Some opponents of covenantal apologetics contend the method relies upon so-called ‘God of the Gaps’ (GoG) argumentation. GoG is actually a form of the fallacious ‘Argument from Ignorance.’ But covenantal apologetics have nothing to do with GoG.
- GoG pertains to the natural world, whereas covenantal apologetics address topics well outside the narrow realm of naturalistic science.
- GoG arguments generally work in accord with natural theology, while covenantal apologetics preclude this use of natural theology, with arguments based instead upon the presupposition of the existence of God.
- GoG begins with alleged gaps in knowledge of the natural world. Covenantal apologetics do not identify a gap in knowledge, but undermine the rationality of the non-Christian epistemological scheme. There is not merely a gap in unbelieving thought, there’s a total void!
- God can be denied in GoG arguments with no further negative consequence than alleged ignorance concerning some allegedly natural phenomenon, but covenantal apologetics present the one true God who cannot, on pain of irrationality, be denied.
- GoG leaves no place for retortion, while covenantal apologetics are not complete without it.
This objection is a great distraction, but does not help the apologetic opponent who has not provided a basis whereupon he or she may even talk about topics like GoG.