What do you think?
Rate this book
Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics
This collection of essays sets in the foreground the necessity of exegetical and theological foundations for any Reformed, Christian apologetic. A Reformed apologetic is only Reformed to the extent that its tenets, principles, and methodology are formed and re-formed by Scripture. Here, noted theologians show the necessity of the truth of Scripture and the implications of that truth for apologetics--spelling out more clearly the need for, and the beauty of, an apologetic surrounded by the rich truths of the Reformed faith.
- GenresTheology
352 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2007
7 people are currently reading
162 people want to read
About the author
K. Scott Oliphint
43 books50 followersDr. K. Scott Oliphint Is professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is a graduate of West Texas State University (B.A., 1978) and Westminster (M.A.R., 1983; Th.M, 1984; Ph.D., 1994). An ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Dr. Oliphint served in pastoral ministry in Texas before coming to Westminster in 1991. He is the author of numerous books and articles, including The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith; Reasons For Faith; Revelation and Reason; "Epistemology and Christian Belief," (Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 2001); "Something Much Too Plain to Say," (Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 2006).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
February 8, 2024
It was very dry and philosophical. Extremely difficult to follow. Not very engaging.
August 15, 2008
{{EDIT: This is actually half of what I wrote. I only copied half of it (accidentally) to paste and didn't save it when I pasted over here. I'm too tired and lazy to re-type it, so you'll have to make do. Sorry...}}
In (i) I felt Gaffin (Epistemological Reflections in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16) and Silva's (The case for Calvinistic Hermeneutics) were the best.
In (ii) I appreciated Frame's (Divine Aseity and Apologetics) essay the best.
In (iii) I enjoyed most of the essays, particularly K. Scott Oliphint (The Old-New Reformed epistemology) and Don Collett's (Van Til and Transcendental Argument). Collett's was more formally technical than the others, and I feel he moved forward discussions of Transcendental Arguments. He rightly noted (as I and others have also noted) that Van Til's Transcendental Argument is not a reductio ad absurdem argument. It was also refreshing to see him illustrate the difference in transcendental argumentation for mere deductive argument. For example, his analysis of the term "presupposition" is a technical one which allows transcendental arguments to illustrate their formal distinctness. If the presupposed item is false, then there is no truth value assigned to the other premises. This hits on Van Til's claim about the inability for unregenerate man to predicate anything of anything if Christian theism is false. So, you might have:
C = Causality
G = God
[1]
C presupposes G
C
Therefore G
Looks like a valid modus ponens, right? Well Collett, following Stawson and van Frassen point out that in transcendental arguments the formal difference is shown when we negate the minor premise in [1] above. So:
[2]
C presupposes G
~C
Therefore G.
Since G allows any predication whatever then to predicate: "it is not the case that causality exists," then God must exist. This is because, in transcendental reasoning if G (or the "transcendental conclusion") were false then predication would be impossible and so the conclusion would look like this:
[3]
C presupposes G
~G
Therefore neither C or ~C.
Regular arguments from implication would have concluded:
[3*]
...
...
Therefore, ~C.
Not so with transcendental reasoning.
Now, whether you buy any of this or not is another matter, and surely you should read the whole chapter for all the details, but I thought it was a helpful addition to the literature on TAG.
Of course, as is also unfortunately all too typical of presuppositionalist literature, not much by way of positive argument for Christianity was proffered. Even Collett's chapter didn't attempt to demonstrate any of his premises (but of course, that wasn't his goal). William Edgar points out this lacuna in his chapter, a sentence I highlighted. Says Edgar, "But so far, we have been far better at asserting principles, and applying them to older battles, than developing a sense of the cultural issues of today and vindicating the gospel in the face of them."
I've claimed this for a while. Presuppositionalists have been light on argumentation, and when they do it at all it seems to be against those like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Kant. Not much by way of contemporary interaction and critique (this isn't a universal truth, of course. There are some who have refused to become fossilized). Oliphint attempts to fill this gap (a bit) in the next book in this (so-called) "trilogy," Reasons for Faith. I'll post that review in the near future.
Another problem, I'm sure, was due to the fact that the authors had space constraints to work under, thus hampering what could have turned out to be some better chapters at points. So I don't want to sound too harsh. Would I recommend this book? Well, if you're into Van Til and Reformed approaches to apologetics sure. It's not going to knock your socks off, and it isn't going to give you loads of tools and ammo for dealing with unbelief, but it's probably worth having in your library.
In (i) I felt Gaffin (Epistemological Reflections in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16) and Silva's (The case for Calvinistic Hermeneutics) were the best.
In (ii) I appreciated Frame's (Divine Aseity and Apologetics) essay the best.
In (iii) I enjoyed most of the essays, particularly K. Scott Oliphint (The Old-New Reformed epistemology) and Don Collett's (Van Til and Transcendental Argument). Collett's was more formally technical than the others, and I feel he moved forward discussions of Transcendental Arguments. He rightly noted (as I and others have also noted) that Van Til's Transcendental Argument is not a reductio ad absurdem argument. It was also refreshing to see him illustrate the difference in transcendental argumentation for mere deductive argument. For example, his analysis of the term "presupposition" is a technical one which allows transcendental arguments to illustrate their formal distinctness. If the presupposed item is false, then there is no truth value assigned to the other premises. This hits on Van Til's claim about the inability for unregenerate man to predicate anything of anything if Christian theism is false. So, you might have:
C = Causality
G = God
[1]
C presupposes G
C
Therefore G
Looks like a valid modus ponens, right? Well Collett, following Stawson and van Frassen point out that in transcendental arguments the formal difference is shown when we negate the minor premise in [1] above. So:
[2]
C presupposes G
~C
Therefore G.
Since G allows any predication whatever then to predicate: "it is not the case that causality exists," then God must exist. This is because, in transcendental reasoning if G (or the "transcendental conclusion") were false then predication would be impossible and so the conclusion would look like this:
[3]
C presupposes G
~G
Therefore neither C or ~C.
Regular arguments from implication would have concluded:
[3*]
...
...
Therefore, ~C.
Not so with transcendental reasoning.
Now, whether you buy any of this or not is another matter, and surely you should read the whole chapter for all the details, but I thought it was a helpful addition to the literature on TAG.
Of course, as is also unfortunately all too typical of presuppositionalist literature, not much by way of positive argument for Christianity was proffered. Even Collett's chapter didn't attempt to demonstrate any of his premises (but of course, that wasn't his goal). William Edgar points out this lacuna in his chapter, a sentence I highlighted. Says Edgar, "But so far, we have been far better at asserting principles, and applying them to older battles, than developing a sense of the cultural issues of today and vindicating the gospel in the face of them."
I've claimed this for a while. Presuppositionalists have been light on argumentation, and when they do it at all it seems to be against those like Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, and Kant. Not much by way of contemporary interaction and critique (this isn't a universal truth, of course. There are some who have refused to become fossilized). Oliphint attempts to fill this gap (a bit) in the next book in this (so-called) "trilogy," Reasons for Faith. I'll post that review in the near future.
Another problem, I'm sure, was due to the fact that the authors had space constraints to work under, thus hampering what could have turned out to be some better chapters at points. So I don't want to sound too harsh. Would I recommend this book? Well, if you're into Van Til and Reformed approaches to apologetics sure. It's not going to knock your socks off, and it isn't going to give you loads of tools and ammo for dealing with unbelief, but it's probably worth having in your library.
June 18, 2014
Like any book that is made up of different essays by different authors there were some that were better than others (notably Thom Notaro and K. Scott Oliphint's were excellent). However all of the articles were thought-provoking and educational. Highly recommend.
August 15, 2017
Great source for good reformed apologetics.
May 6, 2018
Gaffin and Oliphint's essays were highlights, but the whole book was super helpful.
May 11, 2015
Had to read a few excerpts from this book for class and man did it kick my butt! Most of it was poorly written in terms of being accessible to the average person. However, I highly doubt the average person would even touch this book let alone read it. This is not to say that it wasn't insightful and incredibly profound in certain areas, but it is not for the faint of heart. Definitely challenging for anyone and I do not recommend it unless you're into epistemology, eschatology, ontology, and all those other "ologies"!
November 16, 2011
Very good. Dr. Gaffin's chapter on 1 Cor 2 is worth the price of the book!
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews