That’s right, it was an inquisition! Ok, not quite that bad. was on Unbelievable? to talk about Presuppositional/Covenantal Apologetics. He ended up having to spend the entire time defending it from Kurt Jaros who clearly doesn’t understand the Theological underpinnings of the method, or their implications. However, because of this, there are some very good explanations that Dr. Oliphint gives that I think are very helpful. One that stands out in my mind is confusion between the fact that non believers are irrational yet we can also reason with them. Listen carefully for these great answers Dr. Oliphint gives in this interview and make sure to correct these same confusions.
Previous post: Rebranding Apologetics
Next post: An Overview of the 1689 London Baptist Confession
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
I enjoyed the discussion. It did seem a bit weak that Dr. Oliphint’s apologetic method hinges on his particular understanding of Total Depravity.
Reply
Theology driving methodology is a strength because it operates on what God has revealed i.e. the truth of the matter.
See the following:
https://choosinghats.com/2010/02/theology-drives-apologetic/
Reply
Yes and his particular understanding of depravity is but one necessary component in a comprehensive system that actually hinges on the universally revealed God of the self attesting scriptures.
Reply
If TD is incorrect then maybe the house of cards will fall.
Reply
“If TD is incorrect then maybe the house of cards will fall.”
If Christian theism is true, then total depravity is necessarily the case.
The apologetic methodology is based upon the teaching of scripture, which speaks of man as dead in sin.
Reply
But if it is based on bad theology, and it could be, then that method fails.
Reply
which method fails?
Reply
Real quick Justin. I spoke too soon. I got to the next 10 minutes or so this morning and saw that you were not in the weeds after all.
I hadn’t heard you before. My fault.
Reply
no need to apologize to me, I’m not Justin Brierley lol
Reply
Although you look and sound just like him.
Reply
A wild “Chris Bolt” has appeared
Reply
Justin McBrierly
Reply
In my car I only got as far as the part where the host and Jaros started talking about why the differences and they both veered 90 degrees right into the weeds. They started in on inability which is of course true, but is NOT the defining principle of “covenantal” apologetics.
Reply
I’m not sure what you mean but there were some great clarifications and illustrations Dr. Oliphint gave in his responses to Kurt Jaros’s confusions.
Reply
OOps no, I meant that Jaros and the host, whose name escapes me at the moment, went off in the weeds. I haven’t gotten to Oliphnt’s responses yet. He gave his initial presentation and then the host asked Jaros what he saw as the differences and 30 seconds later they were both, Jaros and the host (Not Oliphint) missing it like real bad.
Reply
Ah, yeah.
Reply
In Justin’s defense, he’s only a host, and has to move the program along – I thought, in some ways, he was actually having to argue Jaros’ points since he was doing so poorly, personally.
Reply