A few gems from my Doctrine of God notes (note to self: studying theology can be worship!):

What matters supremely, therefore, is not, in the last analysis, the fact that I know God, but the larger fact which underlies it – the fact that he knows me. I am graven on the palms of his hands. I am never out of his mind. All my knowledge of him depends on his sustained initiative in knowing me. I know him because he first knew me, and continues to know me. He knows me as a friend, one who loves me; and there is no moment when his eye is off me, or his attention distracted from me, and no moment, therefore, when his care falters. This is momentous knowledge

(J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 41-42).

Man’s mind, full as it is of pride and boldness, dares to imagine a god according to its own capacity; as it sluggishly plods, indeed is overwhelmed with the crassest ignorance, it conceives an unreality and an empty appearance as God

(Calvin, Institutes, I.11.8)

The study of the doctrine of God is also, in a sense, a study of how and what to pray.

(K. Scott Oliphint, Doctrine of God class notes)

It is impossible to worship that which is not known. Therefore, the study of the Doctrine of God is a study for the Church, not a general point of curiosity in philosophy and religion.

(K. Scottl Oliphint, Doctrine of God class notes)

(Oliphint on the Trinitarian baptismal formula in the “Great Commision) In one sense, the whole strategy of biblical revelation has been to reveal to us the name and the significance of God. One name, one God, three persons “in the name.”

Throughout redemptive history there is an intensification and an accumulation of clarity of God’s name. So God’s names point us to the ways in which we are to think of him. Once Jesus’ ministry is completed, he can state that he has been given “all authority in heaven and earth” and by that authority, he can say that it is now the case that the name of God is “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” in a way that it could not have been before. Analogous to Adam’s naming of the animals, which was an expression of his dominion. God renamed saints in the OT as an expression of his authority over them. Thus, Jesus’ “renaming” of God here is a demonstration of his “all authority” and a direct expression of his deity as part of the Trinity.

Why did God perform the unusual event of the burning bush for Moses? It’s more than a little trick to get Moses’ attention. God’s revelation is always a combination of “show and tell;” he is always demonstrating what he is as well as saying it. The bush that would not burn is a revelation of the dual character of God’s revelation to Moses. Fire often represents the presence of God. The fire in the midst of the bush demonstrates that God is in the midst of his people, yet they are not consumed…the fire does not need the bush to burn. Just as in his name, we see God’s independence from his creation. He can be with his creation and people without needing them. God is able to accomplish his purposes quite apart from us; if and when he uses us, it is a measure of his grace, not his need. This also means that God is not going to be thwarted by Pharaoh; he doesn’t need Pharaoh’s cooperation to accomplish his purposes. It is a mistake to think that God’s covenant with us obligates him to needing us. So the revelation of God’s name as “I AM WHO I AM” is directly connected with the event of its revelation, the burning bush. It is the “miracle parable” revealing who God is.

(K. Scott Oliphint, Doctrine of God class notes)

John Owen on the Trinity: “There are some doctrines of the Scripture, some revelations in it so sublimely glorious, of so profound and mysterious an excellency, that at the first proposal of them, nature startles, shrinks, and is taken with horror, meeting with that which is above it, too great and too excellent for it, which it could desirously avoid and decline but yet, gathering itself up to them, it yields, and finds that unless they are accepted and submitted unto, though unsearchable, not only all that hath been received must be rejected, but also the whole dependence of the creature on God be dissolved, or rendered only dreadful, terrible, and destructive to nature itself. Such are the doctrines of the Trinity, of the incarnation of the Son of God, of the resurrection of the dead, of the new birth, and the like. Take away, then, the doctrine of the Trinity, and…there can be no purpose of grace by the Father in the Son — no covenant for the putting of that purpose in execution: and so the foundation of all fruits of love and goodness is lost to the soul.”

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 19th, 2005 at 10:30 am and is filed under Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.