There has been a back and forth discussion between the Reformed Phiosopher Paul Helm and Christian apologist Scott Oliphint over the “Covenantalism” of Oliphint’s Theology Proper. It began with Paul Helm’s review of Oliphint’s book God with Us.
I have to chew on this some more but for now I want to share with you the exchange.
What Motivates Oliphint’s Proposals?
Tolle Lege: A Brief Response to Paul Helm
Scott Oliphint: a reply to his rejoinder
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing SJ
You’re welcome Rob =)
“Again, both of us know that these aren’t the strongest arguments against Oliphint’s thesis. So, please feel free to have a go at them. However, Nate, if you continue down the road of being one of his most loyal supporters, then you must face the the questions and arguments coming from younger students who don’t buy into it. And I simply don’t.”
http://philosophyandtheism.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/on-helms-review-of-oliphint-theological-simplicism-and-chalcedonian-theology-proper/#comments
Thanks for sharing, I’m going to have to read through this
No problem. To be honest, I don’t know if I should do this or not; but I’m tired of the debate being so private. I think those outside the immediate discussion should be informed now that its hit Ref21 and all.
Moreover, what I keep telling my peers is that I simply would not have come to Westminster had Helm posted his critique of Oliphint a year before.
If you or your readers have any questions, feel free to ask.
Do you feel there are things to gain from attending WTS beyond Oliphint’s theology proper? Just curious brother.
Good 👍🏻
I’m not sure I understand your question. But I’ll try my best to get at what I think you are asking:
I’ve gained very little from Oliphint’s theology proper. Don’t get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for him as a sincere follower of Christ and a committed apologist for the faith. Moreover, I count him as a dear brother in Christ and I’m very happy to sit under his teaching in some respects., However, I think his theology proper (and even broader than that) represents a form of Presbyterian fundamentalism. His approach to systematic theology is fundamentally flawed since it accepts the worst of both naive evangelicalism (i.e., biblism) and the epistemology and metaphysics of contemporary analytic philosophy of religion. In my opinion, he should no longer be allowed to teach the doctrine of God course at Westminster. (And if Green is out; so should he.)
To get at what I think you’re asking more broadly: Yes, certainly,there is much more I could learn from continuing my education at WTS. I’ve yet to take Tipton’s doctrine of salvation course and I’m looking forward to classes with Beale too. While I have an idea of what these courses will cover; I’ve yet to do the hard work of reading the required material and–if I stay–I look forward to doing so.
However, I must say that biblism is fairly common here, And the board and (some of the) faculty seem to be eating it up. To be honest, as a conservative Presbyterian under care of the PCA, I feel as if I’m studying at a slightly fundamentalist evangelical seminary rather than a historically Presbyterian seminary that knows its roots and is committed to leading the way for the next generation.
I hope this answers your question.
Ray