A popular objection to the covenantal apologetic is the claim that it lacks positive arguments or otherwise falls short of providing a positive apologetic. There are at least three responses to this criticism.
1. The distinction between a negative and positive apologetic and how the distinction is made is largely attached to apologetic method. Assuming definitions and a distinction that covenantal apologetics by their very nature do not share and then raising an objection to covenantal apologetics based upon the unshared categories of an alternative method is roughly equivalent to critiquing covenantal apologetics because they are covenantal apologetics and not some other method.
2. Transcendental argumentation is positive argumentation and as such adds to the positive aspect of the covenantal apologetic. Transcendental argumentation should not be confused with reductio ad absurdum even though the latter is often the more visible and pragmatic element of a transcendental argument.
3. The Christian worldview is implicit in the preaching of the Gospel and is made more explicit through theology. Therefore both the preaching of the Gospel and theological argument also constitute part of a positive covenantal apologetic. Evidences and arguments that are not strictly speaking transcendental in nature find their proper place here.