, to me at least, is head and shoulders above his peers. This is a book that the reader will enjoy and learn from, regardless of whether or not you end up embracing this particular apologetic.

[Benjamin Thompson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Oliphint brings a number of helpful insights to the table. Namely, the importance of keeping apologetics theologically and Christologically full-blooded. Our apologetics should be informed by our theology, not the other way around. In offensive apologetics, his method is incredibly powerful, but it seems lacking in defensive apologetics. In answering critics Oliphint seems content simply to quote scripture, the Creeds and the Confessions of the early church and the Reformation without digging very deep into them. He argues, for instance, that Christ's union of human and divine natures in one person demonstrates that a sovereign and holy God is compatible with human free will and sinfulness. But this doesn't seem to help much if, like Oliphint, you are chalking up the Hypostatic Union to perpetual mystery. Why not save a step and just say it's a mystery how God makes sense in light of evil? In this way, it is unclear why Oliphints 'Covenental Apologetic' doesn't reduce to fideism, despite his efforts to escape fideism, accusing it of producing an impotent faith, unable to convict unbelievers of sin.

Nevertheless I think a more robust defense of Christianity can be given than Oliphint allows and it can be achieved with a kind of Presuppositionalism, though not one that Oliphint would easily adopt. This is because I think his apologetic hurts itself by rejecting the classical understanding of Divine Simplicity and a Thomistic account of Trinitarian relations along with the Hypostatic Union. I can't develop this apologetic here but suffice to say Oliphint's book is well worth reading for its commitment to Reformed Theology in the face of numerous Arminian and Molinist Christian philosophers and apologists.

[Roger · Rating 5 out of 5]

I wish I would have read this book while earning my master’s degree in Christian apologetics. This is, hands down, the best basic text on apologetic technique I have read. When I say basic, I do not mean introductory. It is best to come to this book with an established understanding of apologetics and philosophy (not just Reformed or presuppositional apologetics either).

The overall point of the book is to recast Van Til’s transcendental method as covenantal by emphasizing God’s condescension to creation as the foundation of truth and reason.

It’s also important to know that you do not have to agree with all of Dr. Oliphint’s theology to appreciate or apply this information (he would certainly disagree with that assertion). However, I am not a Calvinist, and I am a dedicated proponent of employing presuppositional techniques in the field of apologetics. And even if you find yourself disagreeing with the author, there’s still much to be learned from understanding his thesis in this book.

[Christian Barrett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Oliphint clearly defines and defends presuppositional apologetics. There is no doubt that he sees this as the main way one should engage with non-believers, and his argument is well thought out. However, it seems to fall apart in the examples that he provides for dialogue. The examples illustrate rigid and unnatural conversations and often fail to avoid the heart of the issue at hand. Some of them actually even abandon presuppositions apologetics by engaging in the conversation in the first place. It does not appear that Oliphint sees the limitations of this type of apologetics in everyday conversations.

[Adam Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful enough. Almost rated it 3 stars. I guess I was looking for fruit that hung a little lower, but it was a little easier to understand than Van Til’s Apologetics.

Good stuff on persuasion. Pretty biblical. I like his idea to rename Presuppositional Apologetics “Covenantal Apologetics.” His attempt at giving examples of possible conversations was good. He should supplement the book by sharing videos of actual conversations.

In all I feel like it made a helpful contribution to rounding out my apologetic arsenal. “Take up and read.”

[Pavel · Rating 5 out of 5]

The biblical-consistent way to do Apologetics

Going far beyond than just speaking about Apologetics and actually providing biblical foundation as a scaffolding for approaching the unbeliever is what this book does.

While it is not an Apologetics cookbook, you’ll be shown the path. Path that you’ll have to walk yourself, but now, better equipped. This, it seems to me, is one of the main goals of Dr. Oliphint. That is, teach you to think.

I highly recommend this book. It will encourage you to go to the Scriptures and to reason from there.

[Joe Carvajal · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think it is an excellent book but a primer in philosophy is helpful before reading this book. I appreciate Oliphint's striving towards espousing a Scriptural, Covenantal apologetic but found his verbatim-type conversations utilizing way more systematic theology and philosophy than I had hoped. Nonetheless, an excellent read and something that I have found edifying in my faith with Christ and helpful in approaching and analyzing apologetic conversations.

[Micah Kivelle · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book has a lot to help someone think through the covenant Al view of apologetics. This is a book on presuppositional apologetics but I like how he has adapted the term to covenantal apologetics. There are some sections that can be a little bit hard to follow if you are not familiar with philosophical terms, and there are points in his final chapter that the example conversation can be hard to follow because of it.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

Boy, what a beast of a book, but what a beneficial piece to read. Every christian should learn the covenantal approach, or at least listen through RTS's apologetics series with John Frame. An easier version of this apologetic is brought forth in "The ultimate proof of creation" by Jason lisle. I expect to read that next!

[Michael LeDuc · Rating 5 out of 5]

If you are interested in apologetics and defending your faith, this book is an excellent introduction to to what is known as presuppositional apologetics. K. Scott Oliphint offers insight on how we should defend Christianity with persuasion and a foundation of God authority, revealed in the world and in the scriptures, and not neutrality.

[Fletcher Lang · Rating 2 out of 5]

I really wanted to like this book. But there were some things that I couldn't get over. The author seemed to swap audiences each chapter - going super academic at times and then super lay-level. It just wasn't well done. I still like presuppositional apologetics, but I hope another modern apologetic comes out on its behalf.