Mystery and Magnificence

God has given us His Word that we might be fully equipped in our understanding. However, the fullness is not exhaustive. We are given everything we need to know, but not everything. There are some things we will likely never understand. Oliphint, in his book Reasons for Faith, writes:

Though arguments for God's character can be, and is, profound and complex at times, we may need to realize that arguments concerning exactly how, for example, the Son of God can be one person who is both created and uncreated, sovereign and limited in power, a se and hungry, may never be forthcoming.

The incarnation teaches us that God can be in ways that simply are not readily conducive to intellectually satisfying argumentation. The fact, for example, that God can remain eternal while at the same time interacting with his creation on a day-to-day basis does not always make for good philosophical fodder. It does, however, (if we are correct here) make for the truth of the matter, and we would be hard pressed to want anything less from our theological and philosophical meanderings. (254-5)

Though we should strive to understand all we can, and unravel the complex mysteries of our faith to the best of our abilities, we must realize and accept that we will not intellectually master all there is to know about our great God. And we should be fine with this. Professor Vern Poythress, in his newly published book Inerrancy and the Gospels writes, "Any difficulty that does not quickly yield to our investigation testifies to the fact that God is greater than we are and that he understands what we do not." (107)

Mysteries and lack of complete clarity should be expected and exulted in; we serve an awesome God. If we could completely grasp our Creator, he would not be infinite and eternal and therefore not fit to be worshiped. Let the mystery and paradox that surround our God propel us to more study and more worship.

Does God really repent? "Yes" says Oliphint

I can't stress enough how helpful I find the writings of Professor Scott Oliphint. His books have been very formative in my understanding of God. In the following excerpt, Oliphint explains that though some characteristics of God are covenantal as opposed to essential, this does not mean they are any less literally true. Consider this quote from Reasons for Faith,

Well there can be no question that there are truths given to us in God's revelation that point to his essential character, and others that point to his covenantal character, we should be careful to note that those covenantal attributes of God are no less "literal" than are his essential attributes. Repentance, then, is not simply something that "seems to us" like repentance. It is literal repentance, he is (covenantally) changing directions because of his faithfulness to his covenant. But it is repentance of a condescended, covenant God who has come down, taking on the form of a creature, in order to glorify himself, and it is repentance that does not in anyway sacrifice, undermine, or otherwise alter his essential character as a se. He repents, all the while remaining the eternal, immutable "I AM." (253-4)

Is this easy to understand? No. But I think it remains faithful to the biblical record.

The sovereign, omniscient God of the universe condescendingly repents. Amazing!

Unique condescension

The incarnation of Christ is a perpetual spring of encouragement and source of amazement; that He would become like us is too wonderful for words. Regular reflection on Christ's adding human nature to himself will do the soul great good. Here, Scott Oliphint discusses the incarnation in terms of the great humiliation and condescension of Christ and notes that it did not have to be so:

The triune God made a decision-a decision of humiliation. That decision has its focus on the second person of the Trinity, who would uniquely condescend. This decision carried with it no necessity; it was not necessary for the second person of the Trinity to decide to humble himself. He had every right to refrain from such a decision and not add himself to the humiliating status of humanity. But he determined not to. This second person-one who is equal to God, who is in the form of God, who is himself God (John1:1)-did not stop being God (such a thing would be impossible), but rather he took on something that was not part of his essential character previously. He took  on human nature. (Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print. 242)

What does God's divine "stoop" look like?

From Reasons for Faith by K. Scott Oliphint:

What does God's divine "stoop" look like? From a biblical-theological perspective, it looks like the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8); it looks like the angel of the Lord (which is the Lord himself) calling to Abraham (Gen. 22), or to Moses (Ex. 3), or to Israel (Judges 2). Because of his voluntary condescension, the Lord protects and delivers his people (e. g., Ps. 34;7), and he fights for them (e. g., Is. 37;36). Supremely, it looks like Jesus Christ, the Son of God taking to himself the created properties of a human nature in order to accomplish what only he can accomplish, our redemption. All of this "relationality" on the part of Yahweh, the "I AM," can happen only because he willingly de idea to condescend to our level, to the level of the created. (239)

The burning bush a revelational sign

Westminster Theological Seminary professor Scott Olphint introduces a very interesting idea concerning Moses and the burning bush. This appears in his book Reasons for Faith.

It is not an insignificant detail that what draws Moses into God's presence on that mountain is a picture of who God is. There is no analogy in the creation for the independent and the uncreated. So God creates a picture of his character in the burning bush. He gives Moses a sign: an "independent" fire. The fire does not derive its burning from the context in which it burns. It is self-generated, contradicting all rules of creation. The bush is on fire, but the fire is not dependent on the bush; it possesses its own energy. There is, it seems, a deliberate and revelational sign given by God to unveil the significance, both of God's covenantal revelation to Moses (because fire is with the bush), and of his revelation of the divine name-"I AM WHO I AM." (237)

The burning bush event encapsulates the God's self-revealing of his name I AM WHO I AM which is clearly a very significant moment in the relationship between God and Israel and thus is of massive import for all mankind. Thus, this event bears the study and intense gazing that the church has encumbered it with. Dr. Oliphint's insights are fascinating to consider.

Oliphint on the trinity

This is an interesting point that Scott Oliphint makes while discussing God's character as it relates to the trinity in Reason for Faith:

While there is no way for finite human beings completely to circumscribe the relationship of the one God to three persons, we may rest content, with the history of the orthodox Christian tradition, with the fact of God's triunity and it's evidence of God's utter incomprehensibility (Rom. 11:33-34). (227)

If a astute mind such as the one in Oliphint's skull struggles with circumscribing the doctrine of the trinity, than the rest of us need not get to upset about our shortcomings in grasping this belief. Ultimately, God's "incomprehensibility" should offer us comfort; he is the transcendent deity the Bible claims he is. He is an awesome God.

We certainly should pursue our understanding of God to the limits we can given our natural proclivities and the Biblical account. But when we come up to an impassable chasm of mystery, we can be, and should be, content.

The Eternity of God

From Reasons for Faith by Scott Oliphint:

Historically, God's eternity has been seen as an aspect, or corollary, of his infinity. Since God's essence is not limited by anything external to himself, it follows that his essence is not limited by time. This is a basic truth in theology; God is essentially eternal

Recent discussions about God's eternity, however, seem to confuse and equivocate with respect to just what eternity is. In some discussions, eternity seems to be equated with a context or environment in which Gos operates as God. Eternity is seen primarily in terms of God's relationship to time.

Though this sheds light on a biblical understanding of eternity, it is not the way a discussion of eternity should begin. The way to think about eternity is to articulate what it is first in relation to God and then in relation to time. First, eternity is an essential property of God quite apart from time. Eternity is God's unlimited essential duration. It is the affirmation that God, unlike time, has always been; he never began to exist, nor was his existence (eternally) caused, nor will it end, but it simply is, without past, present, or future (just as infinity simply is without spatial categories). Eternity, therefore, references something of the duration of god's "is-ness". It points us to the fact that God's necessary existence has always been, and has always been without temporal categories. (212-13)

I suppose such a discussion may be over-the-top and unhelpful for some. But this type of mind-stretching thinking is helpful to me. It reminds me of God's transcendence; we can barely find words to describe him let alone understand him. It also causes awe. God's greatness has many facets and investigating them all is a privilege of great benefit to us. I'm thankful for string minds like Oliphint's who can wrestle with these things and explain them to the rest of us.

Oliphint on God's self-identifying name

From Reasons for Faith by Scott Oliphint:

When considering the essence of God, it would be difficult to overstate the significance of God's self-identifying name in Exodus 3:14: "I AM." As we noted earlier, it would be possible to pour philosophical content into the implications of the name that may stretch its real meaning. That should certainly be avoided. The simple point to see, however, is that such a name, given the context of its declaration and the interpretation given it by God himself, requires us to attribute to God absolute independence, sovereignty, and power. (199)

Facts reveal God

Scott Oliphint, in his book Reasons for Faith, suggests that if our intellectual faculties were not influenced by sin than we would all know, believe, and acknowledge God in his existence and in his character. However, sin has influenced every human being and thus Oliphint writes,

But our faculties no longer function that way. They have been damaged, fractured, broken, impeded, hindered, hampered, thwarted from doing what they were designed to do, since the effects of sin have enslaved and influenced them. Whereas we were designed to do all things to the glory of God-whether eating, drinking, thinking, knowing, and so forth-sin has constrained us so that, enslaved to it, we do all things to our own glory, or to the glory of something or someone other than God. If every fact is such that it reveals God, we may take that fact and believe it to be what it is, but in our sin we believe such without acknowledging the God who is revealed in that fact. In every aspect of knowledge or belief, therefore, in which the effects of sin's enslavement are operating, our cognitive faculties fail to function as they were designed to function. There is, we could say, in every functioning of our cognitive faculties in which sin dominates, an element, perhaps a strong element, of self-deception. (159)

I love the idea that every fact, in its truth and in its reality, reveals God. That is an astounding way of viewing God as the foundation for existence and as the only truly independent thing that exists.

But sin prevents us from seeing facts this way. Sin prevents us from seeing things as they really are. But the Spirit of God helps us to see and when He does, we see things as they truly are and recognize that God is revealed.

God is an anchor for knowledge

If it is the case, therefore, that all of us know God, and we know him by virtue of being created in his image (itself a metaphysical notion), then there is a universal, metaphysical ground for anything, and everything, else that we can know and do know. Given that all of us begin our cognitive awareness with sure and certain knowledge (of God), all else that we know will have that knowledge as its anchor. If we know anything, it will be consistent with that knowledge. It would be impossible for us to know something, therefore, that in any way contradicted or contravened that essential, fundamental, metaphysical knowledge of God. Since God is the immediate, metaphysical fact par excellence, anything else that comes to us as knowledge will have that knowledge as its Archimedean point. (Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print. 156)

A few things from this passage:

• humanity has a ground for all its knowledge: God
• this ground is true whether God is acknowledged or suppressed
• all true knowledge is consistent with the fact that God is the Creator

We serve a mighty God who is indeed the epicenter of all things, including knowledge.

Oliphint's five points on general revelation

In his book entitled Reasons for Faith: Philosophy in the Service of Theology, Westminster Theological Seminary professor Scott Oliphint lists five relevant points about general or natural revelation that can be taken  from Paul's writings:

1. God continually reveals himself to all people
2. God's continual revelation to all people is specific, not generic; it is not simply a revelation of theism
3. God's continual revelation to all people is clearly seen and understood
4. God's continual revelation is both known and suppressed
5. God's continual revelation is sufficient to render all people inexcusable

There are no people who are not responsible for their rejection of God based on a lack of information. It is clear in Romans that all people are without excuses because God has revealed himself and they have rejected and suppressed that revelation. This is serious stuff!

Oliphint on God's simplicity

The doctrine of God's simplicity, sometimes denoted as the unitas simplicitatis, or the simplicitas Dei, says that the characteristics of God are not "parts" of God that come together to make him what he is, but are rather identical with is essence, and thus with him. The simplicity of God affirms not only that whatever God essentially is, he is necessarily. It says even more. The simplicity of God holds that God's attributes are not characteristics or properties that exist (in the same way that he exists) in any way "outside" of God, such that his having such a characteristic or property entails his participation in something other than himself. God just is his characteristics and his characteristics are identical to him ...


Perhaps the best way to think about the simplicity of God lies in the fact that it demands a denial of any composition of parts in God. In this denial is an equally important affirmation. The affirmative aspect of simplicity says that whatever attributes, qualities, or properties inhere essentially in God, they are identical with his essence. Notice in this denial and affirmation that there is no denial of distinctions in God. The doctrine of simplicity, in its best formulations, has never wanted to affirm that God was some sort of being in which no distinctions did, or could, reside. That kind of "simplicity" is more akin to philosophical speculation than to biblical truth. Rather, the distinctions that do reside in God, because the accrue to his essence, are identical with that essence and thus are not parts of God, serving to make up the "whole" of who he is. Simplicity, therefore, applies to the essence of God.

( Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print. 92-3)

What can we know about God and all other things?

Whatever else Christianity teaches, there is little disagreement that God's creating everything is a kind of rock bottom truth, essential to the Christian position. There is something, therefore, that we can know about everything; we can know that everything is created, except, of course, God ... If everything is created except God, then God must be of an entirely different order than everything else. This mat seem too obvious on the surface, but because of its importance it needs to be said clearly here. It is not the case that everything is created, but rather it is that everything is created except God, who himself is the creator. And we would be quick to add that there was nothing that in any way made or created God. It seems, then, that we have a duality of "existences" in our Christian approach: we have things that exist as created, and One who does not.

( Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print. 84-5)

The need for the hour

" ... contrary to the steady stream of criticism since the nineteenth century, the categories and terms that philosophy has given to theology to aid in the latter's expression of the truth of Scripture, though not always completely perspicuous, have been immensely helpful in warding off heresy and in helping the church to confess and confirm what is given to her in Holy Scripture. Railing against such terms as hypostasis or ousia or persona has done nothing to help the church better express truth. It has only fed a (now) postmodern mind-set that assumes newer to be better and older to be dead. This mind-set is not only forced to ignore the depth and breadth of scholarship that has been handed down to us, but it also is intent on setting the focus of one's work strictly on oneself. Thus, it remains bot historically uninformed and almost irrationally self-absorbed. This way of thinking will never serve the church. The need for the hour is not for the new and the different divorced from the past, but for a deeper, fuller, elucidation and application of what God has taught the church for two millenia. Philosophy can be extremely useful in that regard.

( Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print.31-2)

The proper use of reason

In his book entitled Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology, author K. Scott
Oliphint discusses the proper use of reason asking "What, then, is the proper use of reason in reference to faith, that is, to the truth given in Christianity?" (22).

His tripartite answer is as follows:

1. Reason has the task of judging the consistency and coherence of biblical truth. It is also to function as a judge of what is contradictory and also what is not. However, this "does not mean that reason is the final arbiter of what is possible and what is impossible" (22). It also assumes that reason only functions in this capacity when it is renewed and restored by the grace of God.
2. Reason is always a servant to theology and never a master. "Its proper place with respect to theology is to provide whatever tools might be helpful for theology to carry out its own task. It also means that the law of contradiction, and the use of that law, can never finally determine whether or not a particular doctrine is true. That determination is left to revelation." (23)
3. Finally, "the law of contradiction's service to theology is not in matters of interpretation per se, but rather in the organization and articulation of our interpretations." (24) As per the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura, interpretation of Scripture is brought by way of other Scriptures.

Oliphint summarizes by reiterating that reason is to judge the consistency of doctrine, that reason is never in a magisterial role over theology, and that reason is to help articulate and organize our interpretations of Scripture. (24)


 Oliphint, K. Scott. Reasons [for Faith]: Philosophy in the Service of Theology. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Pub., 2006. Print.