What does Oliphint teach about God's covenantal properties

[Timotheos]

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.

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

 

[Timotheos]

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

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

 

[Kinghezy]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

Exactly.

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

 

[Tom Hart]

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

Has anyone said this?

 

[alexandermsmith]

Exactly.

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

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

 

[earl40]

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

Has anyone said this?

Reformed Thomists say it every day.

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[earl40]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

 

[earl40]

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

If you reword your second sentence?

 

[earl40]

That's called equivocal language."

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

If you reword your second sentence?

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

 

[Tom Hart]

Reformed Thomists say it every day.

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

My question was in response to this sarcastic comment:

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

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

 

[alexandermsmith]

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


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


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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

There are.

 

[Hamalas]

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

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

 

[RamistThomist]

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

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

 

[Pergamum]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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