You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Scan barcode
A review by josiahdegraaf
Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith by K. Scott Oliphint
3.0
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)
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)