# Van Til's "Trinity Heresy"



## B.J.

[video=youtube;dYbl_chDY5c]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYbl_chDY5c&feature=related[/video]



Does anyone know who is giving this lecture?


----------



## Stephen

I do not recognize the voice, but perhaps it is John Robbins with the Trinity Foundation. I would be curious to learn more about this. I found this to be disturbing. The statement, "*the trinity is one absolute person*" is heresy. He makes some other statements that are contradictory. I find Van Til to be confusing anyway.


----------



## shackleton

You can get that exact lecture from the "Trinity Foundation?" website. He is talking about the Clark VanTil controversy. 

Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology. It is under MP3 Down load lectures. I tried to look it up and link it but my **** blocker blocks it out.


----------



## Craig

I'm pretty sure that's from Robbins...and I'm pretty sure it's fallacious.

If Van Til really said the Trinity was one Divine Person as opposed to one Divine Essence, it would undermine his Trinitarian solution to the one and the many.


----------



## Davidius

Craig said:


> I'm pretty sure that's from Robbins...and I'm pretty sure it's fallacious.
> 
> If Van Til really said the Trinity was one Divine Person as opposed to one Divine Essence, it would undermine his Trinitarian solution to the one and the many.



Why? Because it's from Robbins it's automatically fallacious? He may be a hothead, but I think Van Til's cult status is amazing, and that his followers are as adamant about defending his views, no matter what, as the Clarkians seem to be. Nevertheless, here's a defense of Van Til's position at the Triablogue. Note that Van Til clearly talks about the Trinity as one divine person with three subsistences. The Clarkians call it heresy and the Van Tillians find a way to explain it. Who's right? You decide!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Stephen said:


> I do not recognize the voice, but perhaps it is John Robbins with the Trinity Foundation. I would be curious to learn more about this. I found this to be disturbing. The statement, "*the trinity is one absolute person*" is heresy. He makes some other statements that are contradictory. I find Van Til to be confusing anyway.



Although I adopt Van Tillan Apologetics and Epistemology, yet I do not think Dr. Van Til helped himself with his style of writing. Thankfully, reading Greg Bahnsen makes understanding presuppositional apologetics and epistemology much easier to understand.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Amen Daniel. I own Bahnsen's work on Van Til and it has made a world of difference.


----------



## RamistThomist

*yawn*

This is old stuff and has been dealt with repeatedly

http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/neolegalism-rc-sproul-jr-5825/#post83898

(My post is a summation of Doug Jones' rebuttal to Robbins).


----------



## Craig

Davidius said:


> Why? Because it's from Robbins it's automatically fallacious? He may be a hothead, but I think Van Til's cult status is amazing, and that his followers are as adamant about defending his views, no matter what, as the Clarkians seem to be. Nevertheless, here's a defense of Van Til's position at the Triablogue. Note that Van Til clearly talks about the Trinity as one divine person with three subsistences. The Clarkians call it heresy and the Van Tillians find a way to explain it. Who's right? You decide!



I'll look into it...but yes, Robbins likes burning straw men left and right. I take his critiques with a grain of salt...make that less than a grain.

I'm not a gigantic Van Til fan, btw...I can't hardly understand him most of the time.


----------



## kalawine

Davidius said:


> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's from Robbins...and I'm pretty sure it's fallacious.
> 
> If Van Til really said the Trinity was one Divine Person as opposed to one Divine Essence, it would undermine his Trinitarian solution to the one and the many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because it's from Robbins it's automatically fallacious? He may be a hothead, but I think Van Til's cult status is amazing, and that his followers are as adamant about defending his views, no matter what, as the Clarkians seem to be. Nevertheless, here's a defense of Van Til's position at the Triablogue. Note that Van Til clearly talks about the Trinity as one divine person with three subsistences. The Clarkians call it heresy and the Van Tillians find a way to explain it. Who's right? You decide!
Click to expand...


I agree Davidius. Having a problem with this lecture because it was given by Robbins doesn't make the arguments of the lecture wrong. It is "argumentum ad hominem" (argument to the man) if I'm not mistaken. The fact is that Van Til did say that the Trinity was one Person and yet three Persons at the same time. (In defiance of the law of non-contradition) Also, Van Til did believe that God created logic and was therefore not subject to it. Clark believed that logic, instead of being a creation of God, was actually an attribute of God. What is logic but truth?

Numbers 23:19 (Young's Literal Translation)

19God [is] not a man -- and lieth, And a son of man -- and repenteth! Hath He said -- and doth He not do [it]? And spoken -- and doth He not confirm it?

It truly is amazing that a man like Van Til (as well as many others) can reach what my brother Davidius called "cult status" and we dare not question him no matter how fallacious his arguments are.


----------



## RamistThomist

> The fact is that Van Til did say that the Trinity was one Person and yet three Persons at the same time. (In defiance of the law of non-contradition)



To bad Van Til didn't say they were One Person/Three Persons in the same sense, otherwise you would have a point. Reading Jones' rebuttal/rebuke of Robbins makes this clear. 

And does anyone find it odd that if CVT truly held to this heresy (the favorite Reformed word of all time), that the OPC willingly, knowingly, ordained and supported such a known heretic? Maybe the OPC is heretical, too. Oops, that's been covered there as well...


----------



## RamistThomist

As to the cult status, I am more of a Dooyeweerdian than a Van Tillian. So the cult charge doesn't apply to me (well, it does actually but not on this point).


----------



## Davidius

Ivanhoe said:


> And does anyone find it odd that if CVT truly held to this heresy (the favorite Reformed word of all time), that the OPC willingly, knowingly, ordained and supported such a known heretic? Maybe the OPC is heretical, too. Oops, that's been covered there as well...



This is an excellent point, and I would say the same thing about Clark. Van Til and some other seminary professors weren't happy with the Church's approval of Clark's orthodoxy and tried to have his ordination revoked. Some folks then and now don't seem to consistently ask the same "do you find it odd" question with regard to him.

Nice parenthetical aside, by the way.


----------



## Stephen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not recognize the voice, but perhaps it is John Robbins with the Trinity Foundation. I would be curious to learn more about this. I found this to be disturbing. The statement, "*the trinity is one absolute person*" is heresy. He makes some other statements that are contradictory. I find Van Til to be confusing anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although I adopt Van Tillan Apologetics and Epistemology, yet I do not think Dr. Van Til helped himself with his style of writing. Thankfully, reading Greg Bahnsen makes understanding presuppositional apologetics and epistemology much easier to understand.
Click to expand...


I would certainly classify myself as a presuppositionalist and agree with VanTil's basic views, but his style of writing and way of explaining things is confusing. He was Dutch and did not communicate well in English, so it did not help him.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Stephen said:


> Davidius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Craig said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's from Robbins...and I'm pretty sure it's fallacious.
> 
> If Van Til really said the Trinity was one Divine Person as opposed to one Divine Essence, it would undermine his Trinitarian solution to the one and the many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Because it's from Robbins it's automatically fallacious? He may be a hothead, but I think Van Til's cult status is amazing, and that his followers are as adamant about defending his views, no matter what, as the Clarkians seem to be. Nevertheless, here's a defense of Van Til's position at the Triablogue. Note that Van Til clearly talks about the Trinity as one divine person with three subsistences. The Clarkians call it heresy and the Van Tillians find a way to explain it. Who's right? You decide!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, thanks. I will check your link. This statement by VanTil is heresy, no matter how you slice it. Many people are quick to defend him, but if he is heretical on the trinity that affects everything. I still am a Clarkian because I find him to be much easier to follow then VanTil. I am always amazed at how people pride themselves in being followers of VanTil when they cannot even articulate his position.
Click to expand...


I think a useful distinction to make when using terminology is that one may be a Presuppositionalist and embrace Van Tillian epistemology - as I do - and so, in that sense, be Van Tillian; but not endorse everything the man said. As a postmillennialist, I am definitely not "Van Tillian" on eschatology. 

I must confess that I find the almost cult-like following of both Dr. Van Til and Gordon Clark to be somewhat disturbing. Both men had their good and bad points. Indeed, I once heard Brian Schwertley say that Gordon Clark's book on the Virgin Birth (I think it was that one) - which was published posthumously - actually taught Nestorianism.


----------



## RamistThomist

Davidius said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> And does anyone find it odd that if CVT truly held to this heresy (the favorite Reformed word of all time), that the OPC willingly, knowingly, ordained and supported such a known heretic? Maybe the OPC is heretical, too. Oops, that's been covered there as well...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is an excellent point, and I would say the same thing about Clark. Van Til and some other seminary professors weren't happy with the Church's approval of Clark's orthodoxy and tried to have his ordination revoked. Some folks then and now don't seem to consistently ask the same "do you find it odd" question with regard to him.
> 
> Nice parenthetical aside, by the way.
Click to expand...


Would it bother you that Clark told his students to read Van Til's stuff on philosophy for edification?

And Muether's bio demonstrates that CVT didn't play that big a role in Clark's trial.



> This statement by VanTil is heresy, no matter how you slice it. Many people are quick to defend him, but if he is heretical on the trinity that affects everything. I still am a Clarkian because I find him to be much easier to follow then VanTil.



Has anyone actually bothered to read the expositions on this point? Like what Doug Jones said and Frame's relevant chapters on this? No, that would be too easy.


----------



## kalawine

Ivanhoe said:


> The fact is that Van Til did say that the Trinity was one Person and yet three Persons at the same time. (In defiance of the law of non-contradition)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad Van Til didn't say they were One Person/Three Persons in the same sense, otherwise you would have a point. Reading Jones' rebuttal/rebuke of Robbins makes this clear.
> 
> And does anyone find it odd that if CVT truly held to this heresy (the favorite Reformed word of all time), that the OPC willingly, knowingly, ordained and supported such a known heretic? Maybe the OPC is heretical, too. Oops, that's been covered there as well...
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how clear Jones actually made it as far as I could tell. But keeping with the the Westminster Confession of Faith, we never see where God is one Person in any sense. I see where you (and Jones) are coming from but I can't say that we can really call the Trinity "One Person." Having said that, I want to make myself clear. I wouldn't call Van Til or Clark a heretic. I do believe that Van Til was inconsistent but I wouldn't call him a heretic. Also, (on a more personal note) I have changed my avatar from a picture of Clark to a photo I took from Gene Cook's web site. I decided to do this because I realized that my avatar made me look like a Clarkian looking for a fight. I do believe that Clark was more consistent than Van Til and I have never enjoyed reading the little I have read by Van Til (especially his disciples Yuck! Frame, Bahnsen etc ).


----------



## k.seymore

Westminster Confession on the Trinity: "God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of *himself*; and is alone in and unto *himself* all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which *he* hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting *his* own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; *he* is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever *himself* pleaseth."

Whoops! God is referred to with a singular personal pronoun and later as three singular personal pronouns!?! One "he" and three "he's"??!? Heresy!!


----------



## kalawine

k.seymore said:


> Westminster Confession on the Trinity: "God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of *himself*; and is alone in and unto *himself* all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which *he* hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting *his* own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; *he* is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever *himself* pleaseth."
> 
> Whoops! God is referred to with a singular personal pronoun and later as three singular personal pronouns!?! One "he" and three "he's"??!? Heresy!!



Oops! I didn't think that one through! I stand corrected.


----------



## Stephen

kalawine said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that Van Til did say that the Trinity was one Person and yet three Persons at the same time. (In defiance of the law of non-contradition)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad Van Til didn't say they were One Person/Three Persons in the same sense, otherwise you would have a point. Reading Jones' rebuttal/rebuke of Robbins makes this clear.
> 
> And does anyone find it odd that if CVT truly held to this heresy (the favorite Reformed word of all time), that the OPC willingly, knowingly, ordained and supported such a known heretic? Maybe the OPC is heretical, too. Oops, that's been covered there as well...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how clear Jones actually made it as far as I could tell. But keeping with the the Westminster Confession of Faith, we never see where God is one Person in any sense. I see where you (and Jones) are coming from but I can't say that we can really call the Trinity "One Person." Having said that, I want to make myself clear. I wouldn't call Van Til or Clark a heretic. I do believe that Van Til was inconsistent but I wouldn't call him a heretic. Also, (on a more personal note) I have changed my avatar from a picture of Clark to a photo I took from Gene Cook's web site. I decided to do this because I realized that my avatar made me look like a Clarkian looking for a fight. I do believe that Clark was more consistent than Van Til and I have never enjoyed reading the little I have read by Van Til (especially his disciples Yuck! Frame, Bahnsen etc ).
Click to expand...


Yes, you have to be careful around here with identifying with Gordan Clark, because you might be guilty of being unconfessional


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

joshua said:


> B.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - The Heresy of Cornelius Van Til
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know who is giving this lecture?
> 
> 
> 
> The lecture comes from a person who had a very short tenure here due to his _constant_ self-aggrandizing and self-promotion, amongst other things. He always _annoyingly_ typed in red fonts too. He claimed to be "the teaching elder" of a certain unidentified church in Tennessee, of which he could never substantiate. He calls his "exposes" _The Monty Collier Report_. Oh, and despite the fact that the OPC, nor any other Church Council I know of, didn't call Van Til a heretic, he sees fit to do so.
Click to expand...



Is that the Red Beetle guy who accused RSC of teaching salvation was through the church (in the Roman Catholic sense). If so, I believe Danny Hyde has done some investigation which revealed that his church does not acutally exist.


----------



## Stephen

QUOTE=Daniel Ritchie;409350]


joshua said:


> B.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - The Heresy of Cornelius Van Til
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know who is giving this lecture?
> 
> 
> 
> The lecture comes from a person who had a very short tenure here due to his _constant_ self-aggrandizing and self-promotion, amongst other things. He always _annoyingly_ typed in red fonts too. He claimed to be "the teaching elder" of a certain unidentified church in Tennessee, of which he could never substantiate. He calls his "exposes" _The Monty Collier Report_. Oh, and despite the fact that the OPC, nor any other Church Council I know of, didn't call Van Til a heretic, he sees fit to do so.
Click to expand...

_Is_ that the Red Beetle guy who accused RSC of teaching salvation was through the church (in the Roman Catholic sense). If so, I believe Danny Hyde has done some investigation which revealed that his church does not acutally exist.[/QUOTE]



 I did not know that. I remember the Red Beetle but thought he was perhaps from a hyper-Calvinist position. I will have to research the allegation against VanTil. This should be a lesson to those who like to use a quote from YouTube. Check the source before assuming it is accurate. I will be more skeptical next time.


----------



## Stephen

joshua said:


> B.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube - The Heresy of Cornelius Van Til
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know who is giving this lecture?
> 
> 
> 
> The lecture comes from a person who had a very short tenure here due to his _constant_ self-aggrandizing and self-promotion, amongst other things. He always _annoyingly_ typed in red fonts too. He claimed to be "the teaching elder" of a certain unidentified church in Tennessee, of which he could never substantiate. He calls his "exposes" _The Monty Collier Report_. Oh, and despite the fact that the OPC, nor any other Church Council I know of, didn't call Van Til a heretic, he sees fit to do so.
Click to expand...


Thanks for identifying the source. We should be more careful in using a source that is questionable or does not reveal from where it comes.


----------



## Stephen

joshua said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> joshua said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lecture comes from a person who had a very short tenure here due to his _constant_ self-aggrandizing and self-promotion, amongst other things. He always _annoyingly_ typed in red fonts too. He claimed to be "the teaching elder" of a certain unidentified church in Tennessee, of which he could never substantiate. He calls his "exposes" _The Monty Collier Report_. Oh, and despite the fact that the OPC, nor any other Church Council I know of, didn't call Van Til a heretic, he sees fit to do so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for identifying the source. We should be more careful in using a source that is questionable or does not reveal from where it comes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime one wants to see the origin of a YouTube video, he or she can just click on the video, and a new window will pop up taking you to the actually YouTube page. Then you can figure out who's hosting the video, etc.
Click to expand...


I did not know that. You learn something new everyday.


----------



## Stephen

B.J. said:


> YouTube - The Heresy of Cornelius Van Til
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know who is giving this lecture?




I checked the YouTube link and it is this guy who was removed from PB. He has a link where he was arguing with Scott Clark here on the PB and denounces him as being non-Reformed. It appears that even John Robbins denounces this accusation against Van Til. I would like to retract my earlier statement that VanTils view of the Trinity is heretical. Until I can determine for myself from a reliable source that VanTil taught that the Trinity is one person, I will assume that VanTil was not heretical on this position.


----------



## kalawine

Ivanhoe said:


> The fact is that Van Til did say that the Trinity was one Person and yet three Persons at the same time. (In defiance of the law of non-contradition)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To bad Van Til didn't say they were One Person/Three Persons in the same sense, otherwise you would have a point. Reading Jones' rebuttal/rebuke of Robbins makes this clear.
> 
> And does anyone find it odd that if CVT truly held to this heresy (the favorite Reformed word of all time), that the OPC willingly, knowingly, ordained and supported such a known heretic? Maybe the OPC is heretical, too. Oops, that's been covered there as well...
Click to expand...


First of all, let me say to you guys who have been discussing this subject for a long time that I apologize for keeping the subject going. But I have only been a member of the PB for a month or two. Another thing I'd like to say is that some of us (myself at least) were introduced to Presuppositional Apologetics by the writings of Dr. Gordon Clark long before we knew that the Clark/Van Til controversy existed. It seems to me (and I say this with all humility) that once a person has been taught Apologetics by a system that is based on the laws of logic with no room for contradiction, that some of Van Til's ideas are hard to embrace. Having said all this and realizing that I am indeed an amateur for certain I want someone to give me a (civil) response to the following quote by Gordon Clark. If he was lying I am man enough to accept it. If not, it flies in the face of the claims of Van Tillians. Here goes... "

"Incidentally, I guess you could say Van Til's theology... I suppose you could say "mainly" or "basically that of the Reformed tradition" (Clark is quoting Frame's comments on Van Til's theology being "basically that of the Reformed tradition) "but not very ... not always quite the same thing. Uh, he has a view of the Trinity that no theologian, uh, no orthodox theologian that I know of has ever come up with at all. He holds that God is not only three persons in one substance (we use that horrible Latin word that doesn't mean anything) he holds that God is both three persons and one person. _And he explicitly denounces the usual apologetic defending the doctrine of the Trinity which is that God is three in one sense and one in another sense _and hence there is no contradiction because there are lots of things that are three in one sense and one in another. You can get all sorts of examples." 

After saying these things in his lecture entitled "John Frame And Cornelius Van Til" Clark went on to give examples of things that are three in one sense and one in another. Then he says (again) that "Van Til denounces this and he (Van Til) calls this a paradox (this is putting it mildly according to Gordon Clark). I realize that this is a lengthy post. But I ask you, can anyone refute Clark's claim that Van Til _"explicitly denounces the usual apologetic defending the doctrine of the Trinity which is that God is three in one sense and one in another sense?" _


----------



## RamistThomist

> But I ask you, can anyone refute Clark's claim that Van Til "explicitly denounces the usual apologetic defending the doctrine of the Trinity which is that God is three in one sense and one in another sense?"



Sure. Van Til doesn't "renounce" the traditional formulation of the Trinity (see his works on the early church fathers and his commitment to the creeds and confessions). There is nothing to refute or prove. He was simply finding another way, if possible, to say the same thing. 

You say he "renounces." I say he doesn't. You are using language that poisons the well.


----------



## kalawine

Ivanhoe said:


> But I ask you, can anyone refute Clark's claim that Van Til "explicitly denounces the usual apologetic defending the doctrine of the Trinity which is that God is three in one sense and one in another sense?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Van Til doesn't "renounce" the traditional formulation of the Trinity (see his works on the early church fathers and his commitment to the creeds and confessions). There is nothing to refute or prove. He was simply finding another way, if possible, to say the same thing.
> 
> You say he "renounces." I say he doesn't. You are using language that poisons the well.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying anything. I'm quoting Clark and asking if he was being dishonest. Also, Clark is not saying "renounce" he is saying "denounce." That may be trivial but I just wanted to clear it up. I've read in more than one place that Clark and Van Til misunderstood one another. Maybe this is an area where Clark misunderstood Van Til.


----------



## RamistThomist

Of course CVT doesn't denounce the creedal formulations of the Trinity. As corrupt as Robbins thinks the OPC is, they would have drawn the line there.

Elsewhere (and I will consult the references later) CVT defends Chalcedon.


----------



## kalawine

k.seymore said:


> Westminster Confession on the Trinity: "God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of *himself*; and is alone in and unto *himself* all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which *he* hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting *his* own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; *he* is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever *himself* pleaseth."
> 
> Whoops! God is referred to with a singular personal pronoun and later as three singular personal pronouns!?! One "he" and three "he's"??!? Heresy!!



OK... I'm still looking into this subject and I want to throw out some things I've been reading on this. The following quote comes from Doug Comin's review of Gordon Clark's book on the Trinity. First, Comin reviews the first chapter of Clarks book. 

(See Review of The Trinity by Gordon Clark -NRA for the entire article) 

"Chapter 1, entitled "Preliminary Scripture," provides an overview of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is found in the pages of God's Word, the Bible. The author acknowledges that there is no attempt made to deal with every biblical passage that deals with the subject, and the reader is challenged to do some personal study. Dr. Clark notes that the strong influence of idolatry and polytheism during Old Testament times necessitated an emphasis upon the unity of the One God of the people of Israel, and therefore the Old Testament nowhere explicitly teaches the formal doctrine of the triune nature of God."

From the words above I can see why the WCF speaks of God as Him, He, etc. Living today and looking back at the Old Testament we can see hints of the Trinity there. But God wanted the Old Testament believers to understand that he is one God. This does not make him one person. Here is more from Comin's review:

"Two more thinkers go under the microscope in Chapter 11. These are Herman Bavinck and Cornelius Van Til, who was greatly influenced by Bavinck. The proposition put forth by Bavinck that God is unknowable because "our knowledge is confined to the realm of experience" (taken from Kant), is disposed of in the first part of the chapter. The remainder shows how these ideas were carried on by Dr. Van Til, who substantially agreed with this definition of incomprehensibility. This faulty definition, says Clark, led to the unorthodox position of Van Til "that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person." In saying this, Van Til sought to evade the charge of anti-trinitarians that the doctrine is self-contradictory because something cannot be both three and one at the same time. But in hiding behind the incomprehensibility of God, Van Til was forced to argue in the realm of the irrational. Dr. Clark then, exposes the faulty logic and directs the reader back to an orthodox defense of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity."

The Athanasian creed gives a summary of the early Church's teaching on the Trinity : 

We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten; the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten; the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.

It seems to me that Clark was saying, "There are three persons and one essence" while Van Til was saying, "There are three persons who make up one person."

Clark wrote this about Van Til's view:

"Strange to say, a recent theologian has renewed the logical difficulty or perhaps has invented a new one. Cornelius Van Til asserts unity and plurality of the Trinity in exactly the same sense. He rejects the Athanasian doctrine of one substance and three Persons, or one reality and three hypostases. His words are, “We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person” (An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 229. The mimeographed syllabus on its title page says that it is for classroom purposes only and is not to be regarded as a published book. What this means is unclear. The author teaches it in class and so makes it public. There is no reason for not regarding it as his own view).

In the context, Van Til denies that the “paradox” of the three and the one can be resolved by the formula, “one in essence and three in person.”

Again I ask you: Is Dr. Clark being dishonest about Van Til's view or not? 

I haven't read every book by both men but if I can come to a conclusion from what I am gathering from here and there, I see why people accuse Van Til of being irrational and illogical.


----------



## RamistThomist

I'll be honest with you. I don't read long quotations from Clark/Robbins/anyone. I simply don't have time for it. Many theology message boards don't allow it since it is too easy when one should be able to summarize in a few words the gist of the passage. Being said, I will respond to some earlier concerns. I realize, in apparent disjunction with my above statement, the following is sort of lengthy. But that's okay. This ground has been covered numerous times on PB, with the same old charges being brought against CVT and the same orthodox rebuttals.

Also, in Defense of the Faith and in the Intro to Systematic Theology, where the quote Robbins, Clark, et al, use to make this charge, Van Til endorses the statements of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, and the Westminster Confession. Since he specifically endorsed the orthodox formulation, critics should be cautious and charitable when they try to make a charge of inconsistency or heresy. One thing all scholars know, and what we ask of atheologians when they read the Bible, is the principle of charity. You assume the author wasn't insane or retarded, and so you try as hard as you can to read them in the best light or resolve any apparent tensions you find in their work.

Furthermore, the claim: one in essence three in person is fine to render the doctrine *formally* consistent, but when we seek to understand the metaphysical affirmations expressed by the orthodox statement, that's when problems arise. One absolute, unified God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are *identical* to God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are *distinct* from each other. What is the relation of this "identity?" Is it numerical or generic? Orthodoxy leans toward the former, tri-theism leans toward the latter, viz., three humans who all share or are identical with, a generic, impersonal human nature. But numerical identity is transitive such that: A = B, B = C, A = C. How do we maintain both rationality and orthodoxy in our *metaphysical affirmations*. *No one* claims that Christians cannot present a *formally consistent* statement of the Trinity. That is easy: One is essence, three in person. But that *bare* claim can be used to support social trinitarianism, relative identity trinitarianism, WCF trinitarianism, etc. So it is helpful as far as it goes, but the simplistic rest in it. As if merely asserting "One in essence, three in person" rescues one from all the trinitarian questions and problems.

Christian theists need to move away from being content with cliches and platitudes and face and address, in Old Princeton and Westerminster fashion, the problems of the day. To think that the mere assertion: one in person, three in essence is enough to rescue you from the ins and outs of trinitarian debates is to live in a padded room, where mom brings you milk and cookies every night


----------



## a mere housewife

> One thing all scholars know, and what we ask of atheologians when they read the Bible, is the principle of charity. You assume the author wasn't insane or retarded, and so you try as hard as you can to read them in the best light or resolve any apparent tensions you find in their work.



Just wanted to say thanks for expressing that. I think sometimes we tend to think that 'charity' only extends to people standing in front of us (or otherwise manifested in the flesh)-- or only to the tone in which we speak -- not to the way we handle ideas and interact with authors.


----------



## k.seymore

kalawine said:


> ...I can see why the WCF speaks of God as Him, He, etc. Living today and looking back at the Old Testament we can see hints of the Trinity there. But God wanted the Old Testament believers to understand that he is one God. This does not make him one person.


 
Here is a good place in scripture where it uses language like the confession does as well, and God appears to be described as one "he" in contrast to the "them" of the other gods (at least in our English Bibles, I can't read Hebrew):

"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one... It is the LORD your God you shall fear. _Him_ you shall serve and by _his_ name you shall swear. You shall not go after _other gods_" (Deut 6).

So scripture weems to speak of God as being in some sence a "he" and three "hes."

I think maybe this particular Clark/Van Til Heresy smackdown is just a problem with language. We could use Clark's reasoning to charge anyone with Heresy because words in of themselves are so relative. For instance, right above you said, "This does not make him one person." Since him is a personal pronoun, it stands in the place of an unamed person. So what you are literally saying is, "This does not make him one him," or "This does not make this person one person." Illogical! You just said God is one person and three persons! Unorthodox! (kidding of course.)

We can do this with the author of the book you quoted as well, since words and sentences can be read with more than one meaning. I do remember reading one of Van Til's books where he said God was one person and three persons. The author of the book you quoted made an interpretion of why this is: "In saying this, Van Til sought to evade the charge of anti-trinitarians that the doctrine is self-contradictory because something cannot be both three and one at the same time." Notice that I can read this author's words literally as saying that this author's interpretation as to why Van Til said "God is one person and three persons" is because he believes Van Til was seeking to evade the charge of anti-trinitarians that something can not be both one and three at the same time. And what happens if I read the author in this way? The author ends up being the one who is irrational! The author believes someone would take a statement like "one in essense, three in person" and, in order to evade the charge of anti-trinitarians that God cannot be both one and three at the same time, changed the phrase to "one person and three persons at the same time." Of course I don't think the author intended those particular words to be read in that way, and at least so far I don't think Van Til meant his own words to be read in exactly the way Clark himself was reading them when he said Van Til was irrational.


----------



## kalawine

k.seymore said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...I can see why the WCF speaks of God as Him, He, etc. Living today and looking back at the Old Testament we can see hints of the Trinity there. But God wanted the Old Testament believers to understand that he is one God. This does not make him one person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a good place in scripture where it uses language like the confession does as well, and God appears to be described as one "he" in contrast to the "them" of the other gods (at least in our English Bibles, I can't read Hebrew):
> 
> "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one... It is the LORD your God you shall fear. _Him_ you shall serve and by _his_ name you shall swear. You shall not go after _other gods_" (Deut 6).
> 
> So scripture weems to speak of God as being in some sence a "he" and three "hes."
> 
> I think maybe this particular Clark/Van Til Heresy smackdown is just a problem with language. We could use Clark's reasoning to charge anyone with Heresy because words in of themselves are so relative. For instance, right above you said, "This does not make him one person." Since him is a personal pronoun, it stands in the place of an unamed person. So what you are literally saying is, "This does not make him one him," or "This does not make this person one person." Illogical! You just said God is one person and three persons! Unorthodox! (kidding of course.)
Click to expand...


LOL! You got me! I really meant to say, "This does not make _God_ one person."


----------



## brandonadams

This is a very interesting conversation. There is a website called Van Til FEM (Frequently Encountered Misconceptions) in which the author seeks to succinctly address various objections raised against Van Til.
Van Til FEM

In regards to Van Til's statements on the Trinity he says:
_Yet, we reply, how could God be both one person and three persons? Isn't that a blatant violation of the law of non-contradiction? In seeking an answer, we must acknowledge that Van Til considered this an apparent contradiction and not a real one (see Common Grace and the Gospel, p. 9). A contradiction is said to occur when something is asserted to be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. Since Van Til held to the traditional doctrine of God's timelessness, we can disregard the 'same time' condition. We must therefore conclude that, since Van Til emphatically rejected the idea that Christian truth involves real contradictions, he held that God is one person and three person in different senses._

The author, a defender of Van Til, seems here to resort to saying that to us it is a contradiction, but to God it is not. This would seem to be perfectly in line with Van Til's view of the incomprehensibility of God, and thus it would imply that Clark is not being dishonest in his comments about the issue. Rather, Clark is critiquing Van Til's view of the incomprehensibilty of God via his comments in regards to the Trinity. 

The author continues:
_What exactly are these different senses? Where or how is the distinction to be made? Van Til, of course, didn't specify; his point was that we cannot specify the distinction, as finite creatures, and thus we must rest content with an apparent contradiction (at least for now). Although we can rationally infer that there is a distinction to be made, we are not in a position to specify what that distinction is. Still, God comprehends the distinction and there is no irresolvable contradiction in his mind._


----------



## kalawine

Ivanhoe said:


> To think that the mere assertion: one in person, three in essence is enough to rescue you from the ins and outs of trinitarian debates is to live in a padded room, where mom brings you milk and cookies every night



Did you mean "One in Essence, three in persons?" However, I would say that calling God "one person who is three persons" avoids logic and throws the problem to the supposed "incomprehensibility" of God.


----------



## brandonadams

Also, in regards to the defense that the OPC didn't object to Van Til's view of the Trinity, therefore it must have been fine, the following quote is relevant:

_one of Van Til’s biographers, William White, Jr., recounts the proceedings of a banquet at Westminster Seminary: “...the master of ceremonies was presenting the good-natured Dutchman. ‘There is a controversy today as to who is the greatest intellect of this segment of the twentieth century,’ the m. c. said. ‘Probably most thinking people would vote for the learned Dr. Einstein. Not me. I wish to put forth as my candidate for the honor, Dr. Cornelius Van Til.’ (Loud applause.) ‘My reason for doing so is this: Only eleven people in the world understand Albert Einstein ...Nobody-but nobody in the world-understands Cornelius Van Til’ “_
(take from here Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology.)

It seems clearly possible that if Van Til was questioned on the issue, and he explained, and people didn't understand, they would simply assume they were too stupid, that they were at fault, not Van Til.


----------



## kalawine

brandonadams said:


> This is a very interesting conversation. There is a website called Van Til FEM (Frequently Encountered Misconceptions) in which the author seeks to succinctly address various objections raised against Van Til.
> Van Til FEM
> 
> In regards to Van Til's statements on the Trinity he says:
> _Yet, we reply, how could God be both one person and three persons? Isn't that a blatant violation of the law of non-contradiction? In seeking an answer, we must acknowledge that Van Til considered this an apparent contradiction and not a real one (see Common Grace and the Gospel, p. 9). A contradiction is said to occur when something is asserted to be both A and not-A at the same time and in the same sense. Since Van Til held to the traditional doctrine of God's timelessness, we can disregard the 'same time' condition. We must therefore conclude that, since Van Til emphatically rejected the idea that Christian truth involves real contradictions, he held that God is one person and three person in different senses._
> 
> The author, a defender of Van Til, seems here to resort to saying that to us it is a contradiction, but to God it is not. This would seem to be perfectly in line with Van Til's view of the incomprehensibility of God, and thus it would imply that Clark is not being dishonest in his comments about the issue. Rather, Clark is critiquing Van Til's view of the incomprehensibilty of God via his comments in regards to the Trinity.
> 
> The author continues:
> _What exactly are these different senses? Where or how is the distinction to be made? Van Til, of course, didn't specify; his point was that we cannot specify the distinction, as finite creatures, and thus we must rest content with an apparent contradiction (at least for now). Although we can rationally infer that there is a distinction to be made, we are not in a position to specify what that distinction is. Still, God comprehends the distinction and there is no irresolvable contradiction in his mind._



And this is where I must stand with Clark. How many subjects of theology would be settled today if we had looked at them and decided that we must "rest content with an apparent contradiction?" If "merely asserting "One in essence, three in person" rescues one from all the trinitarian questions and problems," how much of a dodge must be the idea that we may "rest content with an apparent contradiction?"


----------



## kalawine

brandonadams said:


> Also, in regards to the defense that the OPC didn't object to Van Til's view of the Trinity, therefore it must have been fine...



Yes, this logical fallacy is called, "argumentum ad verecundiam" which in short and modern terms might be phrased, "What in the world does the OPC have to do with the logic of this situation?" Because they are the OPC are we to accept their decisions?


----------



## timmopussycat

Ivanhoe said:


> One thing all scholars know, and what we ask of theologians when they read the Bible, is the principle of charity. You assume the author wasn't insane or retarded, and so you try as hard as you can to read them in the best light or resolve any apparent tensions you find in their work.



Having suffered from imprecise and erring criticism early in the Theonomy debate, Greg Bahnsen had some cogent words to say on this matter. Referring to such "criticism" he wrote:

"This has forced me as an educated
believer to stand back and look more generally at what is
transpiring in the Christian community as a whole with respect to
its scholarly integrity. And I am heart broken. It is difficult
enough for us to gain a hearing in the unbelieving world because
of its hostility to the Lord Jesus Christ and its preconception of the
lowly intelligence of His followers. The difficulty is magnified
many times over when believers offer public, obvious evidence of
their inability to treat each other’s opinions with careful accuracy.
Our “scholarship” is justly ridiculed by those who have been educated
in institutions which have no commitment to Christ or His
Word, but who have the ethical integrity to demand as a prerequisite
to acceptable scholarship that a student represent his opponent
fairly before’ proceeding to criticize or refute him. To use a
Pauline expression, “even the Gentiles” know better than to permit
imprecision and erroneous portrayals in a serious intellectual discussion.
Yet Christians (I include all of us) often seem to care little
for that minimal standard of scholarly respectability. How, then,
can we be taken seriously? How can we take ourselves seriously?
That holy and inspired Word of God, to which all of us swear
allegiance as followers of Christ (whether Presbyterians or Baptists
or charismatic or dispensationalists or Reconstructionists or
whatever), is projtable to us “for correction, for instruction in
righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16). From it we should learn not to
speak carelessly: “See a man who is hasty in his words? There is
more hope for a fool than for him” (Proverbs 29:20). We should
learn to speak cautiously about others (e.g., Matthew 5:22; Psalm
116:11; James 3:5-18), not wresting people’s words or reviling them
(Psalm 50:20; 56:5; 1 Corinthians 5:11; 6:10). We should interpret
them in the best light afforded by the facts (cf. Acts 24:8), rather
than with evil suspicion (1 Timothy 6:4). “He who would love life
and see good days, let him refrain his tongue from evil and his lips
that they speak no guile” (1 Peter 3:10).

God’s Word directs us to study a matter before we presume to
speak critically regarding it: “He who gives an answer before he
hears, it is a folly and shame to him” (Proverbs 18:13). Scripture
teaches us to avoid slander, if we would dwell with Jehovah
(Psalm 15:3). We must then be scrupulous to speak the truth
about others, even those we would criticize. “A man who bears
false witness against his neighbor is a maul, and a sword, and a
sharp arrow” (Proverbs 25: 18). When we witness against our
neighbors “without a cause ,“ we become guilty of “deceiving” with
our lips (Proverbs 24: 28). The exhortation of Paul is inescapably
clear: “Therefore, putting away falsehood, speak the truth each
one with his neighbor, for we are members one of another” (Ephesians
4:25). All of this is an extended commentary on the fundamental
command of God’s law: “You shall not bear false witness
against your neighbor” (Exodus 20: 16) — reiterated by Christ
(Matthew 19:18), who indicts us further by showing that false witness
comes from the heart and defiles us (Matthew 15:19-20).
When we engage in theological debate with each other as fellow
believers, then, it is ethically imperative that we honor our
common Lord (who is the Truth, John 14:6) by being cautious to
speak the truth about each other’s positions. We are “members”
together of the body of Christ.

Theological correction, of course, must be given where necessary;
there is no disputing that. However, before presuming to
correct one another, we must give the intellectual and personal
effort necessary to portraying each other’s views correctly. Only
then are we ethically qualified to offer a critique. Only then will
our critiques bring theological health and unity to the Christian
community. If we refuse to speak accurately of each other, we
have settled for uncharitable prejudices and party-spirit, and a
watching world has little reason to take seriously our claims to being
born again with hearts enabled to love each other as God intends"
(Bahnsen, "Foreword" _The Debate Over Christian Reconstruction._ pp. xiv - xvi) 

Of all I have read by Bahnsen, this is my favourite passage.

Bahnsen also wrote: 

"Criticism which is properly grounded and communicated can cultivate each
other’s goodness as Christians and be edifying (Rem. 15:14; Eph. 4:29); it is often required in order to be faithful to God (Rem. 16:17; Titus 1:9; Rev. 2:2, 6, etc.).
However, such criticism must be tethered to objective evidence (e. g., eye-witnessed facts, documented statements) and cogent reasoning (e. g., pinning on an author what his words actually infer by good and necessary consequence.)" (Bahnsen & Gentry House Divided p. 53 n22).


----------



## RamistThomist

kalawine said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> To think that the mere assertion: one in person, three in essence is enough to rescue you from the ins and outs of trinitarian debates is to live in a padded room, where mom brings you milk and cookies every night
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean "One in Essence, three in persons?" However, I would say that calling God "one person who is three persons" avoids logic and throws the problem to the supposed "incomprehensibility" of God.
Click to expand...


Hello, I have been gone a few days.

My reply: Right, and here is where you show the divide in the two mindsets. As a Van Tillian, I am content with paradox and orthodoxy. I don't opt for heterodoxy so long as I have fully explicated logical consistency.



> Kalawine said: If "merely asserting "One in essence, three in person" rescues one from all the trinitarian questions and problems," how much of a dodge must be the idea that we may "rest content with an apparent contradiction?"
Click to expand...


My reply: Because as I said above, this only renders the doctrine *formally* consistent. *All* sides admit to this. Van Tillians who hold to paradox don't have a problem with "one in essence, three in person," and we recognize that this shows that the doctrine is *formally* consistent. We also claim that there is no *explicit* paradox. The problem arises with *implicit* consistency. With how our *metaphysical affirmations* can be rendered fully consistent by us. So, as I said above, chanting "one in essence, three in person" is to show that you're not prepared to engage what the *real* arguments in the debate are. Not even atheists say that we have an *explicit* or *formal* contradiction. So, the mantra doesn't move the discussion forward and shows how unstudied we are about where the debate is at


----------



## brandonadams

Kevin,

If you are still looking for confirmation regarding the Clark quote, here is the essay that he is analyzing:
Reformed Apologetics

In it, Frame says:


> With regard to the doctrine of the Trinity, Van Til denies that the paradox of the three and one can be resolved by the formula "one in essence and three in person." Rather, "We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person."55 Van Til's doctrine, then, can be expressed "One person, three persons" -- an apparent contradiction. This is a very bold theological move. Theologians are generally most reluctant to express the paradoxicality of this doctrine so blatantly. Why does Van Til insist on making things so difficult? In the context, he says he adopts this formula to "avoid the specter of brute fact." (Brute fact, in Van Til's terminology, is uninterpreted being. ) The argument here is somewhat elliptical, but if we fill in some missing premises, it seems to go like this: If we deny that God is one person, then the unity among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit becomes an impersonal unity. The diversities among the three in that case would not be functions of personal planning and interpretation; rather these diversities would "just happen" to exist. Such a view would in effect place an impersonal "chance" or impersonal "fate" behind and above the persons of the Godhead. Somehow, then, the three persons must function in such intimate interdependence that it may be truly said that the three are one person.56 Bold as it may seem, this view not only conforms to the metaphysical teachings implicit in Scripture but also to the simple language by which Scripture refers to God. Scripture, after all, does refer to God as one person. It distinguishes among Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; yet very often it speaks of God as a person without mentioning those distinctions. It is true, as the traditional formulae suggest, that God is one in one respect, three in another respect. Such language is necessary to guard against the possibility of a "real contradiction," a chaos, in the Godhead. Yet Scripture does not clearly specify the "respect" in which God is three as over against the "respect" in which God is one. In other words, Scripture leaves us with an "apparent contradiction" here. God is one, and God is three. And Van Til's view gives us an important warning not to go beyond Scripture in this matter.


----------

