What do you think?
Rate this book
God with Us: Divine Condescension and the Attributes of God
The desire to harmonize God’s attributes with his actions has challenged laymen and scholars throughout the ages. For the Christian mind seeking to understand the nature of God, a fundamental paradox poses a philosophical stumbling how can God be both a wholly independent, infinite being yet also be an interactive force in the finite plane of creation? In God With Us , K. Scott Oliphint finds an answer in the person of Jesus Christ incarnate—the manifestation of God and the cornerstone of creation. Where other theological efforts view the study of Jesus as simply one aspect of a systematic approach, Oliphint puts a primary focus on understanding the Son of God as both the quintessential revelation of God’s character and the explanation of how God relates to us. This book helps us think biblically about who God is and how he in his eminence can condescend to us in our finite surroundings.
304 pages, Paperback
First published September 11, 2011
14 people are currently reading
155 people want to read
About the author
K. Scott Oliphint
43 books50 followersDr. K. Scott Oliphint Is professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. He is a graduate of West Texas State University (B.A., 1978) and Westminster (M.A.R., 1983; Th.M, 1984; Ph.D., 1994). An ordained minister in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, Dr. Oliphint served in pastoral ministry in Texas before coming to Westminster in 1991. He is the author of numerous books and articles, including The Battle Belongs to the Lord: The Power of Scripture for Defending Our Faith; Reasons For Faith; Revelation and Reason; "Epistemology and Christian Belief," (Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 2001); "Something Much Too Plain to Say," (Westminster Theological Journal, Fall 2006).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
October 8, 2025
Oliphint gives us a great work on what it means for God to be with us. The book deals with the attributes of God, not so much in the traditional way they are studied, but in examining them with their relation to God's covenant condescension to man.
Oliphint writes that God's "voluntary condescension" was necessary for "for us to have anything to do with God whatsoever." It is this "stooping" that is the source of so much confusion--particularly regarding heresies that attempt to explain this condescension by various explanations that either undermine the divinity of Christ, the foreknowledge of the Father, the sovereignty of God, and so on.
He argues that, through his study of Christology, that "given the full deity of the second person of the Trinity, and given his status as the One through whom everything was made, and given his triune commission to be the One who reveals God, it seems our understanding of “God revealed” should find its focus in God’s condescension by way of the Logos, culminating in the “Logos-in-the-flesh,” God with us, Emmanuel, the Lord Jesus Christ."
In other words, if we are to understand God's covenant condescension through the work of Christ, all of God's interactions with man are mediated through Christ--even in the Old Testament.
With all this in mind, Oliphint then approaches some of the difficult questions--such as, if God is all-knowing,"why does God say of himself, 'Now I know . . .'?" He shows us how others have answered the question--those ranging from orthodox to heretical. Ultimately all answers that do not properly understand God's covenant condescension fail to fully satisfy.
This is the crux of the book, and it is really helpful, as it fully answers our questions on the matter, without compromising God's attributes. Oliphint writes:
"Once God condescends, we should recognize that, in taking to himself covenantal properties, he takes to himself as well the kind of knowledge (and will, to be discussed later) that accrues to those properties. Or, to put it another way, one of the covenantal properties that he takes to himself is the development of knowledge that is conducive to his interaction with his creation generally, and specifically with his people."
In short, God condescends to a human level in every way. He not only speaks in a human way, but he acts in a human way. He relates to us in a way that is self-limiting. He writes:
"...once God determines to condescend to his creation, that determination itself includes limiting characteristics and properties that God assumes. Because God determines to do this, all limiting characteristics and properties are self-limiting, first of all. There is nothing outside of God that initially limits him; nor is there anything that ever limits his essential character. But, just to use one example, when God determines to defend himself as the Divine Warrior, he thereby determines to limit his own activity in such a way as to conform to various constraints and contexts in creation. He does not have to do this; he freely chooses to do it, and there is nothing in God that makes this determination necessary, as we have already seen. But he does do it, and in “fighting the good fight” alongside his people, as the commander of the Lord’s army (Josh. 5:14; cf. Joel 2:11; Rev. 19:13–14), he assumes created properties and determines not to fight according to the application of his all-powerful character."
But perhaps he puts it best in discussing God's testing Abraham. He writes:
"God could have truthfully said to Abraham, “I have known from eternity both what you would do, in every detail, and that I would provide a substitute for you. I put you to this test so that your faith would be strengthened and so that you would know, by way of experience, just how deeply committed to me you are.” This, and many other similar statements, God could have genuinely said to Abraham. The point of the passage, however, is not that God knows the end from the beginning in any and every situation or in Abraham’s life, true as that is. The point of the passage is that God’s covenant with his people, and with Abraham as the father of his people, is one that really and truly, not simply metaphorically, involves God in the process. It is a commitment in which he has come down, covenantally “hiding” those essential properties that remain his, in order to bind himself to us and to our lives in such a way that his interaction with us involves a real, ongoing, empathetic relationship. He really does identify with us, and he moves with us in history, “learning” and listening, in order to maintain and manage the covenant relationship that he has sovereignly and unilaterally established, the details of which he has eternally and immutably decreed."
The book is a challenging read for the layman, but it is a really important topic, as if you get this wrong, it is easy to fall into heresy. This is a great book, though it is probably too difficult a read for most people. But this is really important reading for pastors and teachers.
Oliphint writes that God's "voluntary condescension" was necessary for "for us to have anything to do with God whatsoever." It is this "stooping" that is the source of so much confusion--particularly regarding heresies that attempt to explain this condescension by various explanations that either undermine the divinity of Christ, the foreknowledge of the Father, the sovereignty of God, and so on.
He argues that, through his study of Christology, that "given the full deity of the second person of the Trinity, and given his status as the One through whom everything was made, and given his triune commission to be the One who reveals God, it seems our understanding of “God revealed” should find its focus in God’s condescension by way of the Logos, culminating in the “Logos-in-the-flesh,” God with us, Emmanuel, the Lord Jesus Christ."
In other words, if we are to understand God's covenant condescension through the work of Christ, all of God's interactions with man are mediated through Christ--even in the Old Testament.
With all this in mind, Oliphint then approaches some of the difficult questions--such as, if God is all-knowing,"why does God say of himself, 'Now I know . . .'?" He shows us how others have answered the question--those ranging from orthodox to heretical. Ultimately all answers that do not properly understand God's covenant condescension fail to fully satisfy.
This is the crux of the book, and it is really helpful, as it fully answers our questions on the matter, without compromising God's attributes. Oliphint writes:
"Once God condescends, we should recognize that, in taking to himself covenantal properties, he takes to himself as well the kind of knowledge (and will, to be discussed later) that accrues to those properties. Or, to put it another way, one of the covenantal properties that he takes to himself is the development of knowledge that is conducive to his interaction with his creation generally, and specifically with his people."
In short, God condescends to a human level in every way. He not only speaks in a human way, but he acts in a human way. He relates to us in a way that is self-limiting. He writes:
"...once God determines to condescend to his creation, that determination itself includes limiting characteristics and properties that God assumes. Because God determines to do this, all limiting characteristics and properties are self-limiting, first of all. There is nothing outside of God that initially limits him; nor is there anything that ever limits his essential character. But, just to use one example, when God determines to defend himself as the Divine Warrior, he thereby determines to limit his own activity in such a way as to conform to various constraints and contexts in creation. He does not have to do this; he freely chooses to do it, and there is nothing in God that makes this determination necessary, as we have already seen. But he does do it, and in “fighting the good fight” alongside his people, as the commander of the Lord’s army (Josh. 5:14; cf. Joel 2:11; Rev. 19:13–14), he assumes created properties and determines not to fight according to the application of his all-powerful character."
But perhaps he puts it best in discussing God's testing Abraham. He writes:
"God could have truthfully said to Abraham, “I have known from eternity both what you would do, in every detail, and that I would provide a substitute for you. I put you to this test so that your faith would be strengthened and so that you would know, by way of experience, just how deeply committed to me you are.” This, and many other similar statements, God could have genuinely said to Abraham. The point of the passage, however, is not that God knows the end from the beginning in any and every situation or in Abraham’s life, true as that is. The point of the passage is that God’s covenant with his people, and with Abraham as the father of his people, is one that really and truly, not simply metaphorically, involves God in the process. It is a commitment in which he has come down, covenantally “hiding” those essential properties that remain his, in order to bind himself to us and to our lives in such a way that his interaction with us involves a real, ongoing, empathetic relationship. He really does identify with us, and he moves with us in history, “learning” and listening, in order to maintain and manage the covenant relationship that he has sovereignly and unilaterally established, the details of which he has eternally and immutably decreed."
The book is a challenging read for the layman, but it is a really important topic, as if you get this wrong, it is easy to fall into heresy. This is a great book, though it is probably too difficult a read for most people. But this is really important reading for pastors and teachers.
August 19, 2019
Easily the most comprehensive, coherent, and compelling discussion I've read on the question of how God's attributes (for example, his unchangeableness) relate to his actions and interaction within his creation (for example, his relenting or changing his mind). A careful read will lead to a deeper doxology.
May 4, 2015
Excellent Treatment of Central Doctrine of God Issues
This is basically an elaboration of Dr. Oliphint's Doctrine of God class which was excellent as well. Well worth your time.
This is basically an elaboration of Dr. Oliphint's Doctrine of God class which was excellent as well. Well worth your time.
January 27, 2017
This is definitely a book that will required slow reading. Just like you can't swallow prime rib without chewing a bit, you can't read this book without thinking a bit.
Read
June 19, 2013Anyone who wants to get a taste of strong Robust Reformed Theology Proper ought to read this book. Scott Oliphint, the professor apologetics and systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary does an excellent job in this book. My copy is heavily highlighted with notes and comments. The following are some of the points that stood out to me:
- This work has a good discussion of aseity as a foundational doctrine of God: God is God and not dependent upon His creation or creature. From this point, it follows that God’s “essential attributes” are those that entail His independence (17). Also gave a good definition of Divine Simplicity (17-18).
- Oliphint gives a good hermeneutical principle concerning how to prioritize God’s attributes especially concerning passages that are anthropomorphic: “Contrary to what we have just noted, Scripture’s unity must be given priority in our interpretation of the various texts of Scripture. Muller denominates that priority as ‘ontological.’ He means that any and all texts of Scripture (and here we will confine our concerns to texts that deal with the character of God) that seek to tell us something of God’s character must be prioritized on the basis of the fundamental aseity of God” (27).
- The book is helpful in resolving the theological problem of how to account for passages in Scripture that describes God like man while also maintaining a strong aseity of Classical theism. I found it helpful his distinction between God’s essential attributes and Covenantal attributes in which the latter describes God’s condescension in relating to us. I think the term “covenantal” attributes is helpful even for those who might not subscribe to Covenant Theology.
- I thought I read the best nuance definition of antinomy and paradox offerred by Oliphint on pages 36-38.
- Interesting theological extrapolation from Exodus 3:1-14, pointing out Word Revelation and Deed Revelation, and how God’s deed in the Burning Bush tells us something about God: His presence with his people and also Him being self-sustaining.
- At first I thought it was curious that Oliphint was cautious of using the term “Creator/Creature distinction” though he agrees with the idea as taught by those who are before him such as Cornelius Van Til, etc. He has good reason: because God is more than a Creator, one does not want to give the idea that the essence of the distinction between God and all of His creation is because of His role as the Creator; rather, it’s because God in of Himself is wholly different. Oliphint chooses instead to use “Eimi/Eikonic distinction” as a better term, with the term “Eimi” to capture God as the true original.
- Book gives a good refutation of Middle knowledge including the Neo-Calvinistic version (99-105); it must be understood in the context of God’s free knowledge and necessary knowledge which was finely discussed before Oliphint’s critique of Middle knowledge. Here I am recalling Paul Helm’s point in another work of how Middle Knowledge is an unnecessary category in light of God’s free knowledge.
- Oliphint is helpful to points out two kinds of condescension by God: adoption and adaptation (124-25).
- I thought Oliphint has something stimulating to say about the issue of the incarnation. On page 142, he has a good discussion of how the human nature of man is anhypostatic (that is, impersonal) apart from the person of the Son of God while also being enhypostatic (“in person”) through the person of the Son of God.
- Enjoyed how Oliphint’s work was in conversation with systematic theology, historical theology, a tidbit of exegesis and philosophy.
It was beautiful to see Oliphint using the Doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ’s essential Divine nature and voluntary human nature to make us think about God’s relationship with us is much in the same way of His attributes He adds to condescend to us and His essential nature.
- This work has a good discussion of aseity as a foundational doctrine of God: God is God and not dependent upon His creation or creature. From this point, it follows that God’s “essential attributes” are those that entail His independence (17). Also gave a good definition of Divine Simplicity (17-18).
- Oliphint gives a good hermeneutical principle concerning how to prioritize God’s attributes especially concerning passages that are anthropomorphic: “Contrary to what we have just noted, Scripture’s unity must be given priority in our interpretation of the various texts of Scripture. Muller denominates that priority as ‘ontological.’ He means that any and all texts of Scripture (and here we will confine our concerns to texts that deal with the character of God) that seek to tell us something of God’s character must be prioritized on the basis of the fundamental aseity of God” (27).
- The book is helpful in resolving the theological problem of how to account for passages in Scripture that describes God like man while also maintaining a strong aseity of Classical theism. I found it helpful his distinction between God’s essential attributes and Covenantal attributes in which the latter describes God’s condescension in relating to us. I think the term “covenantal” attributes is helpful even for those who might not subscribe to Covenant Theology.
- I thought I read the best nuance definition of antinomy and paradox offerred by Oliphint on pages 36-38.
- Interesting theological extrapolation from Exodus 3:1-14, pointing out Word Revelation and Deed Revelation, and how God’s deed in the Burning Bush tells us something about God: His presence with his people and also Him being self-sustaining.
- At first I thought it was curious that Oliphint was cautious of using the term “Creator/Creature distinction” though he agrees with the idea as taught by those who are before him such as Cornelius Van Til, etc. He has good reason: because God is more than a Creator, one does not want to give the idea that the essence of the distinction between God and all of His creation is because of His role as the Creator; rather, it’s because God in of Himself is wholly different. Oliphint chooses instead to use “Eimi/Eikonic distinction” as a better term, with the term “Eimi” to capture God as the true original.
- Book gives a good refutation of Middle knowledge including the Neo-Calvinistic version (99-105); it must be understood in the context of God’s free knowledge and necessary knowledge which was finely discussed before Oliphint’s critique of Middle knowledge. Here I am recalling Paul Helm’s point in another work of how Middle Knowledge is an unnecessary category in light of God’s free knowledge.
- Oliphint is helpful to points out two kinds of condescension by God: adoption and adaptation (124-25).
- I thought Oliphint has something stimulating to say about the issue of the incarnation. On page 142, he has a good discussion of how the human nature of man is anhypostatic (that is, impersonal) apart from the person of the Son of God while also being enhypostatic (“in person”) through the person of the Son of God.
- Enjoyed how Oliphint’s work was in conversation with systematic theology, historical theology, a tidbit of exegesis and philosophy.
It was beautiful to see Oliphint using the Doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ’s essential Divine nature and voluntary human nature to make us think about God’s relationship with us is much in the same way of His attributes He adds to condescend to us and His essential nature.
December 2, 2012
The book is well written and clear, however there is a good bit of Latin terms and the language is what you'd expect from a book that covering philosophical theology. Oliphint interacts deeply with the usual suspects, Calvin and Bavinck, but also is at home with Protestant Scholastics like Turretin as well as contemporary philosophers like Brian Leftow, Thomas Morris, and Eleonore Stump.
While Oliphint can move effortlessly through this particular terrain of theological studies, the book does read like a dissertation. It's almost 300 pages long, but there's only 5 chapters. To his credit Oliphint appears to be going to great lengths to make his writings accessible. However, this is probably one of the densest areas of philosophical theology and even I found it to be a hard read in several places.
That being said, I felt like the book was well worth the effort.
To read more, see the full review my blog
While Oliphint can move effortlessly through this particular terrain of theological studies, the book does read like a dissertation. It's almost 300 pages long, but there's only 5 chapters. To his credit Oliphint appears to be going to great lengths to make his writings accessible. However, this is probably one of the densest areas of philosophical theology and even I found it to be a hard read in several places.
That being said, I felt like the book was well worth the effort.
To read more, see the full review my blog
July 26, 2016
Oliphint draws a distinction between God's essential (with regard to himself alone) and covenantal attributes (with regard to creation) and hopes this paradigm will help make better sense of the divine attributes in relation to a christological hermeneutical methodology. He places a strong emphasis on God's independence/aseity, but so much that it often appears to function as a controlling attribute. Then again, Oliphint's goal is make sense of God's independence in himself and his dependence (through "condescension") seen in Christ. Throughout the book Oliphint is consistently (overly?) reliant on Muller's 4 vol Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Other key supporting sources include Calvin, Turretin, Bavinck and Aquinas, tho for Aquinas not always as support. Aside from offering a slightly different lense (covenantal attributes) to view God's attributes, I'm not sure what Oliphint offers that's different from what many others throughout the tradition have already affirmed. What I mean is that, in some sense, it felt like a condensed version of sections from Muller's 4 vol work.
June 16, 2015
This is a thick book of serious theology; it is certainly not a light read. But it is a worthwhile read. Oliphint aims to defend the aseity of God while not trimming the Bible statements that speak of God’s real interaction with his creation (Open Theism drops aseity; appeals to anthropopathism or anthropomorphism can trim the actual statements of Scripture). Oliphint sees the incarnation as a way forward. Just as the incarnate Son remained fully God while also taking on a human nature that brought limitations (Jesus necessarily remained omniscient as God while as a man was ignorant of some things), so God retains the attributes that are essential to his nature while entering into covenant with us and thereby picking up additional covenantal attributes that account for his relation with us. This brief summary does not do justice to the careful argumentation that Oliphint presents.
December 31, 2013
This book was a really fun read, not something you can usually say about a work as detailed as this one. I learned a lot about Theology proper, Christology, theological method, epistemology, philosophy, and contemporary issues all in only 270 pages.
Dr. Oliphint has an amazing ability to write books that are both very deep and rich yet accessible and edifying in an almost devotional manner.
Highly recommend.
Dr. Oliphint has an amazing ability to write books that are both very deep and rich yet accessible and edifying in an almost devotional manner.
Highly recommend.
December 29, 2011
Excellent! Well worth the difficulty. Stick with it. Stump and Morris were particularly difficult for me, but he circles around to them throughout, setting them in contexts, filling out their relevance theologically and hermenuetically.
May 7, 2012
Challenging but exciting. Highly structured and tight argumentation. His exposition of the extra calvinisticum and the communicatio idiomatum alone are worth the price of the book and the effort of the read.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews