What does Oliphint teach about God's covenantal properties

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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,. . ."?
 
The Church is most certainly not falling apart. :detective:

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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).
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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.:detective:
 
Last edited:
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."

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top