What does Oliphint teach about God's covenantal properties

[Reformed Covenanter]

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

Because they are dead and thus beyond the reach of church authorities.

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

Discipline is a mark of the true church.

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.

Paul fought against false doctrine and yet who was a greater missionary than him?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The point about missions overlooks the diversity of gifts within the church. Some men may excel at evangelism, others may excel at teaching doctrine, other men may excel equally at both.

 

[RamistThomist]

Why do men do this? To be provocative? Boredom? Attention? Dr. Tipton is my part time pastor and he would never willfully say or do anything to trip us up..... I find these subtly deceptive teachings and hardness to correction frustrating. With all due respect , what is this man trying to prove? Is this ultimately a pride issue?

Who exactly is your target? I always figured Tipton and Oliphint were on the same page. I'm fairly certain that Oliphint isn't trying to be prideful. (That's also a somewhat dangerous insinuation).

Why would he be doing this? Probably because theology doesn't stay statically locked into one time period. Theologians have to address current issues, and modern essentialist thinking has pointed out areas where facile references to "God's attributes" simply don't answer the questions (because attribute isn't as useful a term as property).

 

[RamistThomist]

Quick primer on substance and properties:

property: something that can be said of something.

substance: something that bears properties but itself is not a property.

Substance and property aren't the same thing. That's why God can take on contingent properties (such as the property of being-in-relation to the world) without changing his substance.

This also gets past the danger latent in some dogmatics texts that said God is his attributes. That might work if we stick to "attributes," but it can't work with properties, since that would make God a property. And God isn't a property.

 

[A.Joseph]

Who exactly is your target? I always figured Tipton and Oliphint were on the same page. I'm fairly certain that Oliphint isn't trying to be prideful. (That's also a somewhat dangerous insinuation).

Why would he be doing this? Probably because theology doesn't stay statically locked into one time period. Theologians have to address current issues, and modern essentialist thinking has pointed out areas where facile references to "God's attributes" simply don't answer the questions (because attribute isn't as useful a term as property).

I don’t have a complete understanding of these matters and should not unknowingly name drop , so it probably be best to disregard my post in its entirety, thanks!

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thread closed.