# Van Til on the Trinity?



## jwright82 (May 18, 2012)

I mentioned something about Van Til’s view on the Trinity in another thread and for fear of that thread going off into a debate or discussion on that I decided to start a thread to discuss it. When Van Til formulated his doctrine of the Trinity as one person and three persons, in different senses of the word person, was he right or wrong? I know this will get into his views on God as well but all well. What do ya’ll think?


----------



## py3ak (May 18, 2012)

James, does Van Til state that it is different senses of the word person he has in mind? And how does he define them in each case? And does he make any justification for using the word equivocally?


----------



## Douglas P. (May 18, 2012)

James, this article might be of help.

http://www.colindsmith.com/papers/Van Til and the Trinity.pdf


----------



## jwright82 (May 18, 2012)

py3ak said:


> James, does Van Til state that it is different senses of the word person he has in mind? And how does he define them in each case? And does he make any justification for using the word equivocally?



Apparently he only said in _Introduction to Systematic Theology_ pg. 229. I don’t know that he explicitly made the point that he was using in two different ways. According to Dr. Oliphint in this lecture at around 36 minutes:
WTS Media Player
Westminster Theological Seminary - Media Center
(If that didn't work go to Dr. Oliphint's part at WTS and it is Doctrine of God: Calvin’s view of the Trinity- Part 14 of 24) 

He says that Van Til did mean it in two different ways. What is interesting about it is that you can see that it is implied that in the quote from the book mentioned followed his discussion of God’s absolute personality. In _The Defense of the Faith_ he follows this same pattern. First he discusses the personality of God and then he discusses the Trinity. You can see hints at this formulation in this book. On pg. 12 of the second edition when speaking of “The Personality of God” he speaks of God’s being an “absolute person”. Then he goes onto to affirm the orthodox formula of “one in essence and three in persons” in the next section on the Trinity. 

He, and he was notorious for this, is not always explaining himself the best at times and it was left to his students to explain what he meant. I agree with you that he was not his strongest here because he didn’t explain it better. In this Reformed Forum interview with Lane Tipton at around 15 minutes they talk about this for a long time. He says that really what he said was not original in that it was well within reformed orthodoxy. 
Van Til’s Trinitarian Theology - Reformed Forum


----------



## py3ak (May 18, 2012)

Thanks, James. I listened to the first lecture from minute 36 on. It was interesting to note that Van Til said what he did in the context of discussing perichoresis, but I have to admit I thought that James Durham handles the whole question of addressing God in prayer far more deftly in his excursus on the Trinity in the commentary on Revelation. I wonder if this, like Jerome's fumble on God's knowledge, isn't the sort of thing it'd be better to just allow the passage of time to bury.


----------



## jwright82 (May 18, 2012)

py3ak said:


> James Durham


I'm not familiar with him. How does he handle it?

---------- Post added at 06:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:26 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> I wonder if this, like Jerome's fumble on God's knowledge, isn't the sort of thing it'd be better to just allow the passage of time to bury.



You’re probably right. Although Frame has made some interesting developments with this and more I don’t know why he didn’t recognize it for what it was. He never mentions the doctrine of perichoresis in his work on Van Til. I like some of Frame’s stuff you would think that he would know this. I don’t even really know what that doctrine is. What is it?


----------



## Peairtach (May 18, 2012)

Frame in his "Van Til's Thought" says that the Trinity could be referred to as "absolute personality" rather than "absolute person", which would confuse things because of the Persons of the Trinity being referred to as such.

Isn't, for example, God _as_ God - i.e. the Godhood of Father, Son and Holy Spirit - referred to in Scripture as "Father" ?

*E.g.*


> For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. (Acts 17:29)


----------



## Apologist4Him (May 18, 2012)

jwright82 said:


> I mentioned something about Van Til’s view on the Trinity in another thread and for fear of that thread going off into a debate or discussion on that I decided to start a thread to discuss it. When Van Til formulated his doctrine of the Trinity as one person and three persons, in different senses of the word person, was he right or wrong? I know this will get into his views on God as well but all well. What do ya’ll think?



For what it's worth, I have a couple of thoughts on Van Til and the Trinity...

1.) Van Til was a Christian, all Christians believe the doctrine of the Trinity
2.) Van Til was a Presbyterian and held firmly to the Westminster standards, including:



> I. There is but one only, living, and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions; immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal, most just, and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.
> II. 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 fountain 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. In his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them.
> 
> III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son. - Westminster Confesssion of Faith, Chapter II



I would not say Van Til formulated his doctrine of the Trinity, rather he depended on the theological giants before him, like Augustine with a desire to further understand God, while at the same time admitting and confessing that we cannot fully comprehend God. I think when considering whatever Van Tillian controversy, whatever details, we should put them into the greater context of his brand of Christianity and intentions. At times Van Til is not too difficult to understand, at other times, because of his emphasis on philosophy, he can be extremely difficult to understand. Another reason why Van Til can be difficult to study is because part of the time he is explaining views he does not agree with himself, and arguing against them in an almost backdoor backwards manner, presuppositionally demonstrating how a view fails on it's own presuppositions. As I understand, his chief goal was to bring theology and apologetics together under the hood of a particular Reformed Apologetic, a specifically Reformed defense of the faith. For further study on Van Til and the Trinity, I recommend:​ 
www.vantil.info 

http://www.berith.org/pdf/Van-Til-on-the-Trinity-and-Covenant.pdf

Finally a book recommendation and unashamed link to my blog: Book Recommendation: Paradox and Truth: Rethinking Van Til on the Trinity by Rev. Ralph Allan Smith « Presuppositionalism 101


----------



## Philip (May 18, 2012)

James, I still think that Van Til isn't the most helpful person on the Trinity because he abandons the classical distinctions that have been made in Trinitarian theology in favor of trying to use the same word confusingly.


----------



## Apologist4Him (May 18, 2012)

Philip said:


> James, I still think that Van Til isn't the most helpful person on the Trinity because he abandons the classical distinctions that have been made in Trinitarian theology in favor of trying to use the same word confusingly.



While I agree Dr. Van Til is not the most helpful person on the Trinity, mainly because the bulk of his writings consists of critique's of others writings (and he taught apologetics at WTS while Berkhof taught theology), I would like some quotes, and explanation of what you mean by "he abandons the classical distinctions".

Ralph A Smith observes:



> Karlberg’s quotations from Van Til’s article demonstrate beyond doubt that Van Til held Abraham Kuyper’s view that the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity is essentially covenantal. Therefore, man, as God’s image, exists inescapably as a covenantal being. Note also that on Van Til’s formulation quoted here, a covenant is a relationship. The fullest and most perfect, personal relationship enjoyed by the Three Persons of the Trinity is the fountain from which the covenant idea flows. What it means for creation and man is derivative. - Ralph A Smith


----------



## Philip (May 18, 2012)

Apologist4Him said:


> I would like some quotes, and explanation of what you mean by "he abandons the classical distinctions".



I'm answering the opening question where it was stated:



jwright82 said:


> When Van Til formulated his doctrine of the Trinity as one person and three persons, in different senses of the word person, was he right or wrong?



Talking about the Godhead as "one person" goes against the classic understanding of Trinitarian theology where God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, united in _perichoresis_ and in substance. Further, the abandonment of this distinction has severe consequences for how we view union with Christ and sanctification.


----------



## Apologist4Him (May 19, 2012)

Philip said:


> Talking about the Godhead as "one person" goes against the classic understanding of Trinitarian theology where God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, united in _perichoresis_ and in substance. Further, the abandonment of this distinction has severe consequences for how we view union with Christ and sanctification.



Except that the OP did not provide even one quote, and the fact that Dr. Van Til not only held firmly to WCF, but served as a mininster in the OPC, held an unorthodox view of the Trinity? I am sorry but that is absurd! As quoted above from the WCF:

"In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son"

Is this not the classical understanding? 

"Even so, as a member of the Church of Christ *I must speak forth the comfort of the gospel in a way such as is shown me in the Heidelberg Catechism and in the Westminster standards*.

*This is my blanket. Without it I cannot sleep. Without it I cannot go anywhere.* I do not want to be seen anywhere without it. _And now the new theology and the new creed_ are trying to take my blanket from me.

Who cares?

I do, Mr. Marty. You may say that the confessional activity of the General Assembly of 1965 was not typical. I believe that it was typical. It was all too typical. The Presbyterian churches pride themselves on being confessional churches. They want to continue to be. Why otherwise the labored effort on the part of the committee to establish in the minds of its laymen and ministers alike that there is continuity between the new and the old confessions?" - Dr. Cornelius Van Til from his work "The Confession of 1967"


----------



## py3ak (May 19, 2012)

If Van Til leads to Ralph Smith, then that is a strike against him.


----------



## Apologist4Him (May 19, 2012)

py3ak said:


> If Van Til leads to Ralph Smith, then that is a strike against him.



I have no earthly idea what you're talking about...but it's not quite fair to say "If Van Til lead to", when he taught so many (does Van Til not also lead to Bahnsen, Frame, Schaffer, Butler etc. or which one??), and honestly strikes me as a "poisoning the well" fallacy.


----------



## py3ak (May 19, 2012)

If Van Til's ideas, taken fairly and developed naturally, lead to the ideas of Ralph Smith then that is an indication that Van Til's ideas on this topic are to be repudiated.


----------



## Apologist4Him (May 19, 2012)

py3ak said:


> If Van Til's ideas, taken fairly and developed naturally, lead to the ideas of Ralph Smith then that is an indication that Van Til's ideas on this topic are to be repudiated.



And if they lead to the ideas of Greg L. Bahnsen? And if they lead to the ideas of John M. Frame? And if they lead to the ideas of Francis A. Schaffer? And if they lead to the ideas of Michael Butler? And if I'm not mistaken, nobody has even quoted Van Til's ideas on this topic...going off on Ralph Smith (and without explaining the reasoning) is off topic...a red herring.


----------



## py3ak (May 19, 2012)

I think the red herring lies more in introducing some irrelevant people to the discussion, than in pointing out that if A leads to B and B is bad, then A is not good. But in case there is a point, I'll answer.

If Van Til's ideas, taken fairly and developed naturally lead to the ideas of Ralph Smith, John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, Michael Butler, and Francis Schaeffer, then:
1. Either all these men are in agreement, or;
2. There are logical inconsistencies within Van Til's thought, or;
3. They are drawing from different areas of Van Til's work.

We are discussing Van Til on the Trinity. If Ralph Smith (whom you introduced to the discussion) drew on Van Til's thought to formulate his own doctrine of the Trinity, he did so either legitimately or illegitimately. If legitimately, then that is an indication that Van Til's doctrine of the Trinity was at least not well stated, if nothing worse can be predicated of it.


----------



## bookslover (May 19, 2012)

"Perichoresis" is the doctrine that all three Persons of the Trinity interpenetrate each other, yet without violating the distinctions of each Person.


----------



## Apologist4Him (May 19, 2012)

py3ak said:


> If Van Til's ideas, taken fairly and developed naturally lead to the ideas of Ralph Smith, John Frame, Greg Bahnsen, Michael Butler, and Francis Schaeffer, then:
> 1. Either all these men are in agreement, or;
> 2. There are logical inconsistencies within Van Til's thought, or;
> 3. They are drawing from different areas of Van Til's work.



They are all Trinitarians. There are logical inconsistencies in every human beings thoughts. I will go out on a limb and say I imagine each person had many and different influences including Van Til, I would hope all of them had a desire to be faithful to Biblical teaching, to the historic Reformed teachings, even if they do not all agree on every little detail. 



py3ak said:


> We are discussing Van Til on the Trinity. If Ralph Smith (whom you introduced to the discussion) drew on Van Til's thought to formulate his own doctrine of the Trinity, he did so either legitimately or illegitimately. If legitimately, then that is an indication that Van Til's doctrine of the Trinity was at least not well stated, if nothing worse can be predicated of it.



Personally I can accept the notion of Van Til's doctrine of the Trinity not being well stated, or explained etc. because I do know where he stood, and the Trinity remains one of the greatest mysteries of our faith. However, I would like to share a couple of quotes by Van Til himself...

""We turn from our consideration of the incommunicable attributes of God to that of his triunity. The fact that God exists as concrete self-sufficient being appears clearly in the doctrine of the Trinity. Here the God who is numerically and not merely specifically one when compared with any other form of being, now appears to have within himself a distinction of specific and numerical existence. We speak of the essence of God in contrast to the three persons of the Godhead. We speak of God as a person; yet we speak also of three persons in the Godhead. As we say that each of the attributes of God is to be identified with the being of God, while yet we are justified in making a distinction between them, so we say that each of the persons of the Trinity is exhaustive of divinity itself, while yet there is a genuine distinction between the persons. Unity and plurality are equally ultimate in the Godhead. The persons of the Godhead are mutually exhaustive of one another, and therefore of the essence of the Godhead. God is a one-conscious being, and yet he is also a tri-conscious being.Scripture teaches the doctrine of the triunity of God. It is well that we first summarize the evidence that it offers.
As to the Old Testament, there have been two extreme tendencies that we do well to avoid. There have been those who have sought a complete system of theology in the Old Testament. They have accordingly maintained that the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught here. On the other hand there have been those who deny that the Scripture teaches one unified system of doctrine. They have maintained that there is no evidence of the Trinity in the Old Testament. In contrast with both of these extreme positions, we regard Scripture as the record of God’s revelation organically mediated to man. We expect the doctrine of the Trinity to be taught in the Old Testament but to be much more clearly taught in the New Testament."

"As Christians we say that this is a mystery that is beyond our comprehension. It surely is. God himself in the totality of his existence, is above our comprehension. At the same time, this mysterious God is mysterious because he is, within himself, wholly rational. It is not as though we can first, apart from Scripture, determine the fact that there must be a triune God if there is to be rationality. If we are Christians, all our interpretation is in terms of this God of whom we speak. It is he who has first revealed himself in his creation before we could know anything of him. But if there is one thing that seems clear from Scripture it is that there are no brute uninterpreted facts. In God is being considered apart from his relation to the world, being and consciousness are coterminous. And because this is so, the facts of the world are created facts, facts brought into existence as the result of a fully self-conscious act on the part of God. So then, though we cannot tell why the Godhead should exist tri-personally, we can understand something of the fact, after we are told that God exists as a triune being, that the unity and the plurality of this world has back of it a God in whom unity and the plurality are equally ultimate. Thus we may say that this world, in some of its aspects at least, shows analogy to the Trinity. This world is made by God and, therefore, to the extent that it is capable of doing so, it may be thought of as revealing God as he exists. And God exists as a triune being."

Both of the quotes are from Chapter 17 of Van Til's "Introduction to Systematic Theology", and I would be interested in your thoughts on the above quotes.


----------



## py3ak (May 19, 2012)

Apologist4Him said:


> We speak of God as a person; yet we speak also of three persons in the Godhead. As we say that each of the attributes of God is to be identified with the being of God, while yet we are justified in making a distinction between them, so we say that each of the persons of the Trinity is exhaustive of divinity itself, while yet there is a genuine distinction between the persons. Unity and plurality are equally ultimate in the Godhead. The persons of the Godhead are mutually exhaustive of one another, and therefore of the essence of the Godhead. God is a one-conscious being, and yet he is also a tri-conscious being.



I don't think there's anything objectionable in the first quote, depending on what Van Til means by the excerpt I've made. There are two issues:
What does he mean by "we speak of God as a person"? If this is simply a reference to the fact that we use singular personal pronouns in speaking of God, or that God is said to do this or that which is proper to a person that is one thing. But certainly Christian theology does not typically contain a locus on _the person of God_ - and I certainly don't think this is a glaring defect in theological system.

The second quote I have no difficulty with, though the approach to the point through the question of brute facts seems characteristically Van Tillian and I'd be reluctant for it to exclude other approaches to that point.




jwright82 said:


> I'm not familiar with him. How does he handle it?


I find Durham very hard to summarize - he doesn't tend to waste words so almost any compression results in leaving something out. The basic point is that in prayer, under whatever consideration God is present in our minds, we approach the one true God, and not one person of the Trinity to the exclusion of the others. Do pick up Durham on Revelation if you ever have a chance: it's difficult to think of another single volume where you'll find so many clear and powerful expositions of the Scottish Presbyterian position on such a variety of topics, let alone the great value of his lectures on the text itself.


----------



## Apologist4Him (May 19, 2012)

py3ak said:


> I don't think there's anything objectionable in the first quote, depending on what Van Til means by the excerpt I've made. There are two issues:
> What does he mean by "we speak of God as a person"? If this is simply a reference to the fact that we use singular personal pronouns in speaking of God, or that God is said to do this or that which is proper to a person that is one thing. But certainly Christian theology does not typically contain a locus on _the person of God_ - and I certainly don't think this is a glaring defect in theological system.



I could be wrong, but I think what he means by "we speak of God as a person", is that when we use the word "God", we are referring to Him in the singular sense of one in number one in essence...one in being? In other words,, when we speak of God as three persons, we're not speaking of three gods, nor three essences, nor three beings, we speak of God in the singular sense, though our God is three distinct co-equal persons in one. I find this subject difficult because I cannot wrap my mind around the doctrine of the Trinity...it really boggles my mind. We use terminology like "one in essence" to avoid obvious contradiction, but what exactly is three distinct persons in one essence or what is a "Godhead"? The Old Testament makes it very clear there is but one God, but He has revealed Himself in three distinct persons, so there must be some kind of unity of the persons, historically the terminology for this unity is essence, but it seems more mysterious to me. Van Til's statement "God is a one-conscious being, and yet he is also a tri-conscious being." is mind blowing. On a side note, I believe Van Til correctly approached the philosophical problem of the "one and the many" with the "ontological Trinity".


----------



## py3ak (May 19, 2012)

Thanks for highlighting that one-conscious and tri-conscious phrase, Andrew. I'd meant to include that as one of the points I thought could certain bear some clarification, but got distracted. I could see some value in it as a way of highlighting what perichoresis means, but I'd be less comfortable with it in other contexts.

I am satisfied by the traditional language used, as long as it's used consistently: _ousia_ and _hypostasis_, nature and person, essence and substance - they all seem to me to convey much the same distinction. A divine person is not the same thing as a human individual, but the latter is the closest analogy we have in our experience; yet, as in all our conceptions of God, we must practice the _via negativa_. So I can think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons or distinct modes of subsistence; and yet I must deny the separateness that such distinct modes of subsistence always implies in humans; I must think of God as one in essence, and yet deny that this unity excludes a diversity of modes of subsistence as it would among us. 
Our thinking about God must always be inadequate to the object: limited, partial, discursive and successive. But accepting those limitations (there's no way around them, after all) and therefore being careful to keep appropriate qualifications in mind, it is then possible to be rather definite and precise. I've found Boethius and Turretin both quite helpful on this point. 
Here is a short post on the knowability of God. And here are two lovely quotes about that:
_God is an independent essence.—There is no perfect definition of God, though there are various descriptions of Him. God is incomprehensible—and yet it is true, as Bernard concludes, that it is God alone who can never be sought in vain, even when He cannot be found._ (Alsted, quoted by Heppe)
_In this way of course God's nature is not really defined yet. But although to man God remains uncaused for conceptual knowledge, He is yet not hidden for religious and moral knowledge of Himself, and can therefore be found of everyone that seeks Him._ (Heppe himself)

I hope these ideas might conduce to some pleasant and profitable meditation. Blessings on your Lord's day.


----------



## Peairtach (May 20, 2012)

As Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in agreement of will, mind and disposition, in a way that other persons are not, because they are God and share the same Essence.

They are also bound together by a unique and eternal relationship, about which little can be said:eternal generation and eternal procession.

But to use the word "Person" about God _qua_ God is bound to lead to confusion, since the word is used of the Persons.



> or what is a "Godhead"?



This is from the Old English "Godhood" i.e. Divine Nature. A similar word construction is found in "maidenhead" or "maidenhood" i.e. virginity.


----------



## jwright82 (May 22, 2012)

Berkhof speaks of God as having a personality. The difference between ours and his (besides his being archetypal and ours’ being ectypal) is that Ours’ is “uni-personal” and his is “tri-personal”. Perhaps that is what Van Til was trying to get at. Surely God is revealed doing things as a single person or at least actions analogical to how we might think of a “person”. This could just be condescension on God’s part. Later revelation more clearly presents him as three persons, exhaustive of one another. But this doesn’t change the previous revelation because God nowhere there explains how the three persons are acting in those scenarios, only that he is acting. Granted it is confusing to use that word.


----------



## Apologist4Him (May 22, 2012)

py3ak said:


> Thanks for highlighting that one-conscious and tri-conscious phrase, Andrew. I'd meant to include that as one of the points I thought could certain bear some clarification, but got distracted. I could see some value in it as a way of highlighting what perichoresis means, but I'd be less comfortable with it in other contexts.



Brother Ruben, I am really getting into this discussion. I've been thinking about it off and on for days. The one-conscious/tri-conscious quote, stirred up another question, does God have one mind or three minds, or three minds in one? 



py3ak said:


> I am satisfied by the traditional language used, as long as it's used consistently: _ousia_ and _hypostasis_, nature and person, essence and substance - they all seem to me to convey much the same distinction. A divine person is not the same thing as a human individual, but the latter is the closest analogy we have in our experience; yet, as in all our conceptions of God, we must practice the _via negativa_. So I can think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as distinct persons or distinct modes of subsistence; and yet I must deny the separateness that such distinct modes of subsistence always implies in humans; I must think of God as one in essence, and yet deny that this unity excludes a diversity of modes of subsistence as it would among us.



You hit the nail on the head, especially in saying "A divine person is not the same thing as a human individual", and I believe that is what Van Til meant when he wrote about God as a person. I do think he could have chose his words better to clear up any confusion. Perhaps he used the word "person" in that sentence because it is more relate able or personal than words like "essence" or "substance" (though he does use those terms in the greater context) which do not convey divine absolute personality. Personally, the word "essence" strikes me as mystical...I think of something like a mist, and substance I think of the periodic table, a non-personal thing. Of course if those words are used in proper context they have a much greater deeper meaning. I think there is somewhat of a human language barrier (or limitations of language) in trying to describe God with words, and at the same time the words we use (especially divine revelation in Scripture) to describe Him are necessary, meaningful, and true. 




py3ak said:


> Our thinking about God must always be inadequate to the object: limited, partial, discursive and successive.



So true, as the Apostle Paul say's "we see through a glass, darkly". 



py3ak said:


> But accepting those limitations (there's no way around them, after all) and therefore being careful to keep appropriate qualifications in mind, it is then possible to be rather definite and precise. I've found Boethius and Turretin both quite helpful on this point. Here is a short post on the knowability of God. And here are two lovely quotes about that:
> _
> God is an independent essence.—There is no perfect definition of God, though there are various descriptions of Him. God is incomprehensible—and yet it is true, as Bernard concludes, that it is God alone who can never be sought in vain, even when He cannot be found._ (Alsted, quoted by Heppe)
> 
> _In this way of course God's nature is not really defined yet. But although to man God remains uncaused for conceptual knowledge, He is yet not hidden for religious and moral knowledge of Himself, and can therefore be found of everyone that seeks Him._ (Heppe himself)



Thank you for sharing those brother.  I'd like to share a resource I found through Monergism on Sunday. The following link from Ligonier's blog includes a free book, and audio/video series by R.C. Sproul on the Trinity: What Is the Trinity? (Free Downloads) by Karisa Schlehr | Ligonier Ministries Blog



py3ak said:


> I hope these ideas might conduce to some pleasant and profitable meditation. Blessings on your Lord's day.



Blessings to you and yours too!


----------



## Apologist4Him (May 22, 2012)

Peairtach said:


> As Persons, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are in agreement of will, mind and disposition, in a way that other persons are not, because they are God and share the same Essence.
> 
> They are also bound together by a unique and eternal relationship, about which little can be said:eternal generation and eternal procession.
> 
> But to use the word "Person" about God _qua_ God is bound to lead to confusion, since the word is used of the Persons.



Please forgive the way I might come across as I am struggling with gathering my thoughts today and expressing them. I do agree with you, however the confusion is cleared by the greater context, in similar fashion we must depend on context in reading Scripture. I waited to bring the following into the discussion....Jesus Christ, God incarnate, God in the flesh, walked on the earth as a person, he related to us as people, and those whom God revealed His divine nature, worshiped Him. When I think of God as a person, I think of Jesus Christ. 



Peairtach said:


> or what is a "Godhead"?
> 
> This is from the Old English "Godhood" i.e. Divine Nature. A similar word construction is found in "maidenhead" or "maidenhood" i.e. virginity.



Thank you, I looked it up on Wiki before you responded, the Wiki definition is essentially the same, "Godhead is a Middle English variant of the word godhood, and denotes the Divine Nature or Substance of the Christian God, or the Trinity." I also wanted to share a little from researching "Outlines of Theology" by A.A. Hodge, especially for the word "substance"...

*1. What is the etmology (linguistic development) and meaning of the word Trinity, and when was it introduced into the language of the Church?*

The word trinity (Trinitas) is derived either from tres–unus, trinus, or from tria> v three in one, or the one which is three, and the three which are one; not triplex—trinitas not triplicitas. This word is not found in the Scriptures. Technical terms are however an absolute necessity in all sciences. In this case they have been made particularly essential because of the sub– perversions of the simple, untechnical Biblical statements by infidels and heretics. This term, as above defined, admirably expresses the central fact of the great doctrine of the one essence eternally subsisting as three Persons, all the elements of which are explicitly taught in the Scriptures. The Greek word tri> av was first used in this connection by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, in Syria, from AD. 168 to AD. 183. The Latin term Trinitas was first used by Tertullian, circum. 220. Mosheim’s "Eccle. Hist.," vol. 1., p. 121, note 7; Hagenbach, " Hist. of Doc.," vol. 1., 129

*2. What is the theological meaning of the term substantia (substance) what change has occurred in its usage?*

Substantia as now used, is equivalent to essence, independent being. Thus, in the Godhead, the three persons are the same in substance, i.e., of one and the same indivisible, numerical essence. The word was at first used by one party in the church as equivalent to subsistentia (subsistence), or mode of existence. In which sense, while there is but one essence, there are three substantiae or persons, in the Godhead.––See Turretin, Tom. 1., locus 3., quest 23.

*3. What other terms have been used as the equivalents of substantia in the definitions of this doctrine?*

The Greek oj usi> a and fu> si. The Latin essentia, natura. The English essence, substance, nature, being.

*4. What is the theological meaning of the word subsistentia (subsistence)?*

It is used to signify that mode of existence which: distinguishes one individual thing from every other individual thing, one person from every other person. As applied to the doctrine of the Trinity, subsistence is that mode of existence which is peculiar to each of the divine persons, and which in each constitutes the one essence a distinct person." - A.A. Hodge from Outlines of Theology


----------



## Peairtach (May 22, 2012)

> And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: (Genesis 1:26)



The Triune God speaks with one will, one mind and one disposition in agreement, such that one would be tempted to call Him a Person, but it would be better - to avoid confusion - to call Him a Triune Being or Triune Personality.

The Father is Yahveh, the Son is Yahveh and the Spirit is Yahveh.

The Spirit is also said to be "of Yahveh"
*E.g.*


> And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him, and he judged Israel, and went out to war: and the LORD delivered Chushanrishathaim king of Mesopotamia into his hand; and his hand prevailed against Chushanrishathaim. (Judges 3:10)



The Son (Angel) is said to be "of Yahveh" 
*E.g.*


> And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. (Ex 3:2)



The Father isn't "of" Another.


----------



## jwright82 (May 26, 2012)

Here is an interesting discussion of the trinity and it gets into Van Til.
Trinitarian Personality in the Theologies of Barth and Rahner - Reformed Forum


----------



## py3ak (May 26, 2012)

Apologist4Him said:


> Brother Ruben, I am really getting into this discussion. I've been thinking about it off and on for days. The one-conscious/tri-conscious quote, stirred up another question, does God have one mind or three minds, or three minds in one?



Mind, like will, is an attribute of the nature, not a personal distinction. Therefore, as there is one will of God, so there is one mind of God. Each person, of course, so to speak has access to and use of the whole entire extent of the mind. Of course, ultimately, we cannot make a separation: God does not _have_ a mind or a will; God is his mind and his will.



Apologist4Him said:


> You hit the nail on the head, especially in saying "A divine person is not the same thing as a human individual", and I believe that is what Van Til meant when he wrote about God as a person. I do think he could have chose his words better to clear up any confusion. Perhaps he used the word "person" in that sentence because it is more relate able or personal than words like "essence" or "substance" (though he does use those terms in the greater context) which do not convey divine absolute personality. Personally, the word "essence" strikes me as mystical...I think of something like a mist, and substance I think of the periodic table, a non-personal thing. Of course if those words are used in proper context they have a much greater deeper meaning. I think there is somewhat of a human language barrier (or limitations of language) in trying to describe God with words, and at the same time the words we use (especially divine revelation in Scripture) to describe Him are necessary, meaningful, and true.



Especially in discussions about God, it is necessary to distinguish what we imagine, and what a word is intended to convey. The fact that essence makes someone imagine a mist (in your case) or an illuminated image of a thing, or whatever visual the mind may throw up with it, does not mean that essence in fact refers to anything like it. Imagining and thinking are two different things. Certainly our language about God, if taken as though it implied the images it might cause to arise in our minds, would be wildly inaccurate (for instance, any zoomorphism employed in Scripture).


----------

