Comments on: Something So Simple I Shouldn’t Have to Say It

By: AJ.

AJ. — Mon, 09 Dec 2019 00:54:30 +0000

In reply to Camden Bucey. Dear Dr. Camden Busey, It would appear with actions taken against Dr. Waddington and now Dr. Tipton, which appear mostly punitive in nature, the stakes have been raised even higher. As a result, the fallout has been pretty major. Most of the concerned Reformed community at large are speaking out and simultaneously told we must be silent for we are ignorant of the circumstances surrounding these matters. How can we offer support when the men on the right side of truth are being left out in the cold now? How can we support you guys against a misguided establishment at this point? How should we respond?

By: CM

CM — Fri, 06 Dec 2019 02:55:32 +0000

In reply to Brandon Burks. This reminds me of the same misunderstanding Van Til had to deal with regarding the “God is one person/three persons” statement. Probably could have been stated better, but some aggressively went after him; history repeats itself. And then there is: “With this formulation of the doctrine of God, how can one avoid seeing a schizophrenic God who has a dual-layered nature that is essentially immutable but covenantally open to the future free actions of his creatures?” How can one avoid seeing a schizophrenic God? Easy.

By: Jeffrey C Waddington

Jeffrey C Waddington — Thu, 05 Dec 2019 17:18:51 +0000

It is hard for me to imagine how covenantal properties can subsist in anything other than a covenantal nature, although Dr. Oliphint does not make that explicit. I am happy to be corrected by the author of God with Us.

By: David Kinner

David Kinner — Sun, 04 Aug 2019 19:10:06 +0000

It’s a bit worrisome to me how many times people have been shut down speaking to these issues. I do pray for Dr Oliphint, and changes that need to be made. I agree with Camden’s assessment of Oliphint’s views not actually changing. I’ve never read him say it anywhere, or heard it been said anywhere. The book has not been revised yet, and Majesty of Mystery came out during the same time period when the revision was supposed to happen(2016), and in a number of places says substantially the same things as in God With Us.

By: Rich Barcellos

Rich Barcellos — Sat, 08 Jun 2019 14:58:09 +0000

In reply to Richard Lindberg. Richard, are you the same Lindberg who wrote a thesis on particular Baptists many years ago?

By: Richard Lindberg

Richard Lindberg — Fri, 07 Jun 2019 19:59:40 +0000

What is happening at Westminster? I was there during the Shepherd controversy, and since then there have been controversies around Enns, Green and now Oliphant. Is it a lack of discernment in hiring? Is it a matter of trying to express the Reformed faith in ways that address the issues of the day? Is it a matter of leadership at the Seminary?

By: Camden Bucey

Camden Bucey — Fri, 07 Jun 2019 15:56:54 +0000

In reply to Brandon Burks. Brandon, Thank you for your comment. To be clear, Dr. Oliphint has not retracted God With Us. Westminster Theological Seminary bought the rights to the book and the remaining copies from Crossway, which they destroyed several years ago. This was done with a view toward Dr. Oliphint writing a revision. Nevertheless, Dr. Oliphint has nowhere publicly stated which, if any, of the views in the book he no longer holds. Moreover, the thesis of God With Us is found throughout many of Dr. Oliphint's other publications. This may seem sudden to you, but others have been working quietly with Dr. Oliphint on these matters for years. Several people, including myself, have sent him emails and letters and have received no response. We had refrained from interacting publicly because people told us they were working with him on a revision. But I became discouraged once one such person reported that Dr. Oliphint asked him to quit sending him any more material regarding the thesis of his book. I continue to look forward to a revision should one be published. Camden

By: Brandon Burks

Brandon Burks — Fri, 07 Jun 2019 15:16:28 +0000

I’m wondering if this is a bit overly aggressive? After all, the book has been retracted. Moreover, the article asserts massive charges in very little space. To claim “open theism” (which seems more straw-man on my read of “God With Us”) one would need to develop the charge with much more ink. Not only this, but, as it has been shown by Lillback and others, Oliphint’s ideas, while perhaps new in terms of terminology, are not that new. I fear that when the dust settles, many Reformed theologians of the past will be branded as heretics.