- The Gospel Coalition Blog - http://thegospelcoalition.

org/blogs/tgc -
Reason for Your Hope: Scott Oliphint on a Fresh Approach
Posted By Matt Smethurst On August 1, 2013 @ 12:01 AM In Bible and Theology,Opinion | No
Comments
"In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy," the apostle Peter tells us, "always being prepared to
make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you" (1 Pet. 3:15).
Defending the faith. Giving reasons for our hope. The apologetic task is fraught with
significanceand only bound to become more so in our increasingly hostile cultural climate. It's also
fraught with controversy among Christians. How should we approach and engage unbelievers?
Should we assume a certain level of epistemological "common ground" in such encounters? If so,
how much? If not, why not?
In his new book, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith
[1]
(Crossway), K. Scott Oliphint re-envisions the apologetic approach known as presuppositionalism
in terms of God's inescapably covenantal relation to every human being. (For more on this topic,
see Tim Keller's "In Defense of Apologetics
[2]
" as well as our 2012 series: "What Is
Presuppositionalism?
[3]
"; "Questioning Presuppositionalism
[4]
"; "Answering Objections to
Presuppositionalism?
[5]
"; "How Pastors Can Make Time to Talk with Skeptics
[6]
"; "5 Ways Pastors
Can Improve Their Apologetic Preaching
[7]
.")
I corresponded with Oliphint, professor of apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster
Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, about whether Arminians can be presuppositionalists, why it's
vital to remember theists go to hell, and more.
**********
Where is covenantal apologetics most misunderstood?
Confusion is most prominent in the area of argument. It's often thought the best this method can do
is preach, or assert, its truths, but never argue for them. This is a standard criticism.
[8]
Two brief responses may help. First, because any view that opposes Christianity is false, it's
necessarily the case that such a view cannot be consistent. Showing that inconsistency has
The Gospel Coalition Blog Reason for Your Hope: Scott Oliphint on a ... http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/08/01/reason-hope/print/
1 of 3 8/1/2013 6:15 PM
persuasive value (given that all people know God and unbelievers suppress that truth) and
constitutes an argument against it. Second, most of the confusion is rooted in a view of argument
that presupposes religious neutrality. This is sometimes less conscious, I imagine, but it's there
nevertheless.
This is one reason why someone would juxtapose argument with preaching. But if preaching is done
properly, we'd be hard pressed to conclude it isn't itself an argument for the gospel. If it's thought
that, in order for an argument to be what it is, it must begin with some agreed-upon foundation of
knowledge or proof, then a covenantal apologist cannot engage in an "argument" of this sort since
there is, in reality, no religiously neutral ground on which to proceed.
Can an Arminian be a presuppositionalist?
There are two principles informing my response to this question. First, as B. B. Warfield says, the
Reformed faith is "Christianity come to its own." If that is true, then any other theology is simply
less consistent Calvinism. This is the case, I believe, with Arminianism. Second, J. I. Packer made
the point years ago that "every Arminian is a Calvinist on his knees." This points to the fact that it's
not possible to be consistent, biblically and theologically, as an Arminian.
So can an Arminian employ a covenantal apologetic? If he's consistent with his theology, the answer
is no. Why would he want to when he has already granted such a large swath of (presumed)
autonomy to himself and his interlocutors? Given such autonomy, one cannot stand on the
monergistic power of the gospel to change people; that has to happen via the initiative of the
unbeliever.
What are the best arguments against covenantal apologetics?
The best arguments against it are in a group of arguments that insist the approach is unreasonable,
or opposed to the unbeliever's way of thinking, or unacceptable to the unregenerate mind. Of
course, this is all true. The approach is unreasonable, if reason is defined and determined by those
who are in Adam. It is, by definition, opposed to the unbeliever's way of thinking, and is
unacceptable to him.
Again, two brief considerations: first, in any true debate the two parties begin with premises,
concepts, and ideas that are, by definition, in opposition. So, just as the Christian position appears
to the unbeliever to be unreasonable and unacceptable, so does the unbelieving position appear to
us. Second, given the unbeliever's suppression of the truth, he knows, deep down, that what he
thinks is reasonable is actually not; he knows what he thinks is unacceptable ought to be
immediately and repentantly accepted. So a covenantal apologist has no desire to ride the roller
coaster of the unbeliever's irrationality. That's a ride that begins poorly and never ends well.
"We're not called to make theists out of people," you've remarked. "Theists go to hell."
Why is this point important to recognize and dangerous to ignore?
I don't think any Christian would disagree with this idea. The point has to do with the goal of
Christian apologetics. The goal isn't to argue for, or otherwise endorse, a generic theismas
Thomistic (i.e., Thomas Aquinas-influenced) apologetics wants to do. Rather, the goal is to show the
utter inescapability of Christian truth. In his Aereopagus address (Acts 17:16ff.), Paul knew his
audience was already convinced of theism. So what did he do? He moved the Athenians from a
discussion of the true Godopposing him to their own godsto a "proof" of this existence in the
resurrection of Christ. From that proclaimed "proof," he calls them to repentance.
The problem with unbelief is not its theism (or lack thereof), but its steadfast refusal to acknowledge
the true God, who is known. The best way to argue that point is with the whole counsel of Godnot
by moving people to acknowledge some generic "something, somewhere" that's probably out there
and bigger than we are.
Why is it vital to realize that every human we encounter "knows God" (Rom. 1:21)?
This universal knowledge of the true God is the epistemological foundation of unbelief. Arguing
according to that foundation, then, means we're dealing with unbelief as it really is and not, in the
first place, according to what the unbeliever might think it is. Historically we've been all too ready to
grant the unbeliever's self-assessmentas if it weren't radically affected by sinand then seek to
stand on that self-assessment with him. This is foolish. His unbelief only has meaning in light of his
knowledge of God and its suppression, so it's incumbent on us to first of all recognize Scripture's
The Gospel Coalition Blog Reason for Your Hope: Scott Oliphint on a ... http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/08/01/reason-hope/print/
2 of 3 8/1/2013 6:15 PM
analysis of unbelief. This is what, in part, Cornelius Van Til meant when he said, "Atheism
presupposes theism." For atheism to be what it is, there must first be, in the atheist, the knowledge
of God. The proper, biblical definition of atheism, therefore, is a foolish suppression of God's
ever-renewing and always-understood revelation of himself.
John Frame has written
[9]
, "If Scripture is the ultimate justification for all human
knowledge, how should we justify our belief in Scripture itself? By Scripture, of course!"
How would you respond to someone who objects that this is circularand thus illegitimate
reasoning?
This one is perhaps the most baffling to me, in that the charge can only be lodged by those whose
historical knowledge is contained within a few decades. This notion of circularity, with respect to an
ultimate authority, is nothing new. It's part and parcel of the Reformation's insistence that God's
revelation is the principium cognoscendithe foundation of knowingfor any and all people. By
definition, a foundation is that which one cannot get "beneath" or "behind." Therefore, the proof of a
foundation's existence and authority stems from that foundationand thus cannot lie behind it. If its
proof were behind it, then that proof would be the foundation's foundation, and on it goes. This is in
part what's meant in Westminster Confession 1.4, which speaks of Scripture's absolute authority. As
the confession recognizes, one either accepts God's Word for what it is and says, or one can accept
it because of what someone else (in this case the Roman church) says. If the latter, then the
(Roman) church is the foundation, and not Scripture. So it is for anyone who seeks a foundation
other than the Bible.
It should also be recognized that Westminster Confession 1.5 lists a number of arguments that can
be made with respect to this foundation. So acknowledging a foundation doesn't eliminate
arguments; it only ties those arguments to the foundation itself, and does notbecause it
cannotgo behind it.
Last, as Aristotle pointed out a few thousand years ago, everyone has some foundation, and thus
everyone must begin with what they can only substantiate by arguing fromnot by establishing it
according to something foundational to it.
Article printed from The Gospel Coalition Blog: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc
URL to article: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/08/01/reason-hope/
URLs in this post:
[1] Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith:
http://www.amazon.com/Covenantal-Apologetics-Principles-Practice-Defense
/dp/1433528177/?tag=thegospcoal-20
[2] In Defense of Apologetics: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/08/05
/in-defense-of-apologetics/
[3] What Is Presuppositionalism?: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/11/fides-
quaerens-intellectum-what-is-presuppositionalism/
[4] Questioning Presuppositionalism: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012/03/12
/questioning-presuppositionalism/
[5] Answering Objections to Presuppositionalism?: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2012
/03/13/answering-objections-to-presuppositionalism/
[6] How Pastors Can Make Time to Talk with Skeptics: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs
/tgc/2012/03/14/how-pastors-can-make-time-to-talk-with-skeptics/
[7] 5 Ways Pastors Can Improve Their Apologetic Preaching: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs
/tgc/2012/03/15/5-ways-pastors-can-improve-their-apologetic-preaching/
[8] Image: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/files/2013/07/Scott_Oliphint.jpg
[9] has written: http://www.amazon.com/Doctrine-Knowledge-God-Theology-Lordship
/dp/0875522629/?tag=thegospcoal-20
Copyright 2009 The Gospel Coalition Blog. All rights reserved.
The Gospel Coalition Blog Reason for Your Hope: Scott Oliphint on a ... http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/tgc/2013/08/01/reason-hope/print/
3 of 3 8/1/2013 6:15 PM