Oliphint says God changes his mind

I am nearing the end of blogging through tis perspective-altering work by K. Scott Oliphint called God With Us. This process-I call it blogging through a book-has reinforced the value of this volume. This may be my last post on it, and I'd encourage everyone to get their hands on this book and read it.

This excerpt states plainly the mystery and apparent contradiction that one encounters when considering the condescending God.

So, God does "authentically respond" to us, he is "affected by us," he does test in order to discover something, and he does change his mind. But none of this requires, nor does it in any way entail, as we have seen, that God does not control all things by the counsel of his own will, or that he did not decree "whatsoever comes to pass." (274)

How does that sit with you? Can you hold those two biblical truths at the same time? Oliphint continues,

The problem, again, centers on the relationship of necessity to contingency. For free-will theists, only that which is in no way necessarily caused or controlled can be free. But this construal fails to do justice to the dual mode of God's character. As one who is altogether necessary, he is, nevertheless, free. As we have seen, that freedom relates to that which God determines ad extra. It is not a freedom which overrides or undermines his necessity. Thus, for example, God necessarily wills himself; to will himself freely would be to import contingency into his essential character. (274)

This is mysterious granted, but it is a heart-enriching, Biblically-supported, affection-enlarging mystery. Spend some time today contemplating our infinitely distant and strikingly close God.

Oliphint summarizes God With Us

The following is a good summary of God With Us by K. Scott Oliphint. Throughout the book Oliphint attempts, and in my opinion succeeds, to explain and elucidate the character of God in light of some apparent inconsistencies described in the Bible which relate to God's attributes and characteristics. Oliphint deals with these troublesome ideas with a study of God's condescension and uses our understanding of Christ's condescension as the foundation for that discussion. Consider,

So, God takes on covenant characteristics that are consistent with his essential character. But he also takes on covenant characteristics that seem to us to be inconsistent with that character. As with Christ, however, these inconsistencies are not such that we must explain them away or twist the texts to make them say the opposite of what they say. They appear as inconsistencies precisely because of God's condescension, and that condescension has the gospel as its central focus and Christ as its substance. So, the explanation of those inconsistencies is to be found in God's free act of mercy and grace, his stooping down to be "one of us" as he providentially works out his meticulously sovereign plan in history. This way of understanding these tensions has its focus in what God has freely done, and what he has sacrificed, in order to relate himself to us and conquer the sin that has taken his creation captive. (Oliphint, K. Scott. God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print. 228)

God's affections controlled by his independence

Here is a verse of Scripture which has caused much difficulty for Christians:

    And the LORD regretted that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart.
(Genesis 6:6 ESV)

This regret makes it seem as if God was not only disappointed in mankind and their less than stellar legacy, but it also suggests that their faults and failures were unexpected; this is an odd sentiment from a Being who allegedly is omniscient. How can we reconcile a regretting God with an all-knowing God? Scott Oliphint explains how we must look at this Scripture, and others like it, if we are to take the words of Scripture seriously both in terms of God's character-his essential nature, in this case his omniscience-and his interaction with his covenant people.

Whenever Scripture attributes affections to God, it is incumbent on the reader to make sense of such attributions against the clear backdrop of God's aseity - an aseity, we should remember, that is necessary to his character. That is, as I have said,  it cannot be denied that, prior to creation, there was only God, and that as God he was altogether complete and independent. The hermeneutic applied to passages that speak of God's dependence must, therefore, be governed and controlled by his essential independence, and not vice versa. (Oliphint, K. Scott. God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print. 210)

Oliphint on God’s immutability, anger, and condescension

If you read this blog with any frequency you will know that I think very highly of the book God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God by K. Scott Oliphint. You can read my review of it here as well as subsequent posts here, here, here, and here. One of the many profundities presented in the book is how the author and his approach to divine condescension deals with occurrences in Scripture where the essential nature of God seems to be compromised. 

For instance, when the Bible says God gets angry, does this not indicate a change in God? Or as in the case of Abraham sacrificing his son Isaac, when Scripture records God saying "Do not lay your hand on the boy or do anything to him, for now I know that you fear God, seeing you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me." (Genesis 22:12 ESV) is it really suggesting that God isn't omniscient and only realized the outcome of Abraham's test when it was completed? Clearly, we cannot espouse positions that undermine essential characteristics of God such as his omniscience and his immutability.

Oliphint provides the reader with an explanation of how we might formulate our theology in terms of the difficulties and how we might articulate those formations intelligently. Consider this following excerpt:

… 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 different things that please and displease him. These ascriptions of God in Scripture are not meant to simply 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.

    Does this mean that God is mutable and that he has given up his immutability? No more so than when we affirm that when Christ was angry (see, e.g., Mark 3:5; 10:14), he gave up his deity, or that his anger could be "real" only if his immutability were denied. On the contrary, as we have seen, we can truthfully predicate both aspects and properties of Christ; the communicatio means that both aspects of Christ's character can (and must) be affirmed. So also with God. He is both immutable and in his condescension takes on covenantal properties in order really and truly to relate himself to us. (191)

I found the way in which Oliphint discussed and exposited this issue of great benefit. It is the best explanation of this problematic issue that I, in my limited exposure, have interacted with. This explanation takes both the orthodox view of God's essential nature and the witness of Scripture with utmost seriousness, not allowing either to fall by the wayside. Oliphint goes on to say,

The penchant to shift the focus of Scripture's ascription of God's affections from himself to us in order to guard his essential deity, while admirable and understandable, does not do justice to the reality of God's real and gracious condescension since the beginning of creation. It fails to recognize that what God has done in Christ through his condescension he has been doing from the dawn of time. The condescension of the Son of God in becoming Jesus Christ points us back to his condescension elsewhere in Scripture. To undermine or in any way minimize that condescension is, to that extent, to miss the glory of the goodness and grace of God as he sovereignly acts to accomplish all of his purposes. (191-2)

Reflecting on condescension leads to worshp

I have posted quite a few quotes and ideas that have risen out of my reading of Scott. Oliphint's wonderful book God With Us. So much of what that book has to share resonates with me; it has both intellectual and affectional traction. I'm going to continue referring to it and sharing quotes from it over the next few weeks.

The following quote summarizes the idea of God's condescension in terms of his relationship, a covenantal one, with human beings. The fact that he relates to us, or even that we exist, indicates that He has condescended.

In a more general sense, the fact that God interacts at all with creation presupposes his covenantal character. Once he determines to relate to us, that relation entails that he take on properties that he otherwise would not have had. He limits himself while remaining the infinite God. The fact that he is Creator means that he is now related to something ad extra to which he was not related before. (188)

What an awesome God! This "stooping" of God to covenant with mankind, this condescension of God in the act of creation, makes him appear wonderfully loving and amazingly glorious to me. But He did not stop there. The great condescension with which God would bless the world is seen in the birth, life, death, resurrection, ascension, session, and return of Christ. I am left with a desire to worship this incredible God!

Looking to the revelation of God in Christ

We know that our foundation for knowledge is in God's revelation to us. But, particularly when it comes to a knowledge of God, one of the things we must do is look to the quintessential revelation of God in Jesus Christ. In him we have the perfect union of God and creation in the uniting of the two natures in one person. So, if we want to know how God can relate to his creation, we should look to the example of that relationship in the person of Christ. In him we have the picture of God's covenant with his people. Because Christ is the union of two natures, he brings together, in a way that only God could accomplish, the union of both "I will be your God" and "you will be my people". In Christ, we have both "our God" and "his people". (Oliphint, K. Scott. God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print.)

Oliphint on the goal of theological study

... we should not succumb to the temptation to think that just because we are trying to be careful in our articulation of the person of the Son of God, the matters we are discussing have no practical import and we are attempting to exhaust what is altogether incomprehensible. We should keep in the forefront of  our minds that the driving force behind a proper articulation of the incarnation and of Christ was the hope that the church would know and understand him better, and in knowing and understanding him better, be better able to serve and worship him-both in life and in thought. (Oliphint, K. Scott. God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print. 136, emphasis mine)

What Oliphint has touched upon here in regards to theological study on the incarnation is indeed true of all study on God related fronts. The hope is, and it should be the case that, careful work in these areas leads to worship and service in deed and thought. I contend that this is true, and depend on God's grace for the realization of it in my own life.

Orthodox christology

... there is absolutely no question that what orthodox christology has always taught is that God came down in the second person of the Trinity, who was and remains fully God, and he took on created attributes and properties without thereby in any way changing his essential deity. To think, as some do, that because God interacts with creation he must necessarily change or in some way limit his essential deity, is in effect to fail to see God's condescension, climactically the incarnation, for what it is. While we cannot comprehend just what it means for one person to fully possess two distinct natures, we must affirm it in order for the gospel, in its fullest biblical sense from Genesis to Revelation, to be what it is. (Oliphint, K. Scott. God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print. 122)

Condescension according to Scott Oliphint

As you will note from this post here, my book of the year for 2011 was the book by Scott Oliphint titled God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. This book was an eye-opening and enthralling experience for me. I encourage you to read my other posts on this book ( here, here, here, and here) and then go and buy the book for yourself.

As is obvious from the title, one of the crucial elements of this book is the concept of condescension. The following is an excerpt in which Oliphint explains what he means by condescension. Oliphint elaborates and elucidates what this term means and how it applies throughout the entirety of the book. But this quote will give you an introduction to the idea.

First, what does it mean for God to condescend to and be with his creation? Certainly the notion of "condescend" or "coming down" is a metaphor.God does not literally move from a higher location to a lower one, given that God is always and everywhere present. The metaphor, however, is intuitive enough that most would see immediately what we generally mean when we affirm that God has condescended. We mean that God freely determined to take on attributes, characteristics, and properties that he did not have, and would not have, without creation. In his taking on these characteristics, we understand as well that whatever characteristics or attributes he takes on, they cannot be of the essence of who he is, nor can they be necessary to his essential identity as God. In other words, given that whatever properties he takes on are a result of his free knowledge and will, he did not have to take them on; he could have chosen not to create or decree anything. Thus, his condescension means that he is adding properties and characteristics, not to his essential being, as the triune God (since that would mean that God was essentially mutable), but surely to himself (more on this later). (110)

As I read through the book, one of the things that came across as plain as day is summed up in this line: "The very fact that God brings something into existence to which he himself is in some way related entails automatically an act of condescension." (110) I have not read any works that refute this claim. But having read Oliphint's book, the concept seems to be built solidly on the Biblical record of God's interaction with humans and the Scriptural witness to his attributes and character. It also explains many difficulties and paradoxes that are evident in God's revelation of himself.

Again, I strongly recommend this book!

When did God first condescend?

According To Scott Oliphint, in his book entitled God With Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God, there was a point at which God condescended:

There is a point, therefore-call it "before the foundation of the world"-when God determines to condescend and to create. This takes place initially in eternity. The act of God's creation includes the triune God-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-taking counsel with himself in order to confirm and establish a covenant relationship with his creation, especially his human creatures. At that point when God determines to decree "whatsoever comes to pass", there is condescension. Because, in order to decree all things, it is necessary for the object(s) of God's knowledge to be ad extra-outside himself-there must be condescension. Any object of God's knowledge that is not God is, by definition, less than God. It requires, then, that God "stoop" in order to determine and effect what is outside of himself. This is what God does as he voluntarily condescends to be with his creation, including his human creatures. (105)

What a mighty God we serve. He is not like us. He is so beyond and above us, that even in humans being the object of his knowledge there is condescension. Not only does this point to his transcendent majesty, it is also an indication of his great love for us.

I so appreciate this book by Oliphint; it challenges the mind resulting in affections in the heart. It points to God and causes one to worshipfully contemplate the majesty of our triune God.

Oliphint on God's Immutability

In his book  on the condescension of God called God With Us, Scott Oliphint addresses the doctrine of God's immutability:

Turretin's definition is more concise [than Aquinas']: "Immutability is an incommunicable attribute of God by which is denied of him not only all change, but also the possibility of change, as much with respect to existence as to will." In other words ... immutability is understood as an essential aspect of God's character, such that not only does he not change essentially, but the very possibility of essential change is denied. This is not to affirm some outside force constraining God. Rather, it it is to affirm that God is who he is, and he cannot be otherwise. He is constrained ... by his own essential nature . 

Oliphint goes on to write a few ideas entailed, but not necessarily obvious, in this doctrine of God's immutability:

Yahweh does not and cannot lie because that would imply change, and also moral decay. In connection with his care for us, his purpose for our lives, God remains ever the same. This is the central focus in the scriptural doctrine of divine immutability: the issue is not simply a metaphysical construct, but is God's unchanging faithfulness to his own being, and, therefore, to us. At the heart of this relationship lies the notion that in both blessing and cursing. God remains the same. He remains faithful to the fulness of his being, expressed in the covenant.

God's immutability is not that of a statue, which never decays and never smiles, but the changelessness of a Father whose faithfulness discloses the fulness of his being. The changlessness of God, of which Scripture speaks, arises out of the manifoldness of his character expressed in his relationship to himself and, secondarily, his faithfulness to man.

Oliphint, K. Scott. God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print.. 82-85

Mediation through Incarnation

The importance of this discussion can be seen if we recognize that in condescending, God the Son, from the beginning of creation, remained who he essentially is, all the while taking to himself those properties and characteristics sufficient to accomplish his sovereign plan. In doing so, it was not simply the assumed covenantal properties, culminating as they do in the assumption of a human nature at the incarnation, that were the conduit through which he would be Mediator. Rather, the fact that God (the Son) took on these properties constituted him as the Mediator of all creation and as the salvific Mediator of his people.

(Oliphint, K. Scott. God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print. 70)

Squared circles

So, just to use one example, the reason God cannot square a circle is not that he is subject to some necessity outside himself or in some way constraining his character, but because he created a circle to be a certain way, and a square to be a certain way, and thus their necessity lies in his creative hand, not in something abstract and above God. (Oliphint, K. Scott. God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print. 70)

Book Review - God With Us

Book Review – God With Us by K. Scott Oliphint

My ten-year old recently read a John Piper book. “Start ‘em young” is what I always say. After reading the book my daughter returned it with the admission that she didn’t understand all of it. My reponse of “Good!” left her with a puzzled look that required an explanation. I explained that I was of the opinion that we should regularly be reading books that were a little bit beyond our reach; books that would stretch our minds and hearts and cause us to grow. I’m not sure if she will be returning to me for any reading recommendations, but I hold to this idea of reading materials that seem to be deeper and more profound than what we think we are able to ingest.

K. Scott Oliphint’s recently released book is just that sort of book for me. I am a layman. I have no degrees in theology and have never taken a course at a seminary or any similar institution. I serve on the board at our church and lead a small group. I like to read and pursue my ‘theological training’ through reading book and listening to lectures and sermons. There will be no doctorate or diploma at the end of my course of studies. So, more than likely, I am a reader just like you. With this in mind, let me declare that God With Us, subtitled Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God, is a book that will challenge the layperson. But it does so in a healthy and beneficial way. In a manner that is accessible to the lay person and with the glory of God clearly in view, K. Scott Oliphint has produced a compelling and awe-inspiring exposition of the theological and apologetical significance of the condescension of God. This late 2011 release came out just in time to be the best book I read this year!

As mentioned above, it would be inaccurate to suggest I understood every nuanced argument and followed every intricate assertion in this book. A few times, sections required a re-read in order for me to grasp what was being said. A very few times, a reviewing of the ideas still left me a little short of complete understanding. Nevertheless, this book is written in an attainable fashion for the average reader. On the back cover, it is clearly presented that this is a book for both laymen and scholars. It seems to me that Oliphint has delivered a book that will be successful in that regard. I imagine that there are issues and ideas that are fodder for theologians. And I know that the book provided me with ample forage for reflective ruminations. Oliphint presents the concepts pertaining to God’s attributes and condescension with an approach that one can follow and in a style that reflects the grandeur of the topic.

This book was awe-inspiring. It painted a picture of Divine condescension that brilliantly shone forth the glory of God. Displaying Christ as the quintessential revelation of God, Oliphint’s Christ-exalting explanation of how the church might “understand better just who God is, what he has told us about himself, and how best to think about him” (10) was an exhilarating look into an area of theology that I had not read much about; the condescension of God. Oliphint’s book is infused with glimpses of God’s glory that he suggests are most clearly seen through a proper understanding of the Son of God come in the flesh. At numerous times throughout this book I found myself contemplating the mysterious and magnificent attributes of God as admired through a the lens of Christ’s incarnation. This book is a prime example of how rigorous thinking can lead to reverent adoration of our God.

From my perspective, this exposition of ideas surrounding the attributes of God and how his condescension relates to them had a dual purpose. First, the book is clearly puts forward theology as a principle purpose. Oliphint goes to great lengths to show how comprehending God’s condescension sheds light on a proper understanding of theology proper. We can only be appropriately informed about God’s character if we consider his condescension. This studious journey walks us through God’s revelation of his own name and the ramifications of this name on his essential characteristics. It treks through the distinctions of who God is in himself and how his condescension affects this. It hikes up to lofty heights in considering Christological concepts and controversies. It meanders through the mysteries that are unavoidable in contemplating someone who is far above us.

The second purpose is apologetical. In advancing his ideas of God’s character seen specifically in his condescension, Oliphint defends many tenets of his Reformed approach. This defense is against a full-spectrum of allies and antagonists. This book speaks polemically and irenically to everything from open theism to early heresies to exegetical arguments. And though there is an argument to be considered, it is delivered with grace and an obvious humility.

As a book that elevates the exaltation of God in our heads and hearts through a thorough investigation into the character of God as seen in his condescension, I strongly recommend this book. If you are a layperson who wants to be challenged in your thinking about God and enlivened in your affections for him, this is a book you should read. This volume’s profound effect on my theological understanding has earned it a place on my bookshelf and its positive production on my affections for God has earned it a place in my heart.

The simplicity of God

Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology, defines God's simplicity-calling it God's unity-as follows: "God is not divided into parts, yet we see different attributes of God emphasized at different times." He goes on to write,

We would not want to say the attributes are only characteristic of some part of God, but rather that they are characteristic of God himself and therefore characteristic of all of God ... Nor should we think of the attributes of God as something external from God's real being or real self, something added on to who God really is ... Rather, we must remember that God's whole being includes all of his attributes: he is entirely loving, entirely merciful, entirely just, and so forth.

In his stellar book on the condescension of God, God With Us, K. Scott Oliphint also addresses the simplicity of God:

What id God was composed of parts, or of a part? Imagine goodness as part of God's character such that it is not identical to him, but in some way actually composes his character. What, now, must be true of his goodness? Since it is not identical to him, it must be something other than him. If it is something other than him, then it must be outside of him, at least initially. Not only so, but if God is essentially good, and goodness is not identical to him, then he depends on goodness to be who he is essentially. Thus, God is dependent on something besides himself in order to be who he is essentially. Were that the case, God would not be a se; he could not be independent. (64)

No tweaking please!

We are not to address God by any other name than the name he has identified as his own. To attempt to tweak the name of God for purposes of cultural (or any other kind of) relevance is not to address God as he has revealed himself, but to address him according to how we want him to be, and thus is to come to him sinfully and in error. To put it in the most controversial way, it is not proper to address God in his nomina personalia as Mother. He has for good reason not identified himself in that way. That is not his name, and any attempt to stress that kind of address automatically calls into suspicion the authority of God to name himself and the authority of his revelation. (52)

Temptation par excellence

It is the temptation par excellence for man to see himself as more exalted, or at least to desire such a thing, all the while seeking to place God on a par with his human creatures. The temptation, "You will be like God", was the undoing of humanity, and its infection continues to spread through human hearts in the course of history. (Oliphint, K. Scott. God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012. Print. 12)

The quintessential revelation of God

From Crossway's new title, God With Us by K. Scott Oliphint, comes the following:

As we will see, there is an inextricable link between the doctrine of God-his attributes and properties-and the biblical understanding of who Christ is. This should not be surprising. If indeed we know who God is by virtue of his revelation to us, the quintessential knowledge of God will naturally come by way of the quintessential revelation of God, which is given to the world in Jesus Christ. It would not be an overstatement to say that the way to a proper understanding of God and his character is given foremost in a proper understanding of the Son of God come in the flesh, Jesus Christ. (10)

This was a very encouraging excerpt for me as I am leading a small group study whose main source is A. W. Pink's The Attributes of God. This sentence, "there is an inextricable link between the doctrine of God-his attributes and properties-and the biblical understanding of who Christ is", is good fodder for encouragement in this process. I'm chomping at the bit to get further in to this book.