What does Oliphint teach about God's covenantal properties

Status
Not open for further replies.

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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)"
 
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.
 
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."
 
...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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Is he bringing the covenant back into creation so that His creating act is covenantal (a denial of WCF 7.1)?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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/
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top