Covenantal Apologetics. Study Key Issues in Apologetics and Its Relationship with Christian Doctrine. Curated from a lecture series by K. Scott Oliphint. In his latest work, Covenantal Apologetics, K. Scott Oliphint seeks to recast Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics as “covenantal apologetics” – a . Covenantal Apologetics has ratings and 59 reviews. Andrew said: This book was good in more carefully defining presuppositional apologetics as covenan.

Author: Meztizahn Vot
Country: United Arab Emirates
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 21 September 2017
Pages: 299
PDF File Size: 4.65 Mb
ePub File Size: 12.93 Mb
ISBN: 579-1-60412-184-7
Downloads: 13426
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Vushicage

Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Want to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read.

Covenantal Apologetics

Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Preview — Covenantal Apologetics by K. 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 Defending the faith can be daunting, and a well-reasoned and biblically grounded apologetic is essential for the challenge. 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. Paperbackpages.

Published July 31st by Crossway Books first published July 1st To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up. To ask other readers questions about Covenantal Apologeticsplease sign up. Be the first to ask a question about Covenantal Apologetics. Lists with This Book. Jan 15, Andrew rated it it was ok Shelves: 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: 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 This book was good in more carefully defining presuppositional apologetics as covenantal apologetics, but Dr.

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

Jul 16, Benjamin Glaser rated it really liked it Shelves: 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.

Covenantal Apologetics – Reformation21

Therefore “Covenantal Apologetics” seeks to help people recognize that: The “dialogues” that are featured throughout the book, between “Covenantal Apologists” and Atheists, Muslims, etc. 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.

Jul 29, Kyle Oliphint rated it it was amazing Shelves: Will reread it every couple of years. Jun 11, John rated it really liked it Shelves: 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. An Analysis of His Thought, Presuppositional apologetics has had a difficult time breaking into the mainstream of Christian apologetics.

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. 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.

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. Those in covenant through Adam are covenant breakers, those in covenant with Christ are covenant keepers. 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.

Covenantal Apologetics : K. Scott Oliphint :

But covenantal apologetics argues that covenantql is no common ground in reason. Reason is not a neutral position—there is no neutrality! All Christians already believe in the truthfulness of the Christian gospel. Their reason has already rejected God, why would we believe that we could put evidence before them to persuade them of the truth?

Page What has been abandoned is the Scriptures as the foundational source of truth. Oliphint argues this, Reformational principle, is the bedrock belief: There simply cannot be sufficient evidential propositions apologetisc infinitum. He argues that all apologetics must be persuasive. 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 apologetivs finds its focus in the Word who became flesh and dwelt among us. This aspect of our apologetic is not flexible.

We must act as Christians in our apologetic interactions. It will depend entirely on who our audience is and our relationship to them. 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 ends the book by applying the covenantal apologetic method to false religion—specifically Islam. 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. Fovenantal, the principles may be applied broadly, but are our typical apologetical encounters going to apolofetics with those with Ph.

  JESD22 A115 PDF

How are we to arrive at God by any other means than by his self-revelation? Pages While I appreciated this, I would have liked to see Oliphint discuss the significance of God swearing by himself. It shows that God alone can be the foundation to all knowledge. 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.

Aug 30, Josiah rated it liked it Shelves: While Covenantal Apologetics gives a great biblical foundation for apologetics, it falters in how we should winsomely put those principles into practice.

Oliphant made an excellent argument for why we should use the term “covenantal apologetics,” as opposed to the term “presuppositional apologetics.

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

Where Oliphant excels is coovenantal conducting a detailed examination apolohetics the theology behind apologetics. Oliphint had great exegesis of several key biblical texts particularly Paul’s encounter with the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17and 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 apoologetics always very practical see belowthey 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. 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. 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.