# What does Oliphint teach about God's covenantal properties



## yeutter (Mar 24, 2019)

I understand that what Dr. K. Scott Oliphint teaches about the covenantal properties of God are thought by some to be disturbing. What exactly is the heart of the issue?


----------



## earl40 (Mar 25, 2019)

yeutter said:


> I understand that what Dr. K. Scott Oliphint teaches about the covenantal properties of God are thought by some to be disturbing. What exactly is the heart of the issue?



It all boils down what a person believes about God "proper" and how we understand how God is "incomprehensible". Dr. Oliphint has taken the ectypal properties, which Jesus has, and applied them to The Divine Essence which is incomprehensible.

If one reads that in any way God changes, in divine His essence, one is simply incorrect in ones thinking and teaching.

I am confident some one here will chime in with more details on the subject of Dr. Oliphint's "covenantal properties" to which I have only a small gleaming of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2019)

Does anyone have passages where Oliphint teaches that God's covenantal properties *are* his essential properties? If Oliphint is teaching roughly the same view of simplicity as Jay Wesley Smith (Untamed God), then it seems that Oliphint's whole point is that the essential properties *aren't* the covenantal properties.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2019)

Oliphint is using the more precise term "property" instead of "attribute." In philosophy, a property is something that can be said of something. He writes,

Thus, his condescension means that he is _adding_ properties and characteristics, not to his essential being . . . but surely to himself. (_God With Us_, 110)

The Logos takes upon himself the property of "being incarnate," yet this can't apply to the essence since it doesn't apply to the Father or Spirit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Mar 25, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Oliphint is using the more precise term "property" instead of "attribute." In philosophy, a property is something that can be said of something. He writes,
> 
> Thus, his condescension means that he is _adding_ properties and characteristics, not to his essential being . . . but surely to himself. (_God With Us_, 110)
> 
> The Logos takes upon himself the property of "being incarnate," yet this can't apply to the essence since it doesn't apply to the Father or Spirit.



There is a lecture where I heard him say directly that he does not agree with Calvin here. I will try to dig that up in that the quote says something to the effect that to think God (in His divinity) does not get angry goes "to far". Dr. Oliphint is indeed speaking to the divine "attributes" BTW in that lecture. I am rather confident that he is mixing up the ectypal with the archetypal here.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Mar 25, 2019)

K. Scott Oliphint

"There can be no question that the relation one has to God will significantly alter ones own disposition and destiny. That much is certainly true. But is it adequate simply to think that when Scripture speaks of God being gracious, on the one hand, and wrathful, on the other, the same disposition in God causes these differences in us? Is God's anger toward one person an identical disposition as his grace and covenant love toward another? There seems to be no reasons to think so, and it seems clear that Scripture does not speak in these terms; such ideas violate basic linguistic sensibilities.
Rather, when Scripture says that the Lord's anger was kindled, *it really was kindled*. Because God is personal, we should expect that he *will react* in different ways to things that please and displease him. These ascriptions of God in Scripture are not meant simply to tell us more about ourselves, but rather are meant to show us more of who God is, especially as he interacts with his human creatures. They are meant to show us who God is in light of his gracious condescension, generally, and of the gospel, more specifically, as given progressively throughout covenant history. (God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God)"


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2019)

If that is what he is saying, then I would probably urge him to be more cautious. I think he (and his Thomist critics) are probably confusing some issues. God's taking upon himself Covenantal Properties is a plain reading of Scripture, but Oliphint is trying to call God's "anger" a property. I don't know of any modern analytic theologian who says God's anger is a property.

For example, Oliphint draws heavily upon the work of Thomas V Morris, and I certainly agree with Morris, but Morris doesn't make the argument (to my knowledge) that anger is a property.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 25, 2019)

While I'm sympathetic to Oliphint on several counts (e.g., I am anti-Thomist), I think he is confusing himself here. Saying God's anger is a covenantal property is weird. It's not clear how anger is uniquely covenantal. When analytic theologians speak of contingent properties, they usually mean the property to create the world, become incarnate, etc. Things that aren't essential. They usually never mean "God has anger."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## yeutter (Mar 28, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> ...Saying God's anger is a covenantal property is weird. It's not clear how anger is uniquely covenantal. When analytic theologians speak of contingent properties, they usually mean the property to create the world, become incarnate, etc. Things that aren't essential. They usually never mean "God has anger."


When I read the Bible saying that God is angry; I think God is just, and His sense of justice is offended by specific actions of men. Is Oliphint saying, that when God is said to be angry, His anger a property He is taking upon Himself? And then further identifying this property, as a covenantal property?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2019)

yeutter said:


> Is Oliphint saying, that when God is said to be angry, is His anger a property He is taking upon Himself? And then further identifying this property, as a covenantal property?



I don't know. I haven't read the book. If he is saying anger is a covenantal property, then that's not helpful. I don't even know how anger is covenantal, though I am sure I could flesh it out.

My point--and Oliphint admittedly isn't clear--is that God can have contingent divine properties without positing a change in essence. To make this move, though, one has to be fairly familiar with Possible Worlds Semantics, and Oliphint doesn't always do that.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 29, 2019)

While Oliphint doesn't always make it clear, he is drawing upon the powerful tools in analytic theology. I summarize some of the issues here.
https://tentsofshem.wordpress.com/2019/03/29/covenantal-properties-controversy/


----------



## Timotheos (Mar 29, 2019)

https://www.theaquilareport.com/a-c...essor-of-apologetics-at-westminster-seminary/

I'm not sure which forum to put this. And this is CERTAINLY NOT TO STIR STRIFE OR GOSSIP. It is definitely a matter of prayer. I personally have greatly benefited from his scholarship and ministry. I pray that this is resolved peaceably and amicably. I hope he comes more into conformity to the confessional standards and classical theism.

Reactions: Informative 1 | Praying 1


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 29, 2019)

Is he bringing the covenant back into creation so that His creating act is covenantal (a denial of WCF 7.1)?


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Mar 29, 2019)

Threads merged.


----------



## Miller (Mar 29, 2019)

I wouldn't expect much trouble from this group, but Facebook is a mess, nevertheless here's a statement from the moderator of the Presbytery of the Southwest.

Dear Fathers and Brothers of the Presbytery of the Southwest, along with affected individuals,

Please remember that the Presbytery of the Southwest of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church adopted a policy on Jan. 16, 2010, requiring the Stated Clerk to post all sensitive information on a Presbytery Website that is password protected, and to not email it out. This policy was adopted to prevent sensitive material before the body (currently one appeal of a complaint, and two sets of charges against different ministers) from being spread by email or posted online. No member of the Presbytery, or other individual who has been granted access to the materials in the PSW Trials Drive, should be sharing these materials with anyone else or posting any of these materials online.

I also urge all others who are not members of the presbytery but have access to these material through other means, along with all presbyters, to not share them with others or post them online. This would give only a partial and distorted picture of the matters to be considered by the court of the church, and would encourage people to try the accused individuals in the court of public opinion, and find them guilty regardless of the findings of the church. I urge you to protect the names of our good brothers and sisters in Christ who have not been tried and found guilty by the church of Jesus Christ, to refrain from spreading these materials, to remove any you have posted, to encourage others to do so, and to hold your judgment on these matters until after the courts have ruled.

Please consider that all individuals who have been charged, but not yet tried or found guilty of any sin, remain members in good standing in the church of Jesus Christ until the courts of the church rule otherwise. I can assure you that the Presbytery of the Southwest takes all disciplinary matters very seriously and is working to handle all cases before it in a timely manner.

Please pray with me: Dear Father who has ordained all that comes to pass to bring about good and eternal purposes, Son and Savior who rules over the kingdom of your church, and Holy Spirit who creates all grace and goodness in us, Blessed Three in One, thank you for the great concern you have raised up in our hearts for the peace and purity and unity of the church, that we would initiate discipline when we are so concerned, and would seek the good of those who may be straying, and the protection of the glory of your Name. Grant us also this additional grace, that we would so care for our brothers and sisters in Christ that we would not rush to judgment on their actions, or usurp the authority you have given to your church to rule on these matters. Make our prayers for our brothers and sisters in Christ, which are involved in these difficult matters, lengthy and weighty and more fervent than the desires of our hearts to spread these matters. Grant your church the great wisdom to consider all the details and circumstances of these serious matters very carefully and to find for truth and righteousness, that the glory of your Name may be upheld, the purity of the church protected, the truth of the Scriptures maintained and error removed, the peace and unity of the church preserved, the names of the innocent cleared, and the spiritual well-being of offenders restored. For so we pray in the Name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the Great Shepherd of the sheep. Amen.

Blessings in Christ,

Joseph Keller
Moderator of the Presbytery of the Southwest
Orthodox Presbyterian Church

P.S. Feel free to email this letter and post it online.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 29, 2019)

I won't comment on the matter of the charges or the judicial aspects. I'm more interested in the metaphysical issues involved. If Van Tillians in the OPC were okay with Van Til's saying "God is One Person and Three Persons," then they shouldn't have a problem with Oliphint.


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 30, 2019)

The world (and the church) is falling apart....but let's jump on Dr. Oliphant!

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Hamalas (Mar 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The world (and the church) is falling apart....but let's jump on Dr. Oliphant!



Is this fair brother? In essence, you're assuming that the charges are either concerned with unimportant matters or driven by petty motivations. Either of those assumptions could of course be right, but to my knowledge, the content of the charges has not been made available to us. 

I think it's best to wait and pray until the matter unfolds more clearly. Reflexively dismissing the case as unimportant is just as wrong-headed as reflexively fixating on the case as if it were all-important.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 30, 2019)

Hamalas said:


> Is this fair brother? In essence, you're assuming that the charges are either concerned with unimportant matters or driven by petty motivations. Either of those assumptions could of course be right, but to my knowledge, the content of the charges has not been made available to us.



If this trial is done correctly, I think it will enlighten everyone. Charles Hodge, for example, trashed the historic scholastic doctrine of God. No one bats an eye. If Oliphint goes, then Hodge has to go. So I hope this will remind everyone that you can be a good Christian and disagree with Thomas Aquinas.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 30, 2019)

I think it is perfectly fair. 

Some of the same folks pushing for strict views of impassibility among the Reformed Baptists, for instance, are also the same ones ignoring a child abuse case and even praying for the perpetrator.

We've lost perspective and priority. It's like we are worrried about the paint scheme on the Titanic as it approaches the iceberg. 

There are bigger fish to fry.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Mar 30, 2019)

I’ve found Dr. Oliphint’s book and lectures on apologetics helpful and don’t remember anything like this coming through. This has to be difficult for him and his family. I’m praying for them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Mar 30, 2019)

Here's a situation that needs prayer:

www.theaquilareport.com/a-charge-brought-against-dr-scott-oliphint-professor-of-apologetics-at-westminster-seminary/


----------



## ZackF (Mar 30, 2019)

Already a thread.


----------



## earl40 (Mar 30, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> I think it is perfectly fair.
> 
> Some of the same folks pushing for strict views of impassibility among the Reformed Baptists, for instance, are also the same ones ignoring a child abuse case and even praying for the perpetrator.
> 
> ...



There is no bigger fish to fry than having and teaching the wrong view of who God is.  So far as the "Reformed Baptists" James Dolezal's book on impassibility should be a good read to see where some are departing from orthodoxy. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/2017/11/book-review-all-that-is-in-god-by-james-dolezal/

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum (Mar 30, 2019)

earl40 said:


> There is no bigger fish to fry than having and teaching the wrong view of who God is.  So far as the "Reformed Baptists" James Dolezal's book on impassibility should be a good read to see where some are departing from orthodoxy. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/2017/11/book-review-all-that-is-in-god-by-james-dolezal/



Naw....there are bigger debates. All parties represented within this debate are Christians and not heretics. The debate is not over open theism or God being like one of the Greek pantheon of emotional and petty minor gods, but all parties speak of God as immutable, they merely differ in how that plays out and what that looks like. Potentially any fanatic can elevate his pet issue or theological hobby-horse to the forefront. Dr. Oliphant is no Arius or Pelagius.

The modern Reformed Baptist movement, for example, is elevating a few pet issues to the forefront at the same time as neglecting weightier matters, such as child abuse. People and groups can be imbalanced and focused out-of-proportion (fixated) on some issues, while neglecting others. 

Two examples: (1) I once heard a brother say baptism was not a 2ndary doctrine but primary because it consisted of the means of grace. And he focused on the error of baptismal regeneration. (2) I had another brother mention that bible versons were not a 2ndary issue but a matter to divide over since the Bible was the Word of God. And the Word of God is primary, right. But the issues at stake were means of baptism and KJV or NIV...not baptismal regeneraton and not inerrancy. 

We can all make our minor theological hobby-horse as THE battle to be fight in our time, if we lose a broader perspective. And that is what many have done on this issue of impassibility.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 31, 2019)

Between the charges being brought against him and the rigorous 34 pages of criticism Richard A. Muller brought to his book _Thomas Aquinas_ (2017) in the latest issue of Calvin Theological Journal, Dr. Oliphint is not having a good year.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2019)

earl40 said:


> There is no bigger fish to fry than having and teaching the wrong view of who God is.  So far as the "Reformed Baptists" James Dolezal's book on impassibility should be a good read to see where some are departing from orthodoxy. https://tabletalkmagazine.com/posts/2017/11/book-review-all-that-is-in-god-by-james-dolezal/



Dolezal thinks that anyone who doesn't hold to Thomist metaphysics has departed from the historic church teaching.

And Charles Hodge trashed the scholastic view of the doctrine of God and nobody batted an eye.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Between the charges being brought against him and the rigorous 34 pages of criticism Richard A. Muller brought to his book _Thomas Aquinas_ (2017) in the latest issue of Calvin Theological Journal, Dr. Oliphint is not having a good year.



The Muller criticisms were legit. I doubt the current charges are not, since I am skeptical the critics don't understand the distinction between properties and attributes and how a Divine person can assume contingent properties without it changing his essence.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Mar 31, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> The world (and the church) is falling apart....but let's jump on Dr. Oliphant!


 
That's exactly what I was thinking!


----------



## BuddyOfDavidClarkson (Mar 31, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Between the charges being brought against him and the rigorous 34 pages of criticism Richard A. Muller brought to his book _Thomas Aquinas_ (2017) in the latest issue of Calvin Theological Journal, Dr. Oliphint is not having a good year.



I was also thinking this as well. Poor guy. I love Dr. Oliphint! He has helped me so much!!!!


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2019)

And Dolezal's exegesis isn't always spot on. Consider:

He alludes to Numbers 23 where God does not repent. Mind you, I don't think God does repent, but this is poor exegesis as it stands, considering that the same word is used elsewhere to the opposite effect: there are numerous passages that say that God does repent. The same verb (_nâcham_) is used in Exodus 32:14: “And YHWH repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.” Similarly, 1 Sa 15:35 (“YHWH repented that he had made Saul king over Israel”), 2 Sa 24:16 (“YHWH repented him of the evil [the plague]”).

He mentions Malachi, where God does not change. But this is better seen as covenantal language. 

God appeals to the “Sons of Jacob” who “from the days of our fathers have gone away from my ordinances.” One wonders whether Dolezal even looked at the context at all, for in the very next line, YHWH urges:

“Return to me, and I will return to you.”

_Shuvu ēlî we’ašuvâ elêkem_

In light of Malachi’s symmetrical use of the same verb, _shuv_, for both Israel’s and God’s act of “returning,” it is a singularly terrible text to use as a proof of Israel’s relationship with an immutable God.

Thanks to Matt Colvin for the Hebrew.


----------



## bookslover (Mar 31, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Muller criticisms were legit. I doubt the current charges are not, since I am skeptical the critics don't understand the distinction between properties and attributes and how a Divine person can assume contingent properties without it changing his essence.



Jacob, don't you mean, "I doubt the current charges are,. . ."?


----------



## Smeagol (Mar 31, 2019)

The Church is most certainly not falling apart. 

Since the charges have been brought, I am looking forward to seeing how this is handled. I remain hopeful that all parties involved will seek reconciliation to sound biblical teaching.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2019)

The doctrine of God is not a small matter, but a fundamental article of Christian doctrine. Any serious deviation from the creedal and confessional approach to theology proper ought to be treated with the utmost seriousness by those who profess to believe in orthodox Christianity - and especially by those who have solemnly sworn to uphold the doctrine of the Westminster Confession.

With that in mind, several points are being raised in this thread that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand:

1) The fact that the world is in a terrible state does not preclude the church from investigating doctrinal matters. Otherwise, Paul would not have corrected the errors of the Galatians, Colossians, and Corinthians.

2) If some churches have been more zealous to correct a theological error than gross immorality, then they ought to have corrected the latter while not neglecting the former. The idea that it is an either/or between doctrinal purity and morality is a false dichotomy.

3) Charles Hodge's errors are not an excuse for Scott Oliphint. The writings of Charles Hodge have no constitutional authority in any Reformed church. The real question at stake here is whether or not Dr Oliphint's teaching are congruous with the teaching of the word of God as confessed in the Westminster Standards. Also, the point about Charles Hodge presupposes that he would not have corrected his views if they had been judicially investigated by the church. It may also be that, upon examination, Dr Oliphint will come to the conclusion that he has been mistaken. To presume that those bringing the charges against Dr Oliphint are merely engaged in a witch-hunt, and not seeking the peace and purity of Christ's house, is most uncharitable.

We should commend the OPC for taking this matter seriously and pray that all sides will get a fair hearing for the honour of Christ and the good of his church. For that reason, I recommend that we stop talking about this subject for the time being and leave it to the OPC courts to deal with the issue.

Reactions: Like 9 | Amen 4


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 31, 2019)

My understanding is Dr. Oliphant is a professor at a seminar. Since he is in position to teach men who will be pastoring congregations, it seems like his position deserves more scrutiny than most. Especially when a position is not just an off-the-cuff remark made during a single sermon.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> My understanding is Dr. Oliphant is a professor at a seminar. Since he is in position to teach men who will be pastoring congregations, it seems like his position deserves more scrutiny than most. Especially when a position is not just an off-the-cuff remark made during a single sermon.



"Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." (James 3:1)

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 31, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." (James 3:1)


Indeed, and in this case a "teacher of teachers"!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Jacob, don't you mean, "I doubt the current charges are,. . ."?



correct


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> 3) Charles Hodge's errors are not an excuse for Scott Oliphant. The writings of Charles Hodge have no constitutional authority in any Reformed church. The real question at stake here is whether or not Dr Oliphant's teaching are congruous with the teaching of the word of God as confessed in the Westminster Standards. Also, the point about Charles Hodge presupposes that he would not have corrected his views if they had been judicially investigated by the church. It may also be that, upon examination, Dr Oliphant will come to the conclusion that he has been mistaken. To presume that those bringing the charges against Dr Oliphant are merely engaged in a witch-hunt, and not seeking the peace and purity of Christ's house, is most uncharitable.



That's true, but that also presupposes that Hodge was in error and Aquinas wasn't. And the Confession doesn't spell out the same view of simplicity as the 4th Lateran Council did. The Confession never says God is a big "=" with his attributes, fundamentally making them all the one same thing.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's true, but that also presupposes that Hodge was in error and Aquinas wasn't. And the Confession doesn't spell out the same view of simplicity as the 4th Lateran Council did. The Confession never says God is a big "=" with his attributes, fundamentally making them all the one same thing.



Actually, it does. It says that God is "without body, parts, or passions" (Confession 2.1) and states that God is "infinite in being, glory, blessedness, and perfection" (Larger Catechism 7). According to the Confession, God is without parts and so the attributes of God are one with his essence - otherwise, he would be with parts. Also, the Catechism's statement that God's infinity is identical with his glory, blessedness, and perfection further demonstrates this point. There is no other way to read these statements in accordance with the Westminster Standards' original intent and to conclude that the essence of God is not identical with the attributes of God. Does that mean that the Confession commits us to subscribe to every jot and tittle of Thomas Aquinas? No, but I never said that it did.

Of course, Dr Oliphint is welcome to argue to the contrary, but that is what the whole point of the judicial proceedings is for. Let him present his case in the appropriate forum. If he can defend the thesis that his view is in line with the confessional standards, then he should have nothing to fear from such an examination.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> According to the Confession, God is without parts and so the attributes of God are one with his essence - otherwise, he would be with parts.



The definition of a part is something which constitutes a whole. That's not the same thing as saying all the attributes are synonyms. There are at least 8 different glosses upon this point.


(1) all divine properties are possessed by the same self-identical God.

(2) God is not composite, in the sense that he is not made up of elements or forms more fundamental than he is.

(3) God’s essence is identical with his act of existing.

(4) All God’s essential properties are coextensive.

(5) All God’s perfections are identical.

(6) All God’s properties are coextensive

(7) God’s essential properties and essence are strictly identical with himself.

(8) All God’s properties are strictly identical with himself.

I hold to (1)-(4) and (6)-(7).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The definition of a part is something which constitutes a whole. That's not the same thing as saying all the attributes are synonyms.



You are ignoring the original intent of the Confession and reading it ahistorically. I am aware of alternate formulations. I just deny that they are in line with the Confession's original meaning.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> You are ignoring the original intent of the Confession and reading it ahistorically. I am aware of alternate formulations. I just deny that they are in line with the Confession's original meaning.



I admit that most of the writers of the Confession leaned towards the hard interpretation of simplicity. That being said, my definition of part is fairly standard

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I admit that most of the writers of the Confession leaned towards the hard interpretation of simplicity. That being said, my definition of part is fairly standard



Fair enough, but you do realise that constitutionally and judicially the elders and members of the OPC would be within their rights to demand that Dr Oliphint not diverge from the language of the Confession, even if it turns out that, upon examination, he is not differing with it in substance. That point would seem to be a reasonable enough application of Westminster Confession 20.4.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Fair enough, but you do realise that constitutionally and judicially the elders and members of the OPC would be within their rights to demand that Dr Oliphant not diverge from the language of the Confession, even if it turns out that, upon examination, he is not differing with it in substance. That point would seem to be a reasonable enough application of Westminster Confession 20.4.



That's fine. But I don't see him diverging from the language of the Confession. What he would be diverging from is the intent of certain writers.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's fine. But I don't see him diverging from the language of the Confession. What he would be diverging from is the intent of certain writers.



Let us concede for the same of argument that that claim is correct. Even granting that point, the church courts are still within their rights to instruct him to stop teaching certain things if they are a) not required by the Confession, b) likely to be confusing, c) incongruous to the peace and order of the church.

Given that the OPC has the right to protect the peace and purity of its communion, and its elders are within their rights to shield their people from doctrine that is confusing and potentially harmful (even if the intentions of those promoting it are not pernicious), then I think that we should respect the judicial process that is currently taking place and applaud the OPC for trying to deal with such disputes in accordance with scripture.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Mar 31, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I admit that most of the writers of the Confession leaned towards the hard interpretation of simplicity.



I think that this gets at the question: did the divines prescribe (at least) all the glosses that Jacob cites and proscribe every other approach? I will say no more about this case since it is in adjudication, but that's an important question to answer here. 

There are the words themselves in the doctrinal standards, the original intent of the framers (I mean this in a way distinguishable from the words themselves), and also the _animus imponentis_ (ultimately of the OPC GA in this case, and also of the broader confessional church) at play here. The words themselves are most at issue, but so are other things, not the least among them being WCF 1.10, which points us back to the Word of God proper. 

I do believe that Jacob and Daniel are both setting forth what will need to considered in this case and I believe that the PSW of the OPC will give it careful consideration. Let us pray for all concerned! Discussions like you fellows are having are the right kind to have for those discussing it outside the judicatory (and possibly the trial judicatory).

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 31, 2019)

And I will apologize for my initial remarks on the critics not understanding the philosophical issues involved. I've discussed this with Reformed Thomists over the past year and I have been ambushed by some really sleazy moves by them (not Daniel, he is a good man and a friend), and I projected my experiences onto this debate. I shouldn't have done that.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## Taylor (Mar 31, 2019)

I think a good start is for people to start spelling "Oliphint" correctly. lol

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2019)

I think of the Reformed Thomists on Facebook much the same way as I think of the cyber-Covenanters. While both groups are generally correct and recovering important positions, the manner in which they have gone about things has brought shame on what they are trying to advance.

Recently, I posted a criticism of Thomas Aquinas made by Pieter van Maastricht, and one of them replied, "He obviously did not read [reference to the Summa]..." Now come on, I think that van Maastricht had read Aquinas, he just dared to disagree with him on something. They remind me of the sort of people whom John Owen criticised in his "Biblical Theology" for worshipping Thomas Aquinas next to God.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I think a good start is for people to start spelling "Oliphint" correctly. lol



I will edit my posts as an act of penance.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## ZackF (Mar 31, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> worshipping Thomas Aquinas next to God.



That is a valid criticism of certain traditionalists RCs where he’s thought of as infallible except for his take on the ‘immaculate conception’ of Mary.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Mar 31, 2019)

ZackF said:


> That is a valid criticism of certain traditionalists RCs where he’s thought of as infallible except for his take on the ‘immaculate conception’ of Mary.



Rather convenient exceptions! 

John Owen's exact statement was: "... the scholastics (in whose eyes Thomas Aquinas is second only to God) ..." 

John Owen, _Theologoumena Pantadapa [Biblical Theology]_, trans. Stephen P. Westcott (1661; Orlando FL: Soli Deo Gloria, 2007), p. 7.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Mar 31, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Rather convenient exceptions!
> 
> John Owen's exact statement was: "... the scholastics (in whose eyes Thomas Aquinas is second only to God) ..."
> 
> John Owen, _Theologoumena Pantadapa [Biblical Theology]_, trans. Stephen P. Westcott (1661; Orlando FL: Soli Deo Gloria, 2007), p. 7.


Yes. As I remember reading, Cardinal Newman wrote that believing in the IC was a major stumbling block to him becoming RC as there was no longer an option otherwise by his day.


----------



## Kinghezy (Mar 31, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I think a good start is for people to start spelling "Oliphint" correctly. lol



As good reformed, could we change it to "Oliphaunt", and we suddenly have a Lord [of] the Rings reference?


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 1, 2019)

Here is a good summary from Dr Michael Haykin on Facebook:

"The recent charge filed against Dr Scott Oliphint re his teaching about divine immutability in the OPC has raised for me the important question, "What is heresy?" Dr Oliphint has not been accused of teaching heresy but the charges do specify that he is teaching contrary to the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards.

There are two equally problematic errors to avoid in situations like this: the refusal to name "heresy" out of a desire not to be divisive or mean-spirited and the use of the term to cover matters clearly not delineated in Scripture as primary issues that will issue in the loss of salvation. Historically, the church hammered out the meaning of the terms "hairesis" and "heterodoxia" in the first five centuries to entail the conscious and willing embrace of teaching that undermines the gospel, preventing both the teacher of it and those who embrace his/her teaching of being saved.

This is vital to note: a person who embraces heresy is not a Christian according to Christian tradition. Thus, when an author very critical of an historical Baptist figure described his teaching as being the "mother of all heresies," and I responded to him that this meant that this historical individual was not a saved person, and the author replied to me that this was not the case at all: of course, he was saved, he said--then I had to admit to him that this did not make any sense to me. If a person knowingly teaches heresy and as such is a heretic, then, by the way Christianity has defined "heresy," this person cannot be a Christian.

Now, a casual perusal of the Web will reveal both errors on display, a matter for deep concern. Not all who say "Lord, Lord," shall inherit the kingdom: there are theological errors that are so profound that they undermine the basics of Christian doctrine--doctrines such as justification (see Galatians 1-2), the resurrection of the body (see 1 Cor 15; 2 Tim 2), the Incarnation (see 1 John 4; 2 John), the goodness of the material creation and perverse views of marriage (see 1 Tim 4), the deity of the Lord Jesus (John 8:24, where it is vital to note that the Greek simply has ego eimi--a reference to Exodus 3:14), and the Trinity (Matthew 28 and throughout the NT)--and those who teach them must be identified as wolves in sheep's clothing.

But, on the other hand, and social media has provided a massive platform for those so inclined towards the second error, the term "heresy" has been so bandied about that it is in danger of losing its significance. So, for example, we find political positions not to one's liking branded as heresy (even though the NT does not specify details here), or eschatological stances at odds with one's own described as heretical (despite the fact that solid Bible-loving Christians have disagreed over details of the end times), or perspectives regarding societal issues labeled heterodox (again, an arena where we must agree to disagree) (Romans 14 is so helpful here).

Scripture, we must ever affirm, is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction" that the Church might be "perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works' (2 Timothy 3). Scripture must determine what is heretical."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Taylor (Apr 1, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I will edit my posts as an act of penance.



Oh, I don’t want penance; I want reparations.


----------



## Smeagol (Apr 1, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> As good reformed, could we change it to "Oliphaunt", and we suddenly have a Lord [of] the Rings reference?


Wait you mean this thread is not critiquing Tolkien's elephants? I need to rethink my contributions to this thread.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 1, 2019)

Here is an Oliphint's ETS address on Scripture vs Papism (including Thomism)
http://www.wordmp3.com/details.aspx...rn+Region+at+Liberty+University,+Lynchburg+VA


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 1, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Here is a good summary from Dr Michael Haykin on Facebook:
> 
> "The recent charge filed against Dr Scott Oliphint re his teaching about divine immutability in the OPC has raised for me the important question, "What is heresy?" Dr Oliphint has not been accused of teaching heresy but the charges do specify that he is teaching contrary to the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards.
> 
> ...



I thought that this analysis was useful, as the term heresy is banded about far too often these days. Heresy does not merely to views that are wrong, or even to views that are unconfessional, but to errors in fundamentals. 

In relation to Scott Oliphint, however, two things need to be taken into account. First, his views may be heretical (I do not use the term lightly). Second, even if they are not if they either are unconfessional or are needlessly upsetting the peace of the church then the people of the OPC and the church's governing bodies have the right to hold him accountable.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Timotheos (Apr 1, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Naw....there are bigger debates. All parties represented within this debate are Christians and not heretics. The debate is not over open theism or God being like one of the Greek pantheon of emotional and petty minor gods, but all parties speak of God as immutable, they merely differ in how that plays out and what that looks like. Potentially any fanatic can elevate his pet issue or theological hobby-horse to the forefront. Dr. Oliphant is no Arius or Pelagius.
> 
> The modern Reformed Baptist movement, for example, is elevating a few pet issues to the forefront at the same time as neglecting weightier matters, such as child abuse. People and groups can be imbalanced and focused out-of-proportion (fixated) on some issues, while neglecting others.
> 
> ...


Impassibility isn't a pet issue. If it is, then clearly you haven't read the Nicene fathers. To deny impassibility was an anathema. Pet that doctrine and it'll bite ya back!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Timotheos (Apr 1, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Between the charges being brought against him and the rigorous 34 pages of criticism Richard A. Muller brought to his book _Thomas Aquinas_ (2017) in the latest issue of Calvin Theological Journal, Dr. Oliphint is not having a good year.


Paul Helm gave him a rough critique (around 25 pages) over Oliphint's book on Aquinas as well in the most recent _JIRBS_ as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (Apr 1, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Wait you mean this thread is not critiquing Tolkien's elephants? I need to rethink my contributions to this thread.


Yeah. I will leave it to others how "not trusting in horses and chariots" may apply here


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 1, 2019)

Timotheos said:


> Impassibility isn't a pet issue. If it is, then clearly you haven't read the Nicene fathers. To deny impassibility was an anathema. Pet that doctrine and it'll bite ya back!



That's true, and Oliphint isn't claiming the divine essence changes or suffers. In fact, an essence, whether human or divine, really can't change. That's the whole point of the definition of essence: that which survives change.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's true, and Oliphint isn't claiming the divine essence changes or suffers. In fact, an essence, whether human or divine, really can't change. That's the whole point of the definition of essence: that which survives change.



Exactly.

"If you don't explain a doctrine exactly as me, then you MUST deny the doctrine ENTIRELY and are thus a heretic" seems to be a common rhetorical tactic. Oliphint is not defending open theism.


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 2, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> "If you don't explain a doctrine exactly as me, then you MUST deny the doctrine ENTIRELY and are thus a heretic"



Has anyone said this?


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 2, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> Exactly.
> 
> "If you don't explain a doctrine exactly as me, then you MUST deny the doctrine ENTIRELY and are thus a heretic" seems to be a common rhetorical tactic. Oliphint is not defending open theism.



So as long as he's not defending open theism he's fine? You seem awfully sure about what Oliphint is and is not saying, maybe the OPC Presbytery should be consulting with you?

Maybe men should be a little bit more careful before they start wandering away from the old paths, even just a little bit.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 2, 2019)

The idea that Scott Oliphint's terminology does not matter is wrongheaded. Paul told Timothy to hold fast to the form of sound words for a reason. Accordingly, Cornelius Van Til ought to have dropped his heretical sounding statement that God is one person and three persons even if he did not mean anything heretical by it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's true, and Oliphint isn't claiming the divine essence changes or suffers. In fact, an essence, whether human or divine, really can't change. That's the whole point of the definition of essence: that which survives change.



So what is he describing below other than the divine nature of God? What is interesting if Dr. Oliphint replaced the word Jesus with God I might agree with what he wrote, but the reference is obviously a reference to the divine nature.

"Rather, when Scripture says that the Lord's anger was kindled, *it really was kindled*. Because God is personal, we should expect that he *will react* in different ways to things that please and displease him. These ascriptions of God in Scripture are not meant simply to tell us more about ourselves, but rather are meant to show us more of who God is, especially as he interacts with his human creatures. They are meant to show us who God is in light of his gracious condescension, generally, and of the gospel, more specifically, as given progressively throughout covenant history. (God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God)"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

earl40 said:


> So what is he describing below other than the divine nature of God? What is interesting if Dr. Oliphint replaced the word Jesus with God I might agree with what he wrote, but the reference is obviously a reference to the divine nature.
> 
> "Rather, when Scripture says that the Lord's anger was kindled, *it really was kindled*. Because God is personal, we should expect that he *will react* in different ways to things that please and displease him. These ascriptions of God in Scripture are not meant simply to tell us more about ourselves, but rather are meant to show us more of who God is, especially as he interacts with his human creatures. They are meant to show us who God is in light of his gracious condescension, generally, and of the gospel, more specifically, as given progressively throughout covenant history. (God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God)"



That's not a problem, as everyone agrees that what is wrath/anger for God is not what is wrath/anger for us. That's the whole point about analogical language.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> Has anyone said this?



Reformed Thomists say it every day.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Maybe men should be a little bit more careful before they start wandering away from the old paths, even just a little bit.



That sword cuts both ways, as one can make an argument that Thomas's version of God's simplicity is a sharp departure from the Cappadocians.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's not a problem, as everyone agrees that what is wrath/anger for God is not what is wrath/anger for us. That's the whole point about analogical language.



I think we have a difference in what analogical language is.  When I use it, in describing God, I would say God is angry with the words "as if" knowing God in His divine nature does not get angry.....in any way shape or form. The above quote I supplied shows exactly what Dr. Oliphint meant when he said God's anger "was really kindled" and "reacts".


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

earl40 said:


> I would say God is angry with the words "as if" knowing God in His divine nature does not get angry.....in any way shape or form.



That's called equivocal language. And it's not clear that what "wrath" is for God changes his essence. That's the whole issue of the debate, and no one has shown how an essence "changes."


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 2, 2019)

John Owen: Anger and wrath are not in God (I have several more references from the same author on this subject, but it may be a while before I get around to posting them.)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That sword cuts both ways, as one can make an argument that Thomas's version of God's simplicity is a sharp departure from the Cappadocians.



Well I was referring to Reformed orthodoxy, which took from all that gone before.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Well I was referring to Reformed orthodoxy, which took from all that gone before.



The problem is that the theology that developed and formed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was taken from the Cappadocians, which creed we also confess.

the Reformed didn't draw wholesale from Thomas Aquinas, for which we can be profoundly grateful. They also drew from Scotus, whose view of simplicity wasn't entirely the same. 

My point is that if we try to make Thomas's view on the doctrine of God the only view (which is what some are doing), we are going to run into problems in our own history.


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's called equivocal language. And it's not clear that what "wrath" is for God changes his essence. That's the whole issue of the debate, and no one has shown how an essence "changes."



If you reword your second sentence?


----------



## earl40 (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's called equivocal language."



I will state clearly without equivocation (as you have in the past) that God in His divine "essence" or "nature" , does not get angry. Of course I think I read where you said earlier that Dr. Oliphint uses "essence" as differing from "nature". Though the quotes I posted clearly, in my mind, is speaking of the divine nature.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The problem is that the theology that developed and formed the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed was taken from the Cappadocians, which creed we also confess.
> 
> the Reformed didn't draw wholesale from Thomas Aquinas, for which we can be profoundly grateful. They also drew from Scotus, whose view of simplicity wasn't entirely the same.
> 
> My point is that if we try to make Thomas's view on the doctrine of God the only view (which is what some are doing), we are going to run into problems in our own history.



We adhere to the creeds of the early church, we don't subscribe to the whole of patristic theology. I believe it is commonly accepted that amongst the patriarchs there was doctrine which was in error or at least under-developed but in those doctrines with which they were most concerned- the doctrine of God, the Person of Christ- they were right. It was these doctrines which were most in dispute in their day. We wouldn't go to them for our doctrine of Justificiation, but that's ok. The same with Aquinas. We do not subscribe Aquinas. We are free to take and to leave what we will.

My point is that there *is *a theological tradition that the Reformed are bound to and that is the tradition of Reformed orthodoxy, particularly as expressed in the official creeds of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. It is *this *path that we should be careful to keep to. Reformed orthodoxy accepted what had gone before that it considered Biblical and rejected what it considered unbiblical.

In the debates in the early church terms such as "essence", "nature", "person", "substance" were carefully parsed out. It seems, at best, careless in the extreme to start using these terms in new ways.

"Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where _is_ the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls..." Jeremiah 6:16


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> the doctrine of God, the Person of Christ- they were right. It was these doctrines which were most in dispute in their day. We wouldn't go to them for our doctrine of Justificiation, but that's ok. The same with Aquinas. We do not subscribe Aquinas. We are free to take and to leave what we will.



My point is that Basil and Aquinas are very different on this point.


alexandermsmith said:


> My point is that there *is *a theological tradition that the Reformed are bound to and that is the tradition of Reformed orthodoxy, particularly as expressed in the official creeds of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches. It is *this *path that we should be careful to keep to. Reformed orthodoxy accepted what had gone before that it considered Biblical and rejected what it considered unbiblical.



Which punts the issue back: why choose Thomas on the doctrine of God over Basil, Nyssen, Scotus, etc.?


alexandermsmith said:


> In the debates in the early church terms such as "essence", "nature", "person", "substance" were carefully parsed out. It seems, at best, careless in the extreme to start using these terms in new ways.



But that's exactly what the early church did. Athanasius used "hypostasis" to mean nature and Basil used "hypostasis" to mean person. And Aquinas sees person to mean "relation," which is not how the church used the term.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

earl40 said:


> Of course I think I read where you said earlier that Dr. Oliphint uses "essence" as differing from "nature".



I didn't say that. I said that property and attribute are two different terms.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

earl40 said:


> If you reword your second sentence?



I think I meant to say "it's not clear how divine wrath, which is perfect and holy, changes God's essence." (further, it's not clear how an essence can even change)


----------



## Tom Hart (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Reformed Thomists say it every day.



I am not well apprised of the situation -- perhaps there are swarms of Reformed Thomists crying "Heresy!" But that isn't what I see. It seems to me that the matter now before the courts is being dealt with seriously and carefully.

My question was in response to this sarcastic comment:

_"If you don't explain a doctrine exactly as me, then you MUST deny the doctrine ENTIRELY and are thus a heretic."_

To characterize the accusing party thusly seems to me something worse than a mere lack of charity. I do not see the label "heretic" being thoughtlessly bandied about either here in this thread or by the relevant personages in the OPC.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## alexandermsmith (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> My point is that Basil and Aquinas are very different on this point.
> 
> 
> Which punts the issue back: why choose Thomas on the doctrine of God over Basil, Nyssen, Scotus, etc.?
> ...



What matters is how the Reformed tradition adopted what went before it. If Oliphint is saying something which is different to what the creeds say, then there is a problem. Clearly there is a disagreement as to what he has argued. But it would appear from the snippets which have been posted here that Oliphint is reacting against _something_, and it does appear on a surface reading that he is reacting against what has been the consensus in the Reformed tradition.

Maybe he's not. But if, for example, he's trying to better explain the orthodox position he clearly isn't doing a very good job.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> What matters is how the Reformed tradition adopted what went before it. If Oliphint is saying something which is different to what the creeds say, then there is a problem. Clearly there is a disagreement as to what he has argued. But it would appear from the snippets which have been posted here that Oliphint is reacting against _something_, and it does appear on a surface reading that he is reacting against what has been the consensus in the Reformed tradition.
> 
> Maybe he's not. But if, for example, he's trying to better explain the orthodox position he clearly isn't doing a very good job.



As the back and forth between Dr Strange, Daniel, and myself has shown, it isn't clear that Oliphint is contra the language of the Confession. That hasn't been demonstrated. The issue is intent, but when we get to the doctrine of God and metaphysics, some Reformed (like Rutherford) followed Scotus and some (like Owen) followed Thomas. And some, like Turretin, mixed both.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

Tom Hart said:


> perhaps there are swarms of Reformed Thomists crying "Heresy!"



There are.


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 2, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> As the back and forth between Dr Strange, Daniel, and myself has shown, it isn't clear that Oliphint is contra the language of the Confession. That hasn't been demonstrated. The issue is intent, but when we get to the doctrine of God and metaphysics, some Reformed (like Rutherford) followed Scotus and some (like Owen) followed Thomas. And some, like Turretin, mixed both.



Which is why an ecclesiastical trial which deals carefully with the history and terminology will be helpful. Really, people seem to assume that this is a witch-hunt on the part of his Presbytery, which is a deeply uncharitable assumption. Just because there are cage-stage Thomists on FB (or imbalanced Reformed Baptist brothers) who are out for blood here doesn't mean that his Presbytery is as well.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 2, 2019)

Hamalas said:


> Which is why an ecclesiastical trial which deals carefully with the history and terminology will be helpful. Really, people seem to assume that this is a witch-hunt on the part of his Presbytery, which is a deeply uncharitable assumption. Just because there are cage-stage Thomists on FB (or imbalanced Reformed Baptist brothers) who are out for blood here doesn't mean that his Presbytery is as well.



That's true, and the OPC has a better track record than, say the La. or Missouri Presbyteries. And I also don't expect the OPC to really come down hard on Oliphint given the fact that one of the greatest men in the OPC said God was both One Person and Three Persons.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Apr 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> That's true, and the OPC has a better track record than, say the La. or Missouri Presbyteries. And I also don't expect the OPC to really come down hard on Oliphint given the fact that one of the greatest men in the OPC said God was both One Person and Three Persons.



If Oliphint is tried, why not Van Til? Or Warfield?

What of these guys in this article? http://philgons.com/2013/05/warfield-vos-and-van-til-is-god-one-person/

We could conceivably spend 100% of our time trying living and dead theologians in heresy trials. 

Some will say that church trials do not detract from the Great Commission and evangelism, but we all have limited time and energy and can only focus on a few things at once. 

Among Reformed Baptists the more impassibility is focused on, the less focus goes towards missions. I've seen it. 

My proposed solution is to send the entirety of the Westminster student body and alumni to the Middle East as missionaries. Then I bet they'd see more eye to eye and not in-fight so much.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 3, 2019)

Pergamum said:


> If Oliphint is tried, why not Van Til? Or Warfield?


Because they are dead and thus beyond the reach of church authorities.


Pergamum said:


> We could conceivably spend 100% of our time trying living and dead theologians in heresy trials.


Discipline is a mark of the true church.


Pergamum said:


> Some will say that church trials do not detract from the Great Commission and evangelism, but we all have limited time and energy and can only focus on a few things at once.



Paul fought against false doctrine and yet who was a greater missionary than him?

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 3, 2019)

The point about missions overlooks the diversity of gifts within the church. Some men may excel at evangelism, others may excel at teaching doctrine, other men may excel equally at both.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 3, 2019)

A.Joseph said:


> Why do men do this? To be provocative? Boredom? Attention? Dr. Tipton is my part time pastor and he would never willfully say or do anything to trip us up..... I find these subtly deceptive teachings and hardness to correction frustrating. With all due respect , what is this man trying to prove? Is this ultimately a pride issue?



Who exactly is your target? I always figured Tipton and Oliphint were on the same page. I'm fairly certain that Oliphint isn't trying to be prideful. (That's also a somewhat dangerous insinuation).

Why would he be doing this? Probably because theology doesn't stay statically locked into one time period. Theologians have to address current issues, and modern essentialist thinking has pointed out areas where facile references to "God's attributes" simply don't answer the questions (because attribute isn't as useful a term as property).


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 3, 2019)

Quick primer on substance and properties:

property: something that can be said of something.

substance: something that bears properties but itself is not a property.

Substance and property aren't the same thing. That's why God can take on contingent properties (such as the property of being-in-relation to the world) without changing his substance.

This also gets past the danger latent in some dogmatics texts that said God is his attributes. That might work if we stick to "attributes," but it can't work with properties, since that would make God a property. And God isn't a property.


----------



## A.Joseph (Apr 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Who exactly is your target? I always figured Tipton and Oliphint were on the same page. I'm fairly certain that Oliphint isn't trying to be prideful. (That's also a somewhat dangerous insinuation).
> 
> Why would he be doing this? Probably because theology doesn't stay statically locked into one time period. Theologians have to address current issues, and modern essentialist thinking has pointed out areas where facile references to "God's attributes" simply don't answer the questions (because attribute isn't as useful a term as property).


I don’t have a complete understanding of these matters and should not unknowingly name drop , so it probably be best to disregard my post in its entirety, thanks!


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 3, 2019)

Thread closed.

Reactions: Like 5


----------

