Covenants properties

Status
Not open for further replies.
jwright82

jwright82

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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?
 
jwright82 said:
I understand this is a current issue but it's been cleared by the OPC
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I merely that thought that if it's been formally cleared, it would be ok to discuss.
 
jwright82 said:
I merely that thought that if it's been formally cleared, it would be ok to discuss.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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'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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

He never said God changed essentially only covenantly.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Ok
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
jwright82 said:
He never said God changed essentially only covenantly.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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?
Click to expand...
God did not change in the incarnation. The second Person of the Godhead took on a human nature, not new divine attributes.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
TylerRay said:
God did not change in the incarnation. The second Person of the Godhead took on a human nature, not new divine attributes.
Click to expand...
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 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)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Reformed Covenanter
  • Locked
James Durham on the personal properties of the Trinity
Replies
1
Views
492
Solparvus
Solparvus
Reformed Covenanter
John Calvin on the communication of properties and Servetus’ blasphemy
Replies
0
Views
589
Reformed Covenanter
Reformed Covenanter
Scott
  • Locked
Examples of Ancient Covenants
Replies
1
Views
2K
Peter
P
Travis Fentiman
Communication of Properties in Christ
Replies
1
Views
692
jwright82
jwright82
Romans922
  • Locked
Covenants, Sin, Birth of Christ
Replies
3
Views
1K
PuritanCovenanter
PuritanCovenanter
Back
Top