Historically we’ve been all too ready to grant the unbeliever’s self-assessment—as if it weren’t radically affected by sin—and 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 analysis of unbelief.

“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 significance—and 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 (Crossway), K. Scott Oliphint re-envisions the apologetic approach known as presuppositionalism in terms of God’s inescapably covenantal relation to every human being. 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.

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 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.

Read More