Our friend Chris Bolt has done a 45 part series (well, 47 if you add introduction and conclusion) on Covenantal (Presuppositional) Apologetics.
While I’m not covenantal in my theology (I’m more dispensational), I think those who are part of the larger Evangelical landscape can have something to learn from this series. May I add that I subscribe to Van Til’s Presuppositional Apologetics.
Here’s the links of the series:
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics – Introduction
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 1 – There are two worldviews.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 2 – Everyone has presuppositions.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 3 – There is no neutrality.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 4 – Evidence that Christianity is true.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 5 – Arguments that Christianity is true.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 6 – Arguments that Christianity is true refuted.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 7 – Moral and intellectual objections of the unbeliever.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 8 – Role of the Holy Spirit and reason.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 9 – Standards of presuppositions.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 10 – Unbeliever’s knowledge of God.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 11 – Unbeliever’s suppression of the truth.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 12 – Transcendental argumentation.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 13 – Sufficiency of the Christian worldview.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 14 – Nature of the transcendental.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 15 – Illustrating necessity by the impossibility of the contrary.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 16 – Internal critique.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 17 – Universal problem of skepticism.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 18 – Starting point of knowledge.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 19 – Religions that share our authority.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 20 – Skepticism as a problem of connection.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 21 – Conceptual map and the external world.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 22 – Severing the senses.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 23 – Subject determined or free.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 24 – Memory, senses, reason, and beliefs.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 25 – Subject dissolved.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 26 – Omniscience and unrelated objects.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 27 – Logic and the external world.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 28 – Unity and diversity.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 29 – Problem of induction.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 30 – Uniformity of nature.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 31 – Is and ought.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 32 – Human dignity.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 33 – Ethics and morality.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 34 – Problem of evil.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 35 – Normative justification and warrant.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 36 – Aesthetics.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 37 – Communication, personhood, meaning, purpose, and other human experience.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 38 – Impossibility of science.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 39 – Impossibility of history.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 40 – Deism.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 41 – Polytheism.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 42 – Atheism.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 43 – Agnosticism.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 44 – Islam.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics: Part 45 – Redemption.
- An Informal Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics – Conclusion
The Domain for Truth 
Why does Bolt attach Covenant theology to his system of apologetics?
I’m confused as this sure sounds like he’s riding a hobby horse from one field to another and confusing the issue by attaching on new terms.
Just call it “presup” and move on.
Okay.
Jimmy, I have a SERIOUS problem.
I don’t care about the “covenantal” label as much as something else.
I skimmed through all 45 of those posts and, well, I agree with Bolt. I like Chris. He’s a smart guy, and he’s doing what he discerns is doing biblical apologetics…
…except that he’s not getting anything he says from the actual exegesis of specific biblical texts. He alludes to Romans 1 a few times, but he’s basically philosophizing about theological issues in a way that’s, well, disconnected from the scripture in a way that I find frightening.
I find it frightening partly because of the reading I’ve done on that suggests that the uniform testimony of history is that when men build theological/doctrinal/apologetic systems on philosophical groundwork, things ALWAYS go bad somewhere along the yellow brick road of good intentions.
I find it frightening mostly because unless you’re not speaking from God’s word. If you’re not speaking from God’s word, you have no guarantee of the truthfulness of your ideas, you’re not doing evangelism (which is really what apologetics with unbelievers is), your foundation for authority is lost and the divine power of the scripture is absent from your efforts. Beyond that one could possibly suggest that, in practice, you’re evidencing that you don’t really believe some of the things that you profess about the word of God (i.e. sufficiency or efficaciousness).
I’ve talked with Bolt before on the lack of what I am beginning to call “exegetical apologetics”; namely building up a system of rational defense for God and his word on the basis of the actual teaching of the text of scripture. This doesn’t mean general allusion to passages like Romans 1, but would mean answering specific questions from specific text of scripture. Come to think of it, I’ve never seen any exegetical defense for the T.A.G that a text book case of blatant eisegesis.
I’m not saying that presuppositional apologetics isn’t right or true, but I’m suggesting that the more presuppositional guys I read, the less serious exegesis I encounter.
I apparently am sleepy and have horrible grammar. Please excuse my inability to write in my own language.
Mennoknight,
I do agree with you the need for serious exegetical works as the foundation for Presuppositional Apologetics.
“Why does Bolt attach Covenant theology to his system of apologetics?”
Where did I do this? Be specific.
“I agree with Bolt.”
What do you agree with me on? Be specific.
“…he’s not getting anything he says from the actual exegesis of specific biblical texts.”
What inconsistencies have you noted between the claims in my introductory series and the actual exegesis of specific biblical texts? Be specific.
“If you’re not speaking from God’s word, you have no guarantee of the truthfulness of your ideas…”
How do you know that this idea, or any of the other ideas you have provided here, are true? Be specific.
“I’m suggesting that the more presuppositional guys I read, the less serious exegesis I encounter.”
Are you reading these “presuppositional guys” in instances where they are writing on subjects other than exegesis like I was? If so, then I am not sure why you are complaining.
You need to think a bit more critically about what you have written here, especially in light of my questions. If you do that and still have the “SERIOUS problem” with my introductory series then I will post the much lengthier response to you that I have prepared for Choosing Hats.
See also my comments here –
http://mennoknight.wordpress.com/2010/08/21/wheres-the-apologetics/
[…] There has been discussion on this blog concerning Presuppositional apologetics and exegesis of Scrip… Beyond the specific points of the participants, I think it is a general truth that Presuppositionalism can benefit from further exegetical support. […]
[…] with my Introduction to Covenantal Apologetics. He expresses his concerns in the comments here. I asked him a series of questions that he has not answered, so I will go ahead and give a few of […]
Okay. I’m off work with a shoulder injury and I saw a pingback on my blog, reminding me that I still have to comment here. I’m typing slow so I’ll be quick.
Chris, I was commenting to Jimmy, in the context of conversation that we’ve had over the years. I wasn’t trying to take a shot at you, though I did speak off the jerk of a knee. A certain wise man once warned me about the importance of letting a comment simmer on MS Word for 24 hours before posting it. I didn’t heed that wisdom and now I pay that price.
My agreements were in general tenor after a quick skim of your material. I am a proponent of Presuppositional Apologetics and find much general agreement. I skimmed all the posts and had a general agreement on things like the universal existence of presuppositions, the starting point of knowledge, the impossibility of the contrary, etc. I didn’t really have disagreements and I didn’t come looking to pick a fight.
What burdened me was that off the top of your head you can write a ton of stuff that doesn’t give me significant reason to think that the scriptures are what informs your apologetic. For example, on your third point you talk about the concept of the myth of neutrality and you don’t go to John 9-10, or Luke 16, or 2 Peter 3, or Mark 3, or any of the passages that immediately come to my mind when I’m talking about that issue. You don’t go to any scripture at all, and I cannot help but wonder why that is. Personally, I cannot talk about the myth of neutrality, even off the top of me head, without going to the scripture and building my case on the scripture. My exegesis of the scripture is the content of my case against the myth of neutrality.
If the mouth speaks out of the overflow of the heart (Matt. 12:34), and what comes out when you speak off the cuff is not argumentation built on the text of scripture, then your own writing suggests that the scripture isn’t actually what drives the content of your apologetic. If John 17:17 is true and the scripture is truth, and if Hebrews 4:12 is true and the word of God is living, active and what penetrates the heart, then I need to make the word of God the main content of my apologetic. I’m sure I’m not being articulate or clear, but I have a mind fogged up with painkillers and I beg mercy.
As for the “Covenantal Apologetics”, I don’t know why you call it “Covenantal Apologetics”. I don’t know why you’re changing the name of Presuppositional Apologetics to something else, especially such a loaded term. I mean, if I started referring to Presuppositional Apologetics as “Dispensational Apologetics”, would you think that I was connecting Dispensationalism with Presuppositional Apologetics? I’d likely be torn up on 20 Podcasts and 200 blogs, and for good reason. I use the term “Presuppositional”, for better or worse, because it’s the widely accepted term. I don’t want to create unnecessary tension with brothers in the Lord who have in-house differences with me. I try, or at least try to try, to not push the buttons that I don’t have to. When I read “covenantal apologetics”, it sure sounds like someone is attempting to push a button that they really don’t have to.
Jimmy Jackson, I marked your comment as spam as it does not concern with the post and covenantal/presuppositional apologetics
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
Thanks again for the reblog of this older post😁
This post resonated with me…bookmarked it, looking forward to reading it again!