# Covenants properties



## jwright82 (May 23, 2019)

I understand this is a current issue but it's been cleared by the OPC. By my reading covenanetal properties are merely analogues. I think to argue with him starts with the incarnation. Christ did take on a new nature. So God could of takin on new properties in his interactions with creation. Any thoughts?

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Romans922 (May 23, 2019)

I have no clue what you are talking about??? You are speaking of "this" and "him" but there are no antecedents.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor (May 23, 2019)

Romans922 said:


> I have no clue what you are talking about??? You are speaking of "this" and "him" but there are no antecedents.



He may be speaking of the doctrinal issue being hashed out with Scott Oliphint over at WTS.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 23, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I understand this is a current issue but it's been cleared by the OPC



I would dispute the accuracy of this sentence. The case against the person in question was dropped on account of a technicality. The fact that a minister/theologian has not been condemned by a presbytery or synod does not mean that said minister/theologian's doctrine is confessional. Even if the ecclesiastical courts were to exonerate someone, there is always the possibility, as the Westminster Confession acknowledges, that they could be wrong. 

For instance, plenty of people argue (rightly or wrongly) that Greg Bahnsen's views on apologetics and the judicial law were unconfessional, yet he was never to the best of my knowledge condemned by a presbytery for holding such opinions. Does that fact mean that all discussion of whether or not his views were unconfessional is automatically off the table just because a church court never condemned them? I think that we all know that to answer this question in the affirmative would be unreasonable. 

Christ tells us to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing and the apostle John tells us to test the spirits whether they be of God. Negligence on the part of church courts does not abrogate the ordinary believer's duty and responsibility to do these things. I am not making these observations to make light of the authority of church courts, but merely to reassert the notion of the priesthood of all believers, which is one that is all too often set aside in our day.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## Romans922 (May 23, 2019)

Taylor Sexton said:


> He may be speaking of the doctrinal issue being hashed out with Scott Oliphint over at WTS.



Wouldn't want to assume, and he should be clear anyway.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (May 23, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I would dispute the accuracy of this sentence. The case against the person in question was dropped on account of a technicality. The fact that a minister/theologian has not been condemned by a presbytery or synod does not mean that said minister/theologian's doctrine is confessional. Even if the ecclesiastical courts were to exonerate someone, there is always the possibility, as the Westminster Confession acknowledges, that they could be wrong.
> 
> For instance, plenty of people argue (rightly or wrongly) that Greg Bahnsen's views on apologetics and the judicial law were unconfessional, yet he was never to the best of my knowledge condemned by a presbytery for holding such opinions. Does that fact mean that all discussion of whether or not his views were unconfessional is automatically off the table just because a church court never condemned them? I think that we all know that to answer this question in the affirmative would be unreasonable.
> 
> Christ tells us to beware of wolves in sheep's clothing and the apostle John tells us to test the spirits whether they be of God. Negligence on the part of church courts does not abrogate the ordinary believer's duty and responsibility to do these things. I am not making these observations to make light of the authority of church courts, but merely to reassert the notion of the priesthood of all believers, which is one that is all too often set aside in our day.


I merely that thought that if it's been formally cleared, it would be ok to discuss.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 23, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I merely that thought that if it's been formally cleared, it would be ok to discuss.



I disagree with this whole notion that we should not talk about matters that are before church courts. From what I remember of the Federal Vision controversy, we continually talked about the subject when some of the main actors in that dispute were having cases examined by their presbyteries. I grant that it is not wise (or probably even constitutionally legal in some cases) for those prosecuting or judging a case to discuss it on social media or discussion forums, but, since the matter is of interest to the whole church, then I see no reason why others should not discuss it in public - especially as the doctrine is already in the public domain.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 23, 2019)

I'm merely referring to threads that were stopped on this subject. I don't know why they ended. And its none of my business. Now that he's been , formally, cleared it's ok to me to talk about it.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 23, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I'm merely referring to threads that were stopped on this subject. I don't know why they ended. And its none of my business. Now that he's been , formally, cleared it's ok to me to talk about it.



My responses are to do with the _morality_ of discussing it in public. Whether or not it is _expedient_ to do so in this forum is up to the moderators.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 23, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> My responses are to do with the _morality_ of discussing it in public. Whether or not it is _expedient_ to do so in this forum is up to the moderators.


I'll stop discussing it, I don't want to cause problems. But I don't think I did anything wrong.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 23, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I'll stop discussing it, I don't want to cause problems. But I don't think I did anything wrong.



I do not think that you did either.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## VictorBravo (May 25, 2019)

I'm still trying to figure out the question. 

Maybe, without requiring us to do research on various controversies, you could recast the question so it stands on it own.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 25, 2019)

VictorBravo said:


> I'm still trying to figure out the question.
> 
> Maybe, without requiring us to do research on various controversies, you could recast the question so it stands on it own.



This might be helpful:
_“The charge alleges that Dr. Oliphint, in his book “God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God,” presents a view of God’s immutability that appears to allow that God can assume new properties and changes in relating to creation, and that such a view is contrary to the Scriptures and the Westminster Standards. Dr. Oliphint is a ministerial member of the Presbytery of the Southwest of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC), where the charges have been filed.” (https://www.theaquilareport.com/a-c...essor-of-apologetics-at-westminster-seminary/)

And this: http://www.reformation21.org/articl...tt-oliphints-covenantal-properties-thesis.php_

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (May 25, 2019)

My question is I like his formulation. What is anyone else's thought on the matter?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 25, 2019)

God freely determined to take on attributes, characteristics, and properties that he did not have, and would not have, without creation. In taking on these characteristics, we understand as well that whatever characteristics or attributes he takes on, they cannot be of the essence of who he is, nor can they be necessary to his essential identity as God. . . . Thus, his condescension means that he is _adding_ properties and characteristics, not to his essential being . . . but surely to himself. (_God With Us_, 110)

If this quotation from the above-linked article is accurate (note that I say _if _it is accurate), then his position is contra-confessional. The Westminster Standards teach that God is without parts. To assume that God may have "characteristics or attributes" that are not "necessary to his essential identity as God" means that the attributes of God are parts of God, which God can do without and still be God. Anyone who holds to this view and obstinately persists in it should, after due remonstrance, be removed from office. 

Am I being too harsh? No, gross error on theology proper is an error in fundamental doctrines. It is incongruous with orthodox Christianity and those who persist in such heresies, no matter how loudly they claim to be evangelical or Reformed, are correctly judged to be wolves in sheep's clothing.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 26, 2019)

For, indeed, it were blasphemous to assert that the Deity, Which is very wisdom, goodness, incorruptibility, and every other exalted thing in thought or word, had *undergone change* to the contrary. 

Gregory of Nyssa, _The Great Catechism_ (c. 385), 15 in _Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2_, 5: 488.


----------



## TylerRay (May 26, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I'm merely referring to threads that were stopped on this subject. I don't know why they ended. And its none of my business. Now that he's been , formally, cleared it's ok to me to talk about it.


Oliphint was not "formally cleared." His presbytery refused to hear the case because the book in question was written more than two years before the charges were filed. No court of the OPC has ruled on whether his teaching is orthodox.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 26, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> God freely determined to take on attributes, characteristics, and properties that he did not have, and would not have, without creation. In taking on these characteristics, we understand as well that whatever characteristics or attributes he takes on, they cannot be of the essence of who he is, nor can they be necessary to his essential identity as God. . . . Thus, his condescension means that he is _adding_ properties and characteristics, not to his essential being . . . but surely to himself. (_God With Us_, 110)
> 
> If this quotation from the above-linked article is accurate (note that I say _if _it is accurate), then his position is contra-confessional. The Westminster Standards teach that God is without parts. To assume that God may have "characteristics or attributes" that are not "necessary to his essential identity as God" means that the attributes of God are parts of God, which God can do without and still be God. Anyone who holds to this view and obstinately persists in it should, after due remonstrance, be removed from office.
> 
> Am I being too harsh? No, gross error on theology proper is an error in fundamental doctrines. It is incongruous with orthodox Christianity and those who persist in such heresies, no matter how loudly they claim to be evangelical or Reformed, are correctly judged to be wolves in sheep's clothing.


But he repeatedly emphasized that God's essential nature does not change. So he is not out line for saying that like the incarceration, not the same, God can and did take on new properties and a new relalationship in a created level. How else do we make sense of his coming down to us on our level to communicate?


----------



## jwright82 (May 26, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> For, indeed, it were blasphemous to assert that the Deity, Which is very wisdom, goodness, incorruptibility, and every other exalted thing in thought or word, had *undergone change* to the contrary.
> He never said God essentially ever went through change essentially.
> Gregory of Nyssa, _The Great Catechism_ (c. 385), 15 in _Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers 2_, 5: 488.



He never said God changed essentially only covenantly.


----------



## jwright82 (May 26, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Oliphint was not "formally cleared." His presbytery refused to hear the case because the book in question was written more than two years before the charges were filed. No court of the OPC has ruled on whether his teaching is orthodox.


Ok


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> But he repeatedly emphasized that God's essential nature does not change. So he is not out line for saying that like the incarceration, not the same, God can and did take on new properties and a new relalationship in a created level. How else do we make sense of his coming down to us on our level to communicate?



The problem is that such language is incongruous with a confessional description of God, which works on the understanding that the essence of God is one with the attributes of God. Scott Oliphint, by way of contrast, asserts that God took on new _attributes _at creation. Moreover, his position is indicative of paradox theology: God does not change, but God changes. At best, such talk is liable only to confuse. From what I have heard, he is revising his book, which is a good sign.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> He never said God changed essentially only covenantly.



So, he asserts that God changes and thus cannot be immutable. Furthermore, he contradicts the orthodox notion of simplicity, as he is asserting that God has attributes that are not essential to his being. His teaching, as it currently stands, suits those with itching ears.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The problem is that such language is incongruous with a confessional description of God, which works on the understanding that the essence of God is one with the attributes of God. Moreover, his position is indicative of paradox theology: God does not change, but God changes. At best, such talk is liable only to confuse. From what I have heard, he is revising his book, which is a good sign.


Well you seem to be using changing in a univocal sense. Since he has explicitly denied God changing essentially I don't quite see your point. Changing covenantly by definition is not changing essentially.


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> So, he asserts that God changes and thus cannot be immutable. Furthermore, he contradicts the orthodox notion of simplicity, as he is asserting that God has attributes that are not essential to his being. His teaching, as it currently stands, suits those with itching ears.


Was the incarnation before it happened essential to his nature? He also never denied immutable or simplicity. The incarnation was unique but is it possible that analogous situations happened in redemptive history?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Was the incarnation before it happened essential to his nature?



No, but it is not explained in terms of God taking on new attributes. 



jwright82 said:


> He also never denied immutable or simplicity.



Perhaps not overtly, but his opponents claim that such is the implication of his theology.


----------



## TylerRay (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Was the incarnation before it happened essential to his nature? He also never denied immutable or simplicity. The incarnation was unique but is it possible that analogous situations happened in redemptive history?


God did not change in the incarnation. The second Person of the Godhead took on a human nature, not new divine attributes.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> No, but it is not explained in terms of God taking on new attributes.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps not overtly, but his opponents claim that such is the implication of his theology.


He also never said attributes. He said properties. When God walked with Adam in the garden are to assume that that was metaphorical? Well I would agree with his opponents if he said attributes instead of covenantal properties.


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> God did not change in the incarnation. The second Person of the Godhead took on a human nature, not new divine attributes.


He, nor I, ever said God changed. The incarnation was a unique event. But the point is God, the second person of the trinity, took on something he didn't possess before. So by way of analogy, at times God took on covenantal properties he didn't possess before ( walking with Adam, fighting with Israel, the burning bush, etc).


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> *God freely determined* *to take on attributes, characteristics, and properties that he did not have*, and would not have, without creation. In taking on these characteristics, we understand as well that whatever characteristics or attributes he takes on, they cannot be of the essence of who he is, nor can they be necessary to his essential identity as God. . . . Thus, his condescension means that he is _adding_ properties and characteristics, not to his essential being . . . but surely to himself. (_God With Us_, 110)





jwright82 said:


> *He also never said attributes*. He said properties. When God walked with Adam in the garden are to assume that that was metaphorical? Well I would agree with his opponents if he said attributes instead of covenantal properties.



I will just leave these two references here for the readers to judge. If you can prove that the quote from _God With Us_ is inaccurate, I will be interested to see the evidence.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (May 27, 2019)

Camden Bucey from Reformed Forum wrote the first part of a series of critiques on God With Us. https://reformedforum.org/addressin...h_PVC7IZiIH6uYgD3nX9b8IFyfQdj4qtV1_f14HhGSv2w

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2019)

Goodcheer68 said:


> Camden Bucey from Reformed Forum wrote the first part of a series of critiques on God With Us. https://reformedforum.org/addressin...h_PVC7IZiIH6uYgD3nX9b8IFyfQdj4qtV1_f14HhGSv2w



Thanks, Patrick. I will try to make an effort to read it soon.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> He, nor I, ever said God changed. The incarnation was a unique event. But the point is God, the second person of the trinity, took on something he didn't possess before. So by way of analogy, at times God took on covenantal properties he didn't possess before ( walking with Adam, fighting with Israel, the burning bush, etc).


Are these properties divine or creaturely? Christ's human nature is creaturely.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I will just leave these two references here for the readers to judge. If you can prove that the quote from _God With Us_ is inaccurate, I will be interested to see the evidence.


Ok. I'm wrong he did say attributes. But in his Reformed forum interview he seems to use those terms loosely. I am speculating but I don't think attributes in the classical sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Are these properties divine or creaturely? Christ's human nature is creaturely.


Not divine, if you will. If by creturely you mean that than yes. I suppose they are temporary and created for a time. But they're not essential to his nature. Which is the point.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Ok. I'm wrong he did say attributes. But in his Reformed forum interview he seems to use those terms loosely. I am speculating but I don't think attributes in the classical sense.



It is possible that the loose use of language has created the problem. If he is revising his book, it will be interesting to see what modifications he makes.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Not divine, if you will. If by creturely you mean that than yes. I suppose they are temporary and created for a time. But they're not essential to his nature. Which is the point.



This is where Oliphint had a chance to get it right but messed up. Modern essentialism in analytic philosophy distinguishes between essential and contingent properties. A property isn't an attribute, yet Oliphint collapses all contingent properties into creaturely/covenantal properties.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Not divine, if you will. If by creturely you mean that than yes. I suppose they are temporary and created for a time. But they're not essential to his nature. Which is the point.


So God takes on creaturely properties? Is it God, then, or a creature, with whom we interact? Or is it something generated by God to provide a kind of intermediary between God and creation?


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is possible that the loose use of language has created the problem. If he is revising his book, it will be interesting to see what modifications he makes.


Yeah like I said heard it an interview, but you're right.


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> This is where Oliphint had a chance to get it right but messed up. Modern essentialism in analytic philosophy distinguishes between essential and contingent properties. A property isn't an attribute, yet Oliphint collapses all contingent properties into creaturely/covenantal properties.


I don't know his feelings on analytic philosophy. But he does right and talk about Plantinga a lot. He may revise that in the new book. The Church has always used philosophical categories in theology.


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> So God takes on creaturely properties? Is it God, then, or a creature, with whom we interact? Or is it something generated by God to provide a kind of intermediary between God and creation?


I'd be hesitant to say creature, if only you mean non divine. The covenantal properties are what we interact with.


----------



## TylerRay (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I'd be hesitant to say creature, if only you mean non divine. The covenantal properties are what we interact with.


Then the covenanal properties are demiurgic in nature. I really believe that if you follow Oliphint and/or Frame on this matter, at best you get a denial of the creator/creature distinction, and at worst you get a demiurge.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 27, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I don't know his feelings on analytic philosophy. But he does right and talk about Plantinga a lot. He may revise that in the new book. The Church has always used philosophical categories in theology.



He rejects Plantinga. See his lectures on apologetics at WTS.


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Then the covenanal properties are demiurgic in nature. I really believe that if you follow Oliphint and/or Frame on this matter, at best you get a denial of the creator/creature distinction, and at worst you get a demiurge.


Well what should it be?


----------



## jwright82 (May 27, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He rejects Plantinga. See his lectures on apologetics at WTS.


I didn't say he liked him but that does mean he is aware of at least that analytic philosopher. Read his essay "new/old Reformed Epistemology".


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Well what should it be?


We should reject their revisions of theology proper.


----------



## jwright82 (May 28, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> We should reject their revisions of theology proper.


For what in particular? I happened to like Dr. Oliphint's contribution to the discussion. As far as Frame goes, I'm assuming you mean his defense of Van Til? Also I've seen nothing in this discussion to lead me to doubt covenantal properties. If there is a particularly better way to resolve the problem Dr Oliphint is tackling than i'm all ears, or least eyes in this case. 
So far the worst condemnation is that he says God changes essentially but he denies that both in print and in interview.


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> For what in particular? I happened to like Dr. Oliphint's contribution to the discussion. As far as Frame goes, I'm assuming you mean his defense of Van Til? Also I've seen nothing in this discussion to lead me to doubt covenantal properties. If there is a particularly better way to resolve the problem Dr Oliphint is tackling than i'm all ears, or least eyes in this case.
> So far the worst condemnation is that he says God changes essentially but he denies that both in print and in interview.


People who revise the Christian system rarely see the systemic implications of their modifications. I don't want to deny the creator/creature distinction, and I don't want to believe in a demiurge, so I will reject their revisions.

With Frame, I have his lectures in mind, but I'm sure he's published his views elsewhere.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> If there is a particularly better way to resolve the problem Dr Oliphint is tackling than i'm all ears, or least eyes in this case.



He needs to drop the moniker of covenantal properties and stick rather with the distinction between contigent and essential properties. He also tends to see properties as attributes, which is confusing.


jwright82 said:


> So far the worst condemnation is that he says God changes essentially but he denies that both in print and in interview.



Except a covenantal property overlaps with both creature and creator.


----------



## jwright82 (May 28, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> People who revise the Christian system rarely see the systemic implications of their modifications. I don't want to deny the creator/creature distinction, and I don't want to believe in a demiurge, so I will reject their revisions.
> 
> With Frame, I have his lectures in mind, but I'm sure he's published his views elsewhere.


What did Frame say? And how does Dr. Oliphint deny the creator/creature distinction? Again when God walked with Adam in the garden, was that metaphorical or literal?


----------



## jwright82 (May 28, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He needs to drop the moniker of covenantal properties and stick rather with the distinction between contigent and essential properties. He also tends to see properties as attributes, which is confusing.
> 
> 
> Except a covenantal property overlaps with both creature and creator.


Covenantal is a


BayouHuguenot said:


> He needs to drop the moniker of covenantal properties and stick rather with the distinction between contigent and essential properties. He also tends to see properties as attributes, which is confusing.
> 
> 
> Except a covenantal property overlaps with both creature and creator.


I wouldn't say they overlap creator and creature. Covenantal is an extension of contingent properties and captures more his condescending nature to creation.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 28, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Covenantal is a
> 
> I wouldn't say they overlap creator and creature. Covenantal is an extension of contingent properties and captures more his condescending nature to creation.



But God also has eternal covenantal properties per the pactum salutis


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> What did Frame say? And how does Dr. Oliphint deny the creator/creature distinction? Again when God walked with Adam in the garden, was that metaphorical or literal?


It's been a while since I heard Frame's lectures, but he essentially said that God cannot interact with the world without adopting properties that bridge the gap between eternity/transcendence and creaturely existence. That's essentially the doctrine of a demiurge.

The denial of the creator/creature distinction is that God changes to adopt creaturely properties.

It seems to me that Gen. 3 is referring to a theophany, not to God adopting the properties of a biped.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jwright82 (May 28, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> But God also has eternal covenantal properties per the pactum salutis


True. But he takes on different properties when interacting with creation.


----------



## jwright82 (May 28, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> It's been a while since I heard Frame's lectures, but he essentially said that God cannot interact with the world without adopting properties that bridge the gap between eternity/transcendence and creaturely existence. That's essentially the doctrine of a demiurge.
> 
> The denial of the creator/creature distinction is that God changes to adopt creaturely properties.
> 
> It seems to me that Gen. 3 is referring to a theophany, not to God adopting the properties of a biped.


What's the difference between a theophany and covenantal properties?


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> What's the difference between a theophany and covenantal properties?


A theophany is a manifestation of God to man. It's not a property that God takes on.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (May 28, 2019)

So when it says "he walked with Adam" it didn't mean it?


----------



## TylerRay (May 28, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> So when it says "he walked with Adam" it didn't mean it?


That kind of proof texting doesn't help anything.


----------



## jwright82 (May 30, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> That kind of proof texting doesn't help anything.


Why not? If it's complicated than that than please elaborate.


----------



## TylerRay (May 30, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Why not? If it's complicated than that than please elaborate.


Brother, if you think that the verse implies that God briefly took on a pair of legs, then you are way outside the Christian tradition on this one. Please understand--I'm not questioning your salvation. I just mean that what your presenting is completely foreign to Christian thought. It's beyond the pale.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy (May 30, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Brother, if you think that the verse implies that God briefly took on a pair of legs, then you are way outside the Christian tradition on this one. Please understand--I'm not questioning your salvation. I just mean that what your presenting is completely foreign to Christian thought. It's beyond the pale.



I think he is looking for an expansion of post 55 (manifestation of a theophany versus taking on a property). This response seems a tad strong.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

Kinghezy said:


> I think he is looking for an expansion of post 55 (manifestation of a theophany versus taking on a property). This response seems a tad strong.


Exactly. If it doesn't mean what it says, than what does it mean?


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Brother, if you think that the verse implies that God briefly took on a pair of legs, then you are way outside the Christian tradition on this one. Please understand--I'm not questioning your salvation. I just mean that what your presenting is completely foreign to Christian thought. It's beyond the pale.


Are you saying it's impossible, from the text, to conclude that God took on a physical form, for Adam (covenantal properties), to relate to him in way he could better understand?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Are you saying it's impossible, from the text, to conclude that God took on a physical form, for Adam (covenantal properties), to relate to him in way he could better understand?



Are physical properties an example of covenantal properties? It's hard to see how they are.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Are physical properties an example of covenantal properties? It's hard to see how they are.


They are if there condescending in nature. Did he condescend to do it?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Are you saying it's impossible, from the text, to conclude that God took on a physical form, for Adam (covenantal properties), to relate to him in way he could better understand?


I'm saying that the idea that God becomes a physical being sometimes is completely foreign to all Christian teaching. I would be shocked to learn that even Oliphant would embrace that idea.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> They are if there condescending in nature. Did he condescend to do it?



Is the definition of covenant "condescending>"


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> I'm saying that the idea that God becomes a physical being sometimes is completely foreign to all Christian teaching. I would be shocked to learn that even Oliphant would embrace that idea.


So the burning bush was not physical? Was it metaphorical?


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Is the definition of covenant "condescending>"


It's implied in it. Plus it's in the confession.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> So the burning bush was not physical? Was it metaphorical?


The bush wasn't God. God spoke out of the bush.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> The bush wasn't God. God spoke out of the bush.


I never said it was. But God was there, unless how could the ground be holy? But it was physical in nature.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> It's implied in it. Plus it's in the confession.



The confession identifies "condescending" as part of the covenant. It does not equate all acts of condescension as covenant-identifying acts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The confession identifies "condescending" as part of the covenant. It does not equate all acts of condescension as covenant-identifying acts.


Are there any covenant acts that are not condescending in nature?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I never said it was. But God was there, unless how could the ground be holy? But it was physical in nature.


Can you please clarify what you're getting at? Are you saying that God took on the properties of a bush and/or the properties of the ground? I don't want to misrepresent you, but that's what it sounds like you're saying.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Are there any covenant acts that are not condescending in nature?



Condescending is a necessary condition for a divine-human covenant. It is not a sufficient condition. Just because it obtains in a situation doesn't render the situation covenantal.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Can you please clarify what you're getting at? Are you saying that God took on the properties of a bush and/or the properties of the ground? I don't want to misrepresent you, but that's what it sounds like you're saying.


That was his presence. He was there. Properties are fine but he was there. Lest how would the ground be holy otherwise? I doubt it was a metaphor.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Condescending is a necessary condition for a divine-human covenant. It is not a sufficient condition. Just because it obtains in a situation doesn't render the situation covenantal.


It does if it's if it's condescending in nature.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> That was his presence. He was there. Properties are fine but he was there. Lest how would the ground be holy otherwise? I doubt it was a metaphor.


Yes, all of God is always everywhere, and he manifested his presence in a special way at that time in that place.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 3, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Yes, all of God is always everywhere, and he manifested his presence in a special way at that time in that place.


Than what's the disagreement? Terminology?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Than what's the disagreement? Terminology?



Well, for one, no covenant was made at the Burning Bush. I can grant covenantal overtones to it (e.g., hearkening back to Abraham; the name of Yahweh), but beyond that it is stretching it.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 3, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Than what's the disagreement? Terminology?


It's the question of whether God _became something he had not been. _God did not change (did not take on new properties) at the burning bush.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Well, for one, no covenant was made at the Burning Bush. I can grant covenantal overtones to it (e.g., hearkening back to Abraham; the name of Yahweh), but beyond that it is stretching it.


Does a formal covenant have to be made to be covenantal?


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> It's the question of whether God _became something he had not been. _God did not change (did not take on new properties) at the burning bush.


So he's eternally a burning bush? What did he take on if it wasn't new properties? He took those properties on for a time and then discarded them. Your issue seems to be terminological, which amounts to no difference at all. You insist on calling it one thing, I another with no real difference in substance.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> So God takes on creaturely properties? Is it God, then, or a creature, with whom we interact? Or is it something generated by God to provide a kind of intermediary between God and creation?


What's the difference? Both definitions seem essentially the same in substance, not terminology.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> So he's eternally a burning bush? What did he take on if it wasn't new properties? He took those properties on for a time and then discarded them. Your issue seems to be terminological, which amounts to no difference at all. You insist on calling it one thing, I another with no real difference in substance.


Again the bush wasn't God, and God wasn't the bush. He didn't become anything that he wasn't before. He never had the properties of a bush.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> So he's eternally a burning bush? What did he take on if it wasn't new properties? He took those properties on for a time and then discarded them. Your issue seems to be terminological, which amounts to no difference at all. You insist on calling it one thing, I another with no real difference in substance.



I know that Tyler is answering here, but I’d like to point out that following this line of reasoning affects your doctrine of the incarnation.

There is only one time in all history that God actually became apart of His creation: through Jesus Christ. However, God didn’t pick up something new in His divinity by becoming man.

It seems that the “bush” issue is easily resolved by showing that it was an object which God used to draw Moses.

The text reads: “the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush“. Wouldn’t this just simply be the medium by which God appeared to Moses, rather then God “becoming” the bush?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Again the bush wasn't God, and God wasn't the bush. He didn't become anything that he wasn't before. He never had the properties of a bush.


Well it's a burning bush. If he didn't take on those properties than what did he do. How than was the ground holy? The bush wasn't God in his essential nature but he was there. However you want to define it. He did walk with Adam, however you want to define it.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I know that Tyler is answering here, but I’d like to point out that following this line of reasoning affects your doctrine of the incarnation.
> 
> There is only one time in all history that God actually became apart of His creation: through Jesus Christ. However, God didn’t pick up something new in His divinity by becoming man.
> 
> ...


I thought the angel of the Lord was God lest the ground wouldn't be holy. The medium was God relating to his creature at a particular time and place. In a finite way. I call these covenantal properties, others want to call it something else. But it functions the same. God taking on temporary forms in redemptive history is a fact. If the disagreement is merely terminology, than fine. But I think covenantal properties is not a bad way to describe it.
The incarceration is unique in the fact that all the other times God condescended, took on finite properties, or manifested Himself through finite means (or however you want to define it) it was temporary. It was not his essential nature. But in the incarnation Christ takes on a new nature that he did not have before, permanently. The second person of the trinity' s essential personhood is now permanently two nature's, a la chalcodonion creed. That's unique.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Again the bush wasn't God, and God wasn't the bush. He didn't become anything that he wasn't before. He never had the properties of a bush.


I never said the bush was God. If I said that or implied it i apologize. But God was there acting in and through the bush, but the reality of his presence is what the ground holy. There was a real presence.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Well it's a burning bush. If he didn't take on those properties than what did he do. How than was the ground holy? The bush wasn't God in his essential nature but he was there. However you want to define it. He did walk with Adam, however you want to define it.


We should certainly want to own the language of the Scriptures, but the overall teaching of the Scriptures is that God does not change. Whatever manifestation God makes of himself in space and time, he doesn't undergo any changes.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I never said the bush was God. If I said that or implied it i apologize. But God was there acting in and through the bush, but the reality of his presence is what the ground holy. There was a real presence.


I see. There are two aspects of God's presence that we should acknowledge--that all of God is always present everywhere (so that, properly speaking, he was as present everywhere else as he was in that place), and that he manifests/reveals himself in a special way at certain places in certain times. That doesn't mean that becomes anything that he wasn't--only that he condescends to reveal himself to his creatures in a way that is ascertainable to them.

If we say that God is taking on properties that he didn't have before, the God is changing, and is thus mutable.

By the way, my essence doesn't change when I undergo change, either.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> We should certainly want to own the language of the Scriptures, but the overall teaching of the Scriptures is that God does not change. Whatever manifestation God makes of himself in space and time, he doesn't undergo any changes.


I don't know where I nor Dr. Oliphint ever said God changed. But saying that God "changes" only in respect to his condescending in properties he temporarily takes (owning the language of scripture, his repenting or changing his mind) is not the same thing as saying he changes. In fact to say that God changing in regards to his covenantal properties is not the same as saying God changes with regards to his essential nature, that would be heresy. But saying that God's covenantal properties can change withou his essential nature changing seems perfectly fine. Albeit a mystery. But without such a scheme that allows us to own scripture in affirming that God cannot essentially change yet scripture doesn't lie when it affirms God repenting or changing his mind because it's not referring to his essential nature only covenantal properties. Two equate the two is a category mistake.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> I don't know where I nor Dr. Oliphint ever said God changed. But saying that God "changes" only in respect to his condescending in properties he temporarily takes (owning the language of scripture, his repenting or changing his mind) is not the same thing as saying he changes. In fact to say that God changing in regards to his covenantal properties is not the same as saying God changes with regards to his essential nature, that would be heresy. But saying that God's covenantal properties can change withou his essential nature changing seems perfectly fine. Albeit a mystery. But without such a scheme that allows us to own scripture in affirming that God cannot essentially change yet scripture doesn't lie when it affirms God repenting or changing his mind because it's not referring to his essential nature only covenantal properties. Two equate the two is a category mistake.


When I change my mind, my essential nature remains the same.

When God changes his mind, his essential nature remains the same.

If God is immutable in this scheme, so am I.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> I see. There are two aspects of God's presence that we should acknowledge--that all of God is always present everywhere (so that, properly speaking, he was as present everywhere else as he was in that place), and that he manifests/reveals himself in a special way at certain places in certain times. That doesn't mean that becomes anything that he wasn't--only that he condescends to reveal himself to his creatures in a way that is ascertainable to them.
> 
> If we say that God is taking on properties that he didn't have before, the God is changing, and is thus mutable.
> 
> By the way, my essence doesn't change when I undergo change, either.


Well it would appear that your main objection is terminological, you have a problem with the terminology of properties. If I'm wrong here than please correct me. But I don't see how it is possible to deny a real presence of God at the burning bush, not saying you're saying this without new properties language (hence it make no sense for the ground to be holy). Plus saying that God, in taking on new properties, means he changes is a category mistake.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> When I change my mind, my essential nature remains the same.
> 
> When God changes his mind, his essential nature remains the same.
> 
> If God is immutable in this scheme, so am I.


Category mistake. On two fronts.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Category mistake. On two fronts.


Show me.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> When I change my mind, my essential nature remains the same.
> 
> When God changes his mind, his essential nature remains the same.
> 
> If God is immutable in this scheme, so am I.


Apples and oranges. Whether or not our essential nature is completely immutable like God's is to compare two different things, us and God, as the same with regard to two different kinds of beings. Immutable can't mean the same thing to these two different beings. Hence a category mistake.

The other one I refer to is not in that post but the confusion of God's covenantal properties with his essential nature. I believe you kept implying that if God can change with respect to his covenantal properties it means, implies, he can and does change in his essential nature. But those are two different kinds of things. Hence category mistake. 
No one ever said these new properties are taken with respect to his essential nature, only in his covenantal condescension relationship to creation. So they are not his essential nature but nevertheless real and meaningful.
God really does walk with Adam. God is really present at the burning bush or he really does take on a physical form when revealing himself as the angel of the Lord.


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Apples and oranges. Whether or not our essential nature is completely immutable like God's is to compare two different things, us and God, as the same with regard to two different kinds of beings. Immutable can't mean the same thing to these two different beings. Hence a category mistake.


Immutable means immutable--not subject to change. Apply it to whatever category you like.



> The other one I refer to is not in that post but the confusion of God's covenantal properties with his essential nature. I believe you kept implying that if God can change with respect to his covenantal properties it means, implies, he can and does change in his essential nature. But those are two different kinds of things. Hence category mistake.
> No one ever said these new properties are taken with respect to his essential nature, only in his covenantal condescension relationship to creation. So they are not his essential nature but nevertheless real and meaningful.
> God really does walk with Adam. God is really present at the burning bush or he really does take on a physical form when revealing himself as the angel of the Lord.


1. It hasn't been proven that God takes these 'properties' on.

2. Assuming that he does take them on, he is mutable in regard to these nonessential properties, just as I am mutable in regard to my nonessential properties.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Immutable means immutable--not subject to change. Apply it to whatever category you like.
> 
> 
> 1. It hasn't been proven that God takes these 'properties' on.
> ...


Fair enough. Than I don't understand the about us being immutable and God being, without qualifying the terms? What's the point? The second point is my point. So biblical examples which I've given are where the debate/discussion can happen. Do you think the examples are wrongly interpreted as God condescend in covenantal ways taking properties he didn't have prior strictly with regard to his covenantal dealings?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Fair enough. Than I don't understand the about us being immutable and God being, without qualifying the terms? What's the point? The second point is my point. So biblical examples which I've given are where the debate/discussion can happen. Do you think the examples are wrongly interpreted as God condescend in covenantal ways taking properties he didn't have prior strictly with regard to his covenantal dealings?


What I'm getting at with the second point is that, if it is true, then it becomes meaningless to say that God is immutable. If both God and I change according to our nonessential properties while remaining unchanged according to our essence, It cannot be said that God is immutable whereas I am mutable.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> What I'm getting at with the second point is that, if it is true, then it becomes meaningless to say that God is immutable. If both God and I change according to our nonessential properties while remaining unchanged according to our essence, It cannot be said that God is immutable whereas I am mutable.


Number one that is a category mistake. The relationship of my mutable properties to my immutable ones( not sure what that distinction really means In any detailed sense) to God's, somewhat?, mutable covenantal properties to his immutable ones are different kinds of things and relationships. Hence not comparable.


----------



## jwright82 (Jun 4, 2019)

Also you saying " it is meaningless to speak of God's immutable nature" in this sense it would cannot make sense saying in any real that God can repent, in his covenantal nature, or change his mind, in the same sense as before. So I don't how you do view passages, or his taking on forms he didn't possess before, like the ones above?


----------



## TylerRay (Jun 4, 2019)

jwright82 said:


> Number one that is a category mistake. The relationship of my mutable properties to my immutable ones( not sure what that distinction really means In any detailed sense) to God's, somewhat?, mutable covenantal properties to his immutable ones are different kinds of things and relationships. Hence not comparable.


Let's be plain: if God changes in any sense, he is by definition mutable. That's the historic Christian faith. If you want go with your favorite teachers over against historic Christianity, the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures, and plain reason, then that's your choice.

I'm bowing out of this one.


----------

