Apologetics to the Glory of God

Category: Learn Apologetics

  • Peripatetic 11 – Mailbag Edition

    Yes, I know – this took forever. But, this is the long-promised edition that outlines the necessary theological and doctrinal issues that underpin a Covenantal Apologetic. It is a response to a correspondent who asked me several questions, so I turned it into an impromptu “introduction”. Hope it’s helpful.…

  • The Apostle of Doubt vs. Calvin

    Why I Lack Certainty about Christianity – C. Michael Patton:

    Some people say that they have no doubt at all, and they never have. I have difficulty believing assertions such as this, though I suppose they might be true for a very small number of individuals. However, at this point, I think it would be valuable for us to distinguish between “certainty” and “certitude” (Daniel Taylor introduced me to this concept, but I don’t know if the distinctions he made are embedded in the specific definitions of the terms). “Certainty” is the more objective type of conviction. It is the

    …

  • Dr. James White Interviews Dr. Oliphint on the Janet Mefferd Show

    Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries does an excellent job interviewing Dr. K Scott Oliphint about his new book Covenatal Apologetics. Check out the show here or download the mp3 here.…

  • “We Destroy Arguments..”

    Chapter 5 of Dr. Oliphint’s book has been posted on Monergism with permission. Go give it a read and tell us what you think!…

  • Defending the Covenant in Covenantal Apologetics

    Dr. Oliphint’s new book, Covenantal Apologetics, just hit Kindle only a few hours ago.  Many have already balked at the mere suggestion of a “covenantal” apologetic, for various reasons, and the first chapter of the book explains the change in terminology, and I’m sure many are wondering if he’s successfully justified his “new” position.…

  • Van Til on The Will and Covenant

    “Hence we seek not to subject any part of Scripture to the principium generale, nor subject any part of scripture revelation to any other part, for that amounts to the same thing as again subjecting it to our own judgment. We found . . . that the Reformed covenant theology remained nearest to this Biblical position. Other theories of the will go off on either of two byways, namely that of seeking an unwarranted independence for man, or otherwise of subjecting man to philosophical necessitarianism. Reformed theology attempts to steer clear of both these dangers; avoiding all forms of Pelagianizing …

  • Covenantal Apologetics – Reformed Forum with K. Scott Oliphint

    An excellent show, with a number of in-depth and interesting discussions.

    Find it here.…

  • Some Sales on Great Resources

    Okay,

     

    So we happened to notice some resources that we’ve benefited from on sale, and thought we should let you know about them.

    First of all, you have  “Christian Apologetics Past and Present: A Primary Source Reader”  Vol 1 and Vol 2  authored By Drs. Oliphint and Edgar for $3.99 each on Kindle. The first Volume covers apologetics from year 1 to 1500, the second volume covers from  Reformation to today. This is a very excellent work and it deals with the two millennia’s worth   of all of the leading apologists.

    Another important work is “God With Us: Divine …

  • Dr.Oliphint on Covenant, its apologetic application, and the To-ing and Fro-ing methodology

    “But the “federal,” “covenantal” representation in Scripture does not move from the bottom up, as in a democracy. Rather, it is initiated “at the top,” as it were, by the Triune God himself, and there is no democratic, or other, means to change that relationship. Nor is there a need to, since the God who initiated the process could not have made a mistake. As a matter of fact, the “federal” process is reversed in God’s economy. Mankind is defined by one of two representatives — Adam or Christ — neither of whom are “elected” or chosen by us; rather, …

  • Controversy, Purity, or Consistency?

    As the release of K. Scott Oliphint’s “Covenant Apologetics” draws nigh, I’m finding that it’s harder and harder to get away, in Presuppositionalist circles, from the objections to the very use of these terms, and a modest storm of controversy that continues to build. There is, I think, a very good reason for that. It’s quite obvious, I’ve gathered, that the usage of”Covenant Apologetics” is significant in that it marks a watershed between a variety of streams of thought, and that of covenantal apologists. First, it marks a watershed, in the most general sense, from the postmodern conception of presuppositions …