Election and the Labyrinth

[Peter] would have us to know [election] by the effects, for there is nothing more dangerous or more preposterous than to overlook our calling and to seek for the certainty of our election in the hidden prescience of God, which is the deepest labyrinth.


John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Peter 1:1-2

On the 2nd Commandment

…yet there is no doubt but that by synecdoche, as in all the rest of the Law, he condemns all fictitious services which men in their ingenuity have invented. For hence have arisen the carnal mixtures whereby God’s worship has been profaned, that they estimate Him according to their own reason…


Calvin’s Commentary, Exodus 20:4

Woe to you when all men shall applaud you

This warning refers peculiarly to teachers, who have no plague more to be dreaded than ambition: because it is impossible for them not to corrupt the pure doctrine of God, when they “seek to please men,” (Gal. 1:10.)


Calvin. Commentary on Luke 6:26


Here [Luther] says that the move from the requirement of self-analysis (contritio) to trust (fiducia) in the justice of Christ outside outside of us marks the end of medieval religious introspection and sets the Christian free for service, no longer in terms of his own salvation but in terms of the needs of his fellow-man...


Heiko A. Oberman. The Dawn of the Reformation: Essays in Late Medieval and Early Reformation Thought (Kindle Locations 880-882). Kindle Edition.

Affirming Covenantal Properties

...we should not hesitate to affirm that, in taking on covenantal properties while remaining who he is essentially, the Son of God partakes of two different and sometimes seemingly incommensurable kinds of properties, each kind of which should be acknowledged inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, and inseparably. That is, the impassibility/passibility of the Logos (prior to his incarnation) requires that we neither confuse the two (as if the properties of the one, i.e., the Eimi, accrue to the other, i.e., the eikon), change the one into the other (so that they are unified via some kind of property merger), divide them (as if they do not reside in the one person), or separate them (as if they are not actually unified).


Scott Oliphint (2011-11-02). God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God (Kindle Locations 5338-5343). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

Incomprehensible Covenantal Properties

As in the incarnation, so also in every manner of God’s assumption of covenantal, human properties, we simply cannot comprehend the mode of union at all.


Scott Oliphint (2011-11-02). God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God (Kindle Locations 5387-5388). Crossway. Kindle Edition.

Slow to Anger

What else could Scripture mean—what else could Yahweh mean—when he says that he is “slow to anger” (cf. Ex. 34:6; Num. 14:18; Neh. 9:17; Pss. 86:15; 103:8; 145:8)? Surely Scripture is not telling us to believe that, in his patience and slowness to anger, the Lord bears no such relationship to us. To affirm such a thing would be tantamount to affirming that Scripture enjoins us to believe what is not the case in reality. If we are simply to believe that God is slow to anger, even though he is not, then we are encouraged by Scripture to believe a proposition to be true when it is false. This kind of language in Scripture cannot be relegated to mere metaphor. The Lord’s disposition toward us in cases like this necessarily depends on our responses to him in this world. When the Bible says that the Lord is slow to anger, there are two covenantal characteristics highlighted: he is slow, that is, patient with us. Thus, there is a real relationship to time in which God takes on temporality; and his anger, though tied to this patience, is nevertheless real. We should not simply believe he is angry or could become angry; he really is angry.


Scott Oliphint (2011-11-02). God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God (pp. 214-215). Crossway.

Revelation, not Deduction

God’s character and properties—whether essential or covenantal—cannot be driven by pure deduction. They must be understood only in the light of Holy Scripture.


Scott Oliphint (2011-11-02). God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God (p. 279). Crossway.

On the Theonomic Destruction of the Mission Field

This means that according to theonomic politics God has given the church the mandate to gather the harvest of the mission field but at the same time he has given the state a mandate to destroy the mission field.


Meredith Kline, Comments on an Old-New Error, WTJ 41