Van til and the Trinity

[faithandfreedom]

Lane is correct, a thread will get started and then us Vantillian's will respond and then on and on and on.
This is happening in the greater Reformed world as well. You said "try to explain it away", I don't think I understand that statement. Do you find the explanations bad? Should we Vantillian's just give up trying to understand what a man who from his PhD onwards defended an Orthodox Theology of God? I don't get it honestly, it seems as though you're suggesting that a response is already being wrong (not accusing you of anything, just asking a question), as if just trying to understand him is going down the wrong path no matter what.
I'm sure that I'm misunderstanding you here. My apologies if I am but that's just how it looks to me.

I suppose that I am saying that we should take the words “one person” at face value and reject them as wrong.

I assume that people pointed out the issue with this statement at the time and he had plenty of opportunity to cease using this terminology or retract it.

 

[jwright82]

I suppose that I am saying that we should take the words “one person” at face value and reject them as wrong.

I assume that people pointed out the issue with this statement at the time and he had plenty of opportunity to cease using this terminology or retract it.

Is this because you reject the explanations given? That doesn't mean it's wrong, only that you don't like it. That's a lot to ask of a group of people over you disliking it, don't you think?

 

[MW]

You know this got me thinking. I think we should at least, even if Van Til's completely wrong, try to understand what he's going for.

He wanted to avoid the idea of a "brute fact" behind what he conceived to be an impersonal unity in the traditional formulation. His instinct was right, of course, but, as with his paradoxical method in general, he failed to see that he was dealing with an "ectypical" truth and was imputing it to the "archetypical" truth of God. Undoubtedly God is presented to us personally as one God. That is the phenomenon of His revelational communication to us. And Van Tillians will often appeal to this. But wires get crossed at this point. The revelation itself is then made paradoxical and incomprehensible to us. the incomprehensibility of the archetype is transferred to the ectype. However, traditionally, the purpose of revelation was to make God knowable, not incomprehensible.

 

[jwright82]

He wanted to avoid the idea of a "brute fact" behind what he conceived to be an impersonal unity in the traditional formulation. His instinct was right, of course, but, as with his paradoxical method in general, he failed to see that he was dealing with an "ectypical" truth and was imputing it to the "archetypical" truth of God. Undoubtedly God is presented to us personally as one God. That is the phenomenon of His revelational communication to us. And Van Tillians will often appeal to this. But wires get crossed at this point. The revelation itself is then made paradoxical and incomprehensible to us. the incomprehensibility of the archetype is transferred to the ectype. However, traditionally, the purpose of revelation was to make God knowable, not incomprehensible.

We may not see exactly eye to eye on paradox but you make excellent points. Also you firmly root it in the archetypal/ectypal distinction but my point was in the same response where I brought up Clark and defended him against easy criticisms of his epistemology. If I were to argue that Clark denied empirical knowledge but all knowledge must come from scripture, then how does he read his Bible?
One I would never make that claim but I would give as good as an explanation of his Augustinian philosophy to make my case. It seems to me that sometimes people just jump to what Van Til said out of context as if that settles it. That's more what I was going for.
[automerge]1760065527[/automerge]
I also agree that there's a temptation to simply answer someone pointing out a genuine contradiction with "it's just a mystery". That's not right, which is why I want to get book on paradox in Van Til.

 

[MW]

If I were to argue that Clark denied empirical knowledge but all knowledge must come from scripture, then how does he read his Bible?

Well; if the cap fits... It is good to understand these philosopher-theologians, but there are practical results to their speculations. And practical theologians have always reserved the right to enact what has been called "the sniff test." When I go to the fridge I don't need a scientific knowledge of bacteria to know that something is off. But I understand your philosophical bent of mind and I can always appreciate a desire to analyse thoughts and systems. But just know that the greater part of God's flock will likely just employ the sniff test.

 

[jwright82]

Well; if the cap fits... It is good to understand these philosopher-theologians, but there are practical results to their speculations. And practical theologians have always reserved the right to enact what has been called "the sniff test." When I go to the fridge I don't need a scientific knowledge of bacteria to know that something is off. But I understand your philosophical bent of mind and I can always appreciate a desire to analyse thoughts and systems. But just know that the greater part of God's flock will likely just employ the sniff test.

I completely enjoyed your response. I was laughing out loud in agreement. That's one of the reasons I love Pragmatism so much, they just employed the "smell test". Thank you sir for giving me a laugh. And you're right.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Is this because you reject the explanations given? That doesn't mean it's wrong, only that you don't like it. That's a lot to ask of a group of people over you disliking it, don't you think?

It’s not that I reject the explanations given per se.

It’s that the term person, when used in the context of the Trinity, has a meaning that the early church developed, when they defined the Trinity over against various heresies.

In order to explain VT’s use of the term we are required to modify it’s meaning. This results in ambiguity, which is unnecessary and has various undesirable consequences.

 

[jwright82]

It’s not that I reject the explanations given per se.

It’s that the term person, when used in the context of the Trinity, has a meaning that the early church developed, when they defined the Trinity over against various heresies.

In order to explain VT’s use of the term we are required to modify it’s meaning. This results in ambiguity, which is unnecessary and has various undesirable consequences.

Ok, well did they rule out Van Til's particular meaning? Or Bavink, who he got it from, I believe? You still have not addressed his particular meaning. Appealing to the early Church doesn't deal with his meaning. I don't see the connecting dots but you'll have to point them out to me.
You seem focused on peripheral issues and not his particular meaning. Let's stick to that.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Ok, well did they rule out Van Til's particular meaning? Or Bavink, who he got it from, I believe? You still have not addressed his particular meaning. Appealing to the early Church doesn't deal with his meaning. I don't see the connecting dots but you'll have to point them out to me.
You seem focused on peripheral issues and not his particular meaning. Let's stick to that.

What I am trying say is that the doctrine of the Trinity is carefully defined in the Ecumenical Creeds. The teachings set out in these creeds take precedence over the formulations of theologians in the twentieth century. The creeds are normative, in terms of defining the limits of acceptable theological speculation.

The church does not operate in a vacuum. If our teaching diverges from that laid out in the Ecumenical Creeds, then we have a problem. VT’s words are at variance with the “one essence, three persons” statement and there is no way of explaining that away.

 

[jwright82]

What I am trying say is that the doctrine of the Trinity is carefully defined in the Ecumenical Creeds. The teachings set out in these creeds take precedence over the formulations of theologians in the twentieth century. The creeds are normative, in terms of defining the limits of acceptable theological speculation.

The church does not operate in a vacuum. If our teaching diverges from that laid out in the Ecumenical Creeds, then we have a problem. VT’s words are at variance with the “one essence, three persons” statement and there is no way of explaining that away.

I think you're missing the point. If he meant person in the same sense in both definitions than you would be right. But that also means that I believe Bavink would be wrong and probably Vos, not sure on this one.
The OPC and WTS would be wrong or he meant it in two different senses and that explains the history just fine. Now you not liking people explaining it is a side issue. You seem to only accept one and only one interpretation of him and that's that he meant it in the same sense.
I'm saying that according to history and many theologians he meant it in two different senses. You seem to simply reject that. I tell you what perhaps if you can prove that he meant it in the same sense than we could discuss that. You've offered no proof or even evidence that the explanations are wrong. You're just arguing by assertion.
Do you think that the framers of the creeds ruled out any truthful appeal to the biblical language of speaking of God in the singular? The bible speaks that way, surely they were aware of it. If not then we shouldn't give them much credit.
Or they were aware along with the theologians Van Til relied on and he meant it in two different senses. And that's why charges were never brought up in either the school or the denomination and the historical record makes sense as it is.
On your account it doesn't make sense but have offered no evidence or proof that that's the case, only asserted that. Please give some evidence of your apparent claims.

 

[faithandfreedom]

I think you're missing the point. If he meant person in the same sense in both definitions than you would be right.

That is my point - in giving the term "person" two definitions Van Til is introducing confusion into the doctrine of the Trinity.

But that also means that I believe Bavink would be wrong and probably Vos, not sure on this one.

I have never read Bavink or Vos so I am unqualified to comment on their teaching. However, I would say that this does not undermine my argument, since the Ecumenical Creeds take precedence over the teachings of twentieth century theologians. Van Til's formula contradicts the formula that is set out in the Ecumenical Creeds and indeed the Reformed Confessions, hence it is false.

The OPC and WTS would be wrong or he meant it in two different senses and that explains the history just fine. Now you not liking people explaining it is a side issue. You seem to only accept one and only one interpretation of him and that's that he meant it in the same sense. I'm saying that according to history and many theologians he meant it in two different senses. You seem to simply reject that. I tell you what perhaps if you can prove that he meant it in the same sense than we could discuss that. You've offered no proof or even evidence that the explanations are wrong. You're just arguing by assertion.

I am not taking issue with the explanations of what he may or may not have meant, so I do not need to prove that the explanations are wrong in order to prove my case. I am taking issue with the use of person in two different senses. This is the mistake that he made. He should have used a different term, instead of using the term person in two different senses. Hence, when you state that VT used the term person in two different senses, you are actually agreeing with me, so I am not arguing that point and thus cannot be arguing by assertion.

Do you think that the framers of the creeds ruled out any truthful appeal to the biblical language of speaking of God in the singular?

No I definitely do not think this, quite the opposite. The framers of the creeds affirm one God; any person who does not believe this would have been anathematised by the Early Church.

WCF2:3: In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity:

Athanasian Creed: "And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. 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;"

Or they were aware along with the theologians Van Til relied on and he meant it in two different senses. And that's why charges were never brought up in either the school or the denomination and the historical record makes sense as it is. On your account it doesn't make sense but have offered no evidence or proof that that's the case, only asserted that. Please give some evidence of your apparent claims.

Just because he was not brought up on charges, does not mean that his teaching was correct.

I believe one of the main defences of VT is that when he used the phrase "one person", he meant to say that God is absolute personality and in no way an impersonal being.

The nub of the issue is that the Orthodox explanation of the Trinity inherently involves the three persons being relational, there is no sense in which they could be impersonal. Hence Van Til, was seeking to "solve" a problem that never existed. This suggests that either Van Til did not understand the doctrine of God as taught in the Creeds, or he was not aware of it, or he thought that by redefining the term "person" he could improve on the teaching that had previously been accepted by theologians down the ages.

There was no need for him to redefine the term person, in order to show that God is not impersonal. He just needed to properly expound the doctrine of the Trinity as "one essence, three persons" and refer to the teaching of the One Holy Catholic Church, as it has been understood for over fifteen hundred years. This would have been a much stronger argument than the one he made and would not have necessitated redefining the term person.

 

[jwright82]

That is my point - in giving the term "person" two definitions Van Til is introducing confusion into the doctrine of the Trinity.

The OPC and WTS aren't confused apparently nor the thousands of Vantillian's out there.

I have never read Bavink or Vos so I am unqualified to comment on their teaching. However, I would say that this does not undermine my argument, since the Ecumenical Creeds take precedence over the teachings of twentieth century theologians. Van Til's formula contradicts the formula that is set out in the Ecumenical Creeds and indeed the Reformed Confessions, hence it is false.

How does it contradict it, unless person is meant in the same sense? Only then is it a contradiction. Also I would argue that his view probably just builds on the Athanasian creed.

I am not taking issue with the explanations of what he may or may not have meant, so I do not need to prove that the explanations are wrong in order to prove my case. I am taking issue with the use of person in two different senses. This is the mistake that he made. He should have used a different term, instead of using the term person in two different senses. Hence, when you state that VT used the term person in two different senses, you are actually agreeing with me, so I am not arguing that point and thus cannot be arguing by assertion.


No I definitely do not think this, quite the opposite. The framers of the creeds affirm one God; any person who does not believe this would have been anathematised by the Early Church.

You're asserting it's wrong and then agreeing with me that the framers of the creeds were well aware of the biblical language. I see no contradiction because the bible does use that language and merely extending the teaching is not wrong if everything before is affirmed
You see I'm not asserting without evidence. My evidence is the biblical language, the fact that he was not brought up on charges (you still haven't explained that one), and the had giants of the faith he was following.
Because if you're right then a whole lot of people are wrong (two massive institutions in fact). Do you think that the framers thought they had said everything with regards to this?

WCF2:3: In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity:

Athanasian Creed: "And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. 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;"

Just because he was not brought up on charges, does not mean that his teaching was correct.

But it is a huge problem for your point because of the implications that you ignore. It's not as simple as you seem to want it to be. You seem to want it to be simply "he said one person and three persons, that's a contradiction". But then you say the problem is in meaning it in two different senses, that's the problem. Well unfortunately that's exactly what it takes to make it not a contradiction, which disproves your point.

I believe one of the main defences of VT is that when he used the phrase "one person", he meant to say that God is absolute personality and in no way an impersonal being.

The nub of the issue is that the Orthodox explanation of the Trinity inherently involves the three persons being relational, there is no sense in which they could be impersonal. Hence Van Til, was seeking to "solve" a problem that never existed.

It did exist in Idealism and Pragmatism (I believe) and absolute personality guarded against that. Context matters and his context was apologetical.

This suggests that either Van Til did not understand the doctrine of God as taught in the Creeds, or he was not aware of it, or he thought that by redefining the term "person" he could improve on the teaching that had previously been accepted by theologians down the ages.

So now he's ignorant? I know that's not what you're saying but again unintended consequences. First it's two institutions massively dropping the ball, the apparent arbritrary ruling out the biblical language of one person, and now possible ignorance or willful heresy.
None of which you have backed up.

There was no need for him to redefine the term person, in order to show that God is not impersonal. He just needed to properly expound the doctrine of the Trinity as "one essence, three persons" and refer to the teaching of the One Holy Catholic Church, as it has been understood for over fifteen hundred years. This would have been a much stronger argument than the one he made and would not have necessitated redefining the term person.

So the bible does not talk that way about God? For the record he did affirm "one essence and three persons". You're acting like he didn't, it appears.
Also a lot hinges on your assertion that you cannot redefine person. Why? It doesn't contradict the creeds, more assertions on your part.
So you must be against Bavink's use of the absolute personality language as well because that's not in the creed? Unintended consequences again, you can't have one standard for Van Til but a different standard for everyone else.
But this pushes the problem back even further. If Van Til was wrong for it and no charges were raised then Bavink, having led the way, is equally mysterious in facing no charges or criticism?
The laundry list of issues that shouldn't be for your point to be sound. You see I'm not trying to come down hard on you. On the contrary I admire your zeal to protect the Orthodox Theology of the creeds, I think you simply haven't thought it through and that's your problem. Not your zeal.
You're probably right that it's not the wisest thing for him to do but I also think that simply appealing to the biblical use of that language and the two different senses of the word person is easily explainable to the average person.
In fact I understand why you don't want to answer the problematic questions your view raises because it's much easier to just go "one person and three persons" is wrong but it's not that simple.

 

[RamistThomist]

The OPC and WTS aren't confused apparently nor the thousands of Vantillian's out there.

They aren't confused. They are introducing confusion.

Should Van Til's formulation replace the Westminster Confession's definition?

 

[jwright82]

They aren't confused. They are introducing confusion.

Should Van Til's formulation replace the Westminster Confession's definition?

So then an entire denomination and a school are wrong? That's the point of the question. Since he was never brought up on charges we don't know. I would only say since they found it allowable so should we. Unless of course they're both wrong and in which case we have indicted both.
Also that's not really an argument, I never said we should replace anything but unless someone is willing to indict the school and denomination then they should probably just say so. That way we can deal with the case against them.
I find it very odd people want to indict Van Til but refuse to indict the school and denomination along with him. So goes Van Til, so goes the school and denomination. It surly can't be both ways.

 

[RamistThomist]

So then an entire denomination and a school are wrong? That's the point of the question.

On that point, yes. Doesn't negate other good they have done. I've long said presup is wrong, so I don't think that is particularly noteworthy. Presups think I am wrong. I can live with that.

Since he was never brought up on charges we don't know.

One can be wrong without needing to be brought up on charges. I think postmils are wrong but that doesn't mean they should be brought on charges.

 

[DrJack]

Although I have only recently joined this board, I have been an active reader for years. To see members saying this could be renamed the 'Anti-vanTil board' is utterly bizarre from hundreds of hours on this site. Sure, debate occurs (and I HAVE read through & sought to understand the Clark-vanTil issues) but (again, to an outsider) this is gross overstatement. The issue of ambiguity of terms, and that if VT continued this (person-persons) over a long time, it is not hard to discern the provocative nature. While I am not a theologian of level of many of you, I do have a certain expertise in human behavior & communication. Being provocative can be a useful tool, but it strikes me as unnecessarily troubling in an arena (theology) where the concept of Three Persons has been the hallmark of orthodoxy for 1600 (really, 2000) years.

Can a DENOMINATION be in error? Certainly, that is why I have chosen to leave the PCA. I realized I could not be a member given the lack of Confessional adherence, not even lip service paid to the Regulative Principle, and the REFUSAL to actually DO ANYTHING (for example, homosexual pastor) when absolutely necessary ...oh, and denominational infighting / politics which apparently are far more important than serving God (I won't reiterate the discussion about the 'enemies list' of a noted "servant of God").

I am deeply convicted that the OPC was in ERROR when John Murray's position on Exclusive Psalmody was the MINORITY report! The Federal Vision issue ... Oh, bringing up RC Sproul - the financial nepotism of Ligonier is blatant, as was RC's refusal to actually join a denomination. I LOVED his teaching, he brought me a LONG WAY along the path of reformed theology. I gave a great deal of money to his ministry over the years, only to find out his son was receiving hundreds of thousands per year after being kicked out of one denomination, being on the Ashley Madison website, and other public sins; RC's widow receiving $1,000,000 in royalties after his death! Contrast that with Francis Shaeffer who gave ALL of his royalties to fund L'Abri!

We are FALLEN sinners! I was a rather outspoken atheist decades ago but my professional work had removed any delusion about the basic 'goodness' of man. Our brokenness is so apparent! Our greatest teachers (excepting Christ) make mistakes, the example of Paul publicly chastising Peter has already been mentioned. The need to be so deeply invested in defending VT is something I find quite surprising. Dare I say that any time we have such STRONG reactions to mere written words, it is not a bad idea to ask ourselves what is energizing said reaction.

If this post is out of line, PLEASE speak up (Jeri, I know you are taking a break from service on this board; feel free to chastise me next Lord's Day!). I don't believe I have said anything that has not been thoroughly documented in the public arena. This forum has been THE SINGLE GREATEST tool God has used to clarify His Word in reforming me, so many of you have played a great role in my "secondary reformation" (my 'first reformation' came from 20+ years of the preaching of dearly departed "PTR" Pastor Harry Reeder @ Briarwood Presbyterian Church). I delayed joining for many years as I thought through my theology, sorting out my beliefs about the various confessions. I say all of this out of respect and appreciation for what y'all have given to me, to allow you to see a bit more clearly the heart of the person who wrote the above paragraphs. I intend no offense.

Now, about you apostate hymn singers ...

 

[jwright82]

On that point, yes. Doesn't negate other good they have done. I've long said presup is wrong, so I don't think that is particularly noteworthy. Presups think I am wrong. I can live with that.

Well thank you for being honest. What are the chances though? The OP, it seems to me, wants one interpretation and only one interpretation person means the same in both senses and any attempt to "explain it away" is equally wrong. But my point is that if the only interpretation that's correct is that one, than how did two institutions of note miss that?
We're not talking about little kids soccer teams here, but massive orthodox institutions just dropped the ball. Or the other explanation is that they knew he meant it in two different senses, so no discipline was required.
The explanations that have been given are valid and that whole story seems a lot easier to swallow than either attributing ignorance or some kind of conspiracy theory to it. A person may not like it and we can debate that but one groups interpretation vs two institutions interpretation, who had a responsibility to over see his teaching, defies statistical reason.

One can be wrong without needing to be brought up on charges. I think postmils are wrong but that doesn't mean they should be brought on charges.

I would assume, as has been argued, this is about the doctrine of God so it's way more important than Eschatology.
My whole angle has been to challenge the "one and only one interpretation is valid and no explanations can be made". That's the impression that I got, if that's wrong than my apologies. But I think it's a reasonable impression given the language that was used.
So part of critiquing that argument is by pointing out how many people are also wrong. Common sense would require stepping back and going "you know that's not very likely maybe the explanations are valid and I shouldn't dismiss them offhand" and then we can debate how useful that language is to use. But not whether or not he's a heretic.

 

[John Nyberg]

apostate hymn singers

Sounds like the name of a Christian metal band.

 

[MW]

We're not talking about little kids soccer teams here, but massive orthodox institutions just dropped the ball. Or the other explanation is that they knew he meant it in two different senses, so no discipline was required.

I don't think this allows for the dynamics of the way a larger denomination works, the kind of academic liberty that is given to professors to engage on a broader level, and the traditional manner in which "philosophy" and "philosophical discussions" are treated in particular.

 

[faithandfreedom]

How does it contradict it, unless person is meant in the same sense? Only then is it a contradiction.

It contradicts the formula in the creeds precisely because person does not mean absolute personality, it means a subsistence within the Godhead.

You're asserting it's wrong and then agreeing with me that the framers of the creeds were well aware of the biblical language. I see no contradiction because the bible does use that language and merely extending the teaching is not wrong if everything before is affirmed
You see I'm not asserting without evidence. My evidence is the biblical language, the fact that he was not brought up on charges (you still haven't explained that one), and the had giants of the faith he was following.
Because if you're right then a whole lot of people are wrong (two massive institutions in fact). Do you think that the framers thought they had said everything with regards to this?

I am not saying that the framers thought that the biblical language, when referring to God in the singular, justified the thought of God as one person. I am saying that the framers interpreted the language of scripture to mean that God is one essence.

In terms of why he was not brought up on charges, Rev Winzer's comment sheds some light on this. I also suspect he was given more leeway due to being a prominent member of the OPC and a close friend of Machen, although this is speculation on my part. As I have previously mentioned, I believe there are men in Reformed circles who church members and ministers are reluctant to criticise, due to their prominence.

No the framers had not said everything regarding the Trinity. However, they took extreme care to set out a formula "one essence, three persons" which sets the boundaries for any future theological speculation.

It did exist in Idealism and Pragmatism (I believe) and absolute personality guarded against that. Context matters and his context was apologetical.

This may be an explanation for the source of the problem; Van Til and others sought to modify language used to describe the Trinity in order to engage with philosophical schools of the day. These philosophical ideas could have been refuted using the language and formulations that were already set out by the Church.

First it's two institutions massively dropping the ball, the apparent arbritrary ruling out the biblical language of one person,

There is no biblical language that I am aware of the warrants the use of the term "one person", one essence yes, one person no.

So the bible does not talk that way about God? For the record he did affirm "one essence and three persons".

I am aware that he did affirm this, but he then went on to claim that God is one person and three persons, which is problematic.

So you must be against Bavink's use of the absolute personality language as well because that's not in the creed? Unintended consequences again, you can't have one standard for Van Til but a different standard for everyone else.

I am not against Bavinck's use of the term "absolute personality", clearly that term is not in the creed, but that presents no problem. A term does not need to be in the creed to be Orthodox, however, any term used to describe God must not contradict the doctrine, as set forth in the creeds.

But this pushes the problem back even further. If Van Til was wrong for it and no charges were raised then Bavink, having led the way, is equally mysterious in facing no charges or criticism?

In terms of Bavinck, I did a little research and it seems that he sought to formulate a modified explanation of the Trinity in order to combat issues that were raised by certain philosophers.

The following quotes summarise this:

"While careful not to define the divine essence as ‘absolute personality,’ Bavinck does creatively appropriate absoluteness and personality to develop an Augustinian yet contemporary account of the relationship between the divine essence and persons. Keenly aware of the consequences of applying modern philosophical and psychological conceptions of personality univocally to theological articulations of the divine life, Bavinck appropriates the language of personality in his De Deo Trino with constant appeals to the broad historical consensus concerning the doctrine of the Trinity across ecclesiastical traditions. His goal is not novelty; his goal is to communicate the deeply historic, broadly catholic doctrine of the Trinity in and for modernity. However, while significant in his approach, Bavinck’s development here opens the doors for some confusion, particularly because he starts to utilize person and personality in multiple ways."


"Throughout his treatment Bavinck seeks to demonstrate how the Christian doctrine of God is unique in its ability to hold absoluteness and personality together. And, as such, this brief exploration shows various ways that Bavinck creatively appropriates modern philosophical concepts from within his classical, Reformed tradition in order to develop them in and for the context of modernity. Thus, more attention should continue to be paid to Bavinck’s articulation of the relationship between absoluteness and personality. Some areas that remain to be explored are how absoluteness and personality bear on Bavinck’s trinitarian metaphysics, along with an understanding of how it grounds the possibility of divine revelation as well as a more thorough investigation into the sources he draws on to develop his doctrine of the Trinity. Finally, it’s also apparent that the cracks that start to form in Bavinck’s appropriation need to be further studied. Does his reconciliation ultimately fall apart because of the confusing application of person and personality to the divine essence?"
https://digitalcollections.dordt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2427&context=faculty_work

As you rightly say it seems that Bavinck may be partly responsible for laying the groundwork upon which VT built his novel statement of the Trinity.

I also ran into the following quote that is attributed to Vos, although I am unable to confirm if it is definitely from him, since I don't have a copy of his Reformed Dogmatics:

"17. Must we ascribe personality to God’s being in itself?
No, for then we obtain four persons. The essence, however, is not impersonal for it exists in three persons. Only if one abstracts the essence from the latter can one say that it is not personal. (43)"

Geerhardus Vos, Theology Proper, vol. 1 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013), 17, 43.

 

[RamistThomist]

But my point is that if the only interpretation that's correct is that one, than how did two institutions of note miss that?

I have several suspicions on that point, and it is much deeper than Van til.

I would assume, as has been argued, this is about the doctrine of God so it's way more important than Eschatology.

That's true, but it boils down like this: Because Van til shifted the meaning of person, he committed the fallacy of equivocation. That fallacy saved his orthodoxy.

 

[MW]

That's true, but it boils down like this: Because Van til shifted the meaning of person, he committed the fallacy of equivocation. That fallacy saved his orthodoxy.

That is what the combination of analogy and paradox allows him to do. It is baked into the method. In the Intro to Systematic Theology he takes aim at the historic method of providing different categories for the Three and the One. He felt this did not do justice to the paradoxical nature of our theology.

 

[jwright82]

I don't think this allows for the dynamics of the way a larger denomination works, the kind of academic liberty that is given to professors to engage on a broader level, and the traditional manner in which "philosophy" and "philosophical discussions" are treated in particular.

Nicely put. I must admit knowing this stuff as an informed outsider, so I take the implied criticism of oversimplification. But unlike other institutions both are, hopefully, bound by confessional subscription and the doctrine of God is the most important part of that.
Also since my main goal was challenging the meaning it one way and one way only thought, I still think (simple or not) it's good evidence of that being wrong. Unless I misunderstood the argument.

 

[MW]

Nicely put. I must admit knowing this stuff as an informed outsider, so I take the implied criticism of oversimplification. But unlike other institutions both are, hopefully, bound by confessional subscription and the doctrine of God is the most important part of that.
Also since my main goal was challenging the meaning it one way and one way only thought, I still think (simple or not) it's good evidence of that being wrong. Unless I misunderstood the argument.

I am saying that these "dynamics" are reasons why he would not necessarily have been called to account for an error. You are right that Van Til was never formally disciplined, but I do not think that serves as a simple stamp of approval on the specific, controversial way he framed the Trinity. The reality is more complex.

Large denominations don't discipline every controversial idea. The machinery is slow and is often reserved for clear, practical denials of the faith. Van Til was a powerful ally against liberalism and neo-orthodoxy so his philosophical debates were often given a wide berth. Moreover, seminary professors like Van Til are given significant academic liberty to engage with philosophy on a speculative level. His project was seen as happening in the laboratory of the academy, where complex ideas are tested. The church often tolerates this as long as the theologian's overall goal is to defend orthodoxy, which Van Til's certainly was. And then you have the fact that many would have seen this as a philosopher's quarrel. The debate over "person" and "consciousness" within the rise of modern psychology was viewed as a technical discussion. The church has a long history of allowing such debates to play out among scholars without immediate disciplinary action.

In brief, the lack of discipline tells us more about the dynamics of the OPC and the role of academic theology than it does about the orthodoxy of Van Til's formulation.

 

[jwright82]

It contradicts the formula in the creeds precisely because person does not mean absolute personality, it means a subsistence within the Godhead.

Which he affirmed. But if he meant it in two different senses than no contradiction, you just seem to not like his way of saying it. Again back to my point, you seem to be operating on the assumption that he meant it in the same sense and therefore it's a contradiction.
That seems to be the only way to make sense out of what you're saying, one sense and one sense only.

I am not saying that the framers thought that the biblical language, when referring to God in the singular, justified the thought of God as one person. I am saying that the framers interpreted the language of scripture to mean that God is one essence.

An impersonal essence? So God is one part three persons and one part impersonal essence? I don't think that's what you mean but that's where Van Til was concerned. So building off of other thinkers he developed on absolute personality to avoid that line of thought.

In terms of why he was not brought up on charges, Rev Winzer's comment sheds some light on this. I also suspect he was given more leeway due to being a prominent member of the OPC and a close friend of Machen, although this is speculation on my part. As I have previously mentioned, I believe there are men in Reformed circles who church members and ministers are reluctant to criticise, due to their prominence.

Well this is speculation on both of our parts but the fact remains he was never brought up on charges.

No the framers had not said everything regarding the Trinity. However, they took extreme care to set out a formula "one essence, three persons" which sets the boundaries for any future theological speculation.

How does that do service to the biblical language? Also going back again to what I think is the underlying issue, how does one person (in one biblical sense) and three persons ( in a different biblical sense) contradict the creeds? If only if person is used in the same sense.
If it's used in different senses than all there's to debate is whether or not his development is orthodox or not, or even helpful.
Your apparent insistence that we must only speak about God's oneness in relation to his essence because that's all the creeds allow. I grant that creeds only speak about oneness that way but you also admit that the framers were well aware of the biblical language as well.
So then the case I'm making is how likely is it that the framers (reacting to one problem) ruled development to react to different problems? Bavink, Vos, and Van Til did exactly that. I also agree with your sentiment that the only way to ensure orthodoxy is by staying within the bounds of the creeds but history happens as you well know and expansions of dogma become necessary.

This may be an explanation for the source of the problem; Van Til and others sought to modify language used to describe the Trinity in order to engage with philosophical schools of the day. These philosophical ideas could have been refuted using the language and formulations that were already set out by the Church.

How? If it were that simple they wouldn't have needed to do what they did, either rightly or wrongly.

There is no biblical language that I am aware of the warrants the use of the term "one person", one essence yes, one person no.

I am aware that he did affirm this, but he then went on to claim that God is one person and three persons, which is problematic.

I think this gets to the heart of your problem person means the same thing in both uses of the term. Cut and dry, and that is a contradiction. But you haven't mentioned the two different senses ever that I'm aware. You seem to just appear to treat it one way and one way only.
Perhaps if you grant the two different senses and then show that that's still the same problem than you'd have something but you seem to be guilty of reductionist thinking about a complex problem.
History is reduced to a nice simple story. Sure the bible does speak about oneness in relation to God's activities but after the creeds it can only ever mean essence. But activities are done by person's so guys tried to incorporate this fact into our doctrine so as not to make any impersonal essence in God.
You seem to reduce Van Til's formulation to simply meaning the term in the same sense, which leads to a contradiction.
I would argue that the institutions involved mishandling the developments by these men is probably overly simplistic, but it's a lot of institutions involved. Taken in isolation each thing can be explained in a different way but taken together at least is evidence not proof that these men were not off the reservation as is being promoted.

I am not against Bavinck's use of the term "absolute personality", clearly that term is not in the creed, but that presents no problem. A term does not need to be in the creed to be Orthodox, however, any term used to describe God must not contradict the doctrine, as set forth in the creeds.


In terms of Bavinck, I did a little research and it seems that he sought to formulate a modified explanation of the Trinity in order to combat issues that were raised by certain philosophers.

The following quotes summarise this:



As you rightly say it seems that Bavinck may be partly responsible for laying the groundwork upon which VT built his novel statement of the Trinity.

I also ran into the following quote that is attributed to Vos, although I am unable to confirm if it is definitely from him, since I don't have a copy of his Reformed Dogmatics:



Geerhardus Vos, Theology Proper, vol. 1 of Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, trans. Annemie Godbehere (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2013), 17, 43.

Fair enough but you really seem to want, if I'm wrong here please correct me (I don't want to accuse you of saying stuff you're not saying, you're my brother in Christ) person to be used in the same sense in both uses. But you have yet, that I've seen, to show that Van Til's different senses contradict the creeds like person in the same sense. And your argument really hinges on that being true.
[automerge]1760315018[/automerge]

I have several suspicions on that point, and it is much deeper than Van til.

Well I'd be pretty interested in that story. Maybe you could PM it to me, thanks.

That's true, but it boils down like this: Because Van til shifted the meaning of person, he committed the fallacy of equivocation. That fallacy saved his orthodoxy.

Agreed. I've yet to read Tipton's book, as you have, so I'll wait till I do. But I have listened to his lectures and it seemed to make sense what he's saying.
[automerge]1760315320[/automerge]

I am saying that these "dynamics" are reasons why he would not necessarily have been called to account for an error. You are right that Van Til was never formally disciplined, but I do not think that serves as a simple stamp of approval on the specific, controversial way he framed the Trinity. The reality is more complex.

Large denominations don't discipline every controversial idea. The machinery is slow and is often reserved for clear, practical denials of the faith. Van Til was a powerful ally against liberalism and neo-orthodoxy so his philosophical debates were often given a wide berth. Moreover, seminary professors like Van Til are given significant academic liberty to engage with philosophy on a speculative level. His project was seen as happening in the laboratory of the academy, where complex ideas are tested. The church often tolerates this as long as the theologian's overall goal is to defend orthodoxy, which Van Til's certainly was. And then you have the fact that many would have seen this as a philosopher's quarrel. The debate over "person" and "consciousness" within the rise of modern psychology was viewed as a technical discussion. The church has a long history of allowing such debates to play out among scholars without immediate disciplinary action.

In brief, the lack of discipline tells us more about the dynamics of the OPC and the role of academic theology than it does about the orthodoxy of Van Til's formulation.

Again nicely put. I don't consider that proof but evidence. Whether or not that's how it played out is a fact we'll probably never know. And you're right, it doesn't mean he was orthodox but it also doesn't mean he was unorthodox either.

 

[DrJack]

Sounds like the name of a Christian metal band.

Nice!

[Didn't post this earlier, and I see the issue of "prominence of author" has already been addressed]

I just had a thought related to the issue being raised here, that of the split in the Free Church of Scotland in 2000. The "rock star" theologian / pastor / author had multiple allegations of serious sin (over a long period of time as I understand) and faced criminal charges. When he was cleared in the legal system, a subset of pastors (rightfully in my opinion) demanded an ecclesiastical trial. This process was denied and then the pastors who brought it up were persecuted and denied the right of protest. So a number of pastors & congregations broke away to form the FCoS(continuing). In 25 years there has been a significant deterioration in the practice of the CoS, moving away from the Confession.

I am NOT IN ANY FORM equating ambiguous language (person/persons) with flagrant sin, but simply noting that even confessional presbyterian denominations can make decisions that MIGHT be influenced by the perceived prominence of an individual. Is it inconceivable that this was not formally addressed out of such consideration? Interestingly, I note that the PCA is partnering w/ the FCoS (not the Continuing church) in missionary efforts through MTW.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I personally think it suffices to note that using that kind of language was unwise and unhelpful and that he could have communicated what he desired without confusing people or requiring others to defend the language and demonstrate equivocation on terms.

I think we sometimes forget how blessed we are that Reformed scholarship has been massively retrieved over the last thirty or so years. We have a certain luxury of time and precision that I don't think WTS (or even the OPC) had for years.

There was a time, for instance, when beleaguered believers really only had John Stott and a few others as thoughtful allies. Now we wonder why he was so popular, given his denial of an eternal Hell, but he was useful for his time. The consequences of that error have been most felt by Anglicans who liberalized from that error.

Look at John Frame as an example of one of his disciples. Useful in some ways, but not someone really interested in historical theology. I don't get the sense that Van Til was too interested in it, either,r or had access to the same rich trove of resources we had. I think many more Reofrmed teachers are aware of and kept in check by their Confessionas and its history than professors were. But those professors were under siege and very small compared to what we have today.

I'm not writing this in a patronizing way as if I were a much smarter and better man during that period. It is remarkable, for instance, that Van Til is writing about archetypal and ectypal theology and I believe his writing is (in many ways) an attempt to bring the Church back to something ihe was trying to articulate it had forgotten. But he wasn't necessarily able to benefit from Van Mastricht or others in the way we are today or even to have the kind of fast communication or access to so many resources.

I think it's just better to be grateful for his contributions. One thing I will note is that I rarely (if ever) read of his main critics as trying to get the Reformed faith back to its post-Reformational orthodox theology. If I saw some retrieval of the archetypal/ectypal distinction as a fair corrective then I'd be more heartened, but it's often a bare critique that completely misses this important thing that was lost as Cartesianism took hold in theology.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think we sometimes forget how blessed we are that Reformed scholarship has been massively retrieved over the last thirty or so years. We have a certain luxury of time and precision that I don't think WTS (or even the OPC) had for years.

That echoes what I wanted to say, and probably what I intended to get around to saying in the Sproul/Nestorian thread. Not only have we retrieved the scholastics, but we've also retrieved better evaluations from the Fathers. It is tempting among some Reformed to think the Fathers = Augustine (on predestination) and maybe Athanasius (he believed in the deity of Christ) and that's about it. I'm oversimplifying, but not by much. Sproul, for example, didn't understand Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy. Or if he did, he didn't let it inform his thinking.

 

[MW]

I think we sometimes forget how blessed we are that Reformed scholarship has been massively retrieved over the last thirty or so years. We have a certain luxury of time and precision that I don't think WTS (or even the OPC) had for years.

Good point! It is good to keep in mind, too, that the Reformed Church once had these resources and lost sight of them. We need to make sure we do not become complacent in our luxury or we might lose them again. Attainments must be maintained. I suppose this is why the Reformed tradition placed some value in the institutions that are fitted to keep up a lively sense of the attainments. Sadly they apostatised, which required new institutions like WTS; but obviously the new situation of WTS brought about a certain kind of retrieval that was limited in nature. They were also preoccupied with new threats which tended to distract attention away from historical sources.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That echoes what I wanted to say, and probably what I intended to get around to saying in the Sproul/Nestorian thread. Not only have we retrieved the scholastics, but we've also retrieved better evaluations from the Fathers. It is tempting among some Reformed to think the Fathers = Augustine (on predestination) and maybe Athanasius (he believed in the deity of Christ) and that's about it. I'm oversimplifying, but not by much. Sproul, for example, didn't understand Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy. Or if he did, he didn't let it inform his thinking.

Yes. Exactly.

I will one day meet R.C. in heaven and thank him that it was his book, Faith Alone, that converted me. It doesn't mean that I don't see some of the things he was imprecise about, but I have that luxury in light of the good work he did. I still listen to Renewing Your Mind every day and get much benefit from it, and find him (and others) profoundly insightful in many ways. It's easy to pick apart someone because we became laser focused on an important historical definition and lose sight that they may nto have had the time, resources, or focus to revisit certain things.