Review of Scott Oliphint’s God with Us – Part 1
Scott Oliphint’s God with Us has been heavily criticized and has even been the focus of charges against him presented to his presbytery, the Presbytery of the Southwest of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (my own presbytery). The presbytery, at it’s Fall, 2019 meeting, determined not to charge him or receive charges against him. This prompted a protest by several members of presbytery against the action to not charge Mr. Oliphint. This has been followed by a complaint against the same action.
Introductory Remarks
Make no mistake! Though formulated as charges that Oliphint violates “his ordination vows and our confessional standards,” these charges amount to charges of heresy. The charges accuse Oliphint basically with teaching that undermines God’s immutability, and also along with that, also God’s simplicity, impassibility, and omniscience. Now these attributes are not distinctives of Reformed theology. They are common to all evangelical Protestant theology. It would not just be contrary to our standards but of all orthodoxy. That would make it heresy.
Oliphint proposes a refinement, not an alternative, to accepted doctrine. He suggests that we add to our formulation of God’s attributes, covenantal or condescended characteristics or properties that God takes on Himself in being God with us. I’ll state upfront that I do not believe this is heresy. I’m not saying his suggested formulations are correct or that I agree with them. Instead I view this as a proposed refinement, and not a refinement that he egotistically insists on, but a humble suggestion on which he is willing to be corrected and for which purpose he proposes a revision to the book.
Several recognitions are important. First, the subject that Oliphint treats is an admittedly difficult one. Further, it is made more difficult by what appears to me to be confusion as to who his audience is. While we might assume he writes for theologians, ministerial students, ministers, and theologically knowledgeable laymen, he also seems to write for those in the academic discipline of philosophy of religion. He seems to want to write theology and apologetics at the same time. But that dualism of target adds to the difficulty for theologians because of his too frequent usage of the vocabulary of philosophy of religion, with which Oliphint is comfortable but most theologians are not. His organization of his chapters might appear to relegate philosophy of religion concerns and vocabulary to the last chapter, but as a matter of fact, these appear throughout the book.
Additionally, while most would leave such a difficult topic alone, Mr. Oliphint, as a professor of theology, does not have that luxury. Especially is that so when there has been palpable error in precisely this area of doctrine in contemporary theology. Oliphint particularly points out challenges to immutability and omniscience by the Open Theism movement and also by Peter Enns, a former professor at Westminster Theological Seminary where Oliphint teaches. Oliphint specifically calls out these errors as well as errors by process theology and by Paul Helm. It is appropriate for Oliphint to make an effort to address these errors.
Perhaps this is the place to point out how nuanced Oliphint’s treatment is. This might easily be missed if one does not read the entire introduction (which is basically as long as each of the four chapters of the book). It is here that he first states that the orthodox doctrine of God’s attributes, and especially His aseity, is foundational to his view. It is here that he specifically denies that the act of creating places God under any necessity of relating to creation or any part of it. Instead, he asserts that it is only God’s free decision to relate to His creation that places us (not God) under the necessity of explaining how an immutable God can relate to a creation that was not present until God’s act of creation. Explaining this in an orthodox manner is Oliphint’s primary concern in the book. And in his introduction, he carefully treats Reformed hermeneutics, especially with respect to theology proper. He also deals with antinomy and paradox because any treatment of his subject will necessarily entail paradoxical language.
Mis-characterization
It certainly must be recognized that Oliphint specifically and repeatedly affirms and insists on the importance of the whole area of the aseity of God (including immutability, simplicity, impassibility, and omniscience) as being foundational for his teaching on this subject. This is not mentioned (or not recognized?) in the charges or by those supporting them, possibly because this is not the error he is charged with teaching, but it nevertheless seems that his purported errors should not be “unqualifiedly” placed in stark contrast to his strong affirmations. It distorts Oliphint’s position when he is represented as teaching an either/or view when it is instead a both/and formulation.
Instead of placing Oliphint’s suggested refinement in the context of his affirmations, the charges repeatedly insist that the Standards “unqualifiedly teach” the listed attributes. In contrast, Oliphint is seen as teaching those attributes with the qualification that they are “essential attributes,” i.e. that these attributes are of the essence of God’s being, that He would not be Who He is without them. He acknowledges his qualification and points out that such “essence language” has a long history of usage in orthodox theology and cites Richard Muller to this effect, but this qualification does give him the opportunity of suggesting additional non-essential attributes that God “takes on” as a consequence of His decision to create and interact with His creation. Hindsight might suggest Oliphint could have done better to list examples of this essence language rather than cite Muller.
Misunderstanding
The assertion that God’s attributes are unqualifiedly taught in our standards seems problematic in at least four ways. The first is that when our Standards teach the attributes without qualification, that does not mean they cannot be qualified and does not entitle anyone to add a doctrine that the attributes may not be qualified. It simply does not say that; Oliphint’s accusers do. We see a parallel absolutizing when some wrongly claim that the unqualified teaching of Jesus in Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 about divorce teaches that divorcing is always committing adultery while ignoring the exception clauses for sexual immorality/fornication that qualify Jesus’ teaching in the parallel passages in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. John Murray’s distinction between definitive and progressive sanctification would be an example. This distinction is generally accepted among today’s Reformed scholars, but no such qualification is made in the Standards. Another example would be that we refer regularly to the inerrant Scriptures, though this qualification is not present in the Standards. It is erroneous to say that omission of qualification means no qualification can be made. In so claiming, the accusers add their own idea to the Standards and also absolutize in a most dangerous way.
Secondly, this absolutism about God’s immutability would seem to make no room for the Confession’s statement about Christ that He did “take upon him man’s nature, with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof” (8.2 emphasis added – note the essence language here in the confession). If we absolutize God’s immutability, how could Christ take on Himself (using Oliphint’s language paralleling that of the Confession) something new, not in eternity, but “when the fullness of time was come”.
Thirdly, by absolutizing God’s immutability, they maintain God’s transcendence, but logically sacrifice His immanence, which Oliphint maintains alongside transcendence. It has long been accepted that the God Christians worship differs from all pretended gods in that He is both transcendent and immanent at the same time. If we allow Oliphint’s accusers to absolutize God’s immutability, do we not have Aristotle’s unmoved mover? Surely they would not side with Aristotle.
Fourthly, when they claim the Standards unqualifiedly teach these attributes, they are adding their own qualification (ouch!) and, unlike Oliphint, they don’t acknowledge they are adding a qualification (ouch, again!).
Conclusion
In conclusion, I submit no egregious error is made by Oliphint, instead he makes a commendable effort to refine a doctrine which has come under attack in our time. Whether his refinement is correct is a matter of how the Church responds to it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.