Van til and the Trinity

[faithandfreedom]

I’ve just finished Dr Mathison’s book on Van Til and was interested to see that Van Til taught that the Trinity was one person and three persons.

How was he able to get away with this? The ecumenical councils established that the Trinity is three persons. Surely Van Til was fully aware of the Orthodox teaching.

 

[RamistThomist]

I’ve just finished Dr Mathison’s book on Van Til and was interested to see that Van Til taught that the Trinity was one person and three persons.

How was he able to get away with this? The ecumenical councils established that the Trinity is three persons. Surely Van Til was fully aware of the Orthodox teaching.

Short answer: he equivocated on person to mean personality in the first instance and person in the second instance. So technically, on the most charitable reading, he wasn't saying formal nonsense. It was still a terrible way to talk about the Trinity.

 

[jwright82]

I’ve just finished Dr Mathison’s book on Van Til and was interested to see that Van Til taught that the Trinity was one person and three persons.

How was he able to get away with this? The ecumenical councils established that the Trinity is three persons. Surely Van Til was fully aware of the Orthodox teaching.

Review: Lane Tipton's The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til - The Heidelblog

We live in an age that has lost the plot. In this case it is not the world at large, but rather the broadly Protestant/evangelical world in the West—many things taken almost for granted by previous generations of Christians are met with bewilderment or even scorn by modern American believers.…

heidelblog.net

Lane G. Tipton wrote his dissertation on this subject and here's a review of it. Jacob also reviewed the book on here. But you raise a good point. Having not read Mathison's book I can't comment on that. But he's a member of this site.
How was he able to get away with it? It almost has a conspiracy like tone to it because he was in fact never brought up on charges for anything. Now to be fair to both sides of this debate, it should be pointed out that because of how central Van Til was to WTS Philadelphia and the OPC's existence I'm sure there's a kind of letting him slide on this involved whether for right or for wrong. But they were human beings after all.
But also it could be the case as John Frame points out in various places something like "he's guilty of equivocating on the term person but not heresy". That's that he used the term "person" in two different ways in his definition, that's sloppy for sure but probably not heresy. God acts like one person, like the statement "God rescued the Israelites from captivity to Egypt", but we know that he's "Three Persons With One Essence".
As you pointed out, he knew better but he didn't think he was doing that. So having not read either book, I can't comment on that but I do plan to get Tipton's book for Christmas.
A bit of history to place the context, from his PhD dissertation on he was always admittedly concerned to protect the Orthodox Theology of God. I think most of, if not all, of the criticism of him here would never say he knowingly contradicted the Creeds or Orthodox Theology but that in some way he unknowingly did that despite his zeal.
But it's a reasonable concern to have and to debate. He has been defended. I'll try to find some stuff for you to digest on this without buying a book.
It's also true that we do talk about God in a meaningful sense as acting like "one person", "God answered my prayers" for instance. When we hear somebody say that, we understand it and it's biblical. So I would keep all this in mind when studying this subject about Van Til's thought and I'll see what I can find.
[automerge]1759357449[/automerge]

Here's a video of Tipton on this subject. It's a multi parted series of videos. I think you can listen to all of them in this link.

 

[jwright82]

Nevermind. Let me post some others. For you.

 

[jwright82]

The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til - Reformed Faith & Practice

The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til, by Lane G. Tipton. Libertyville, IL: Reformed Forum, 2022. Pp. xiii + 181, $34.99, hardcover. I comment often in class, “I am Van Tilian . . . with a smile.” Tipton, a former longtime professor at Westminster Theological Seminary and now a Fellow of...

journal.rts.edu

Here's another review of the same book. I'm trying to find one from Frame on this. I'll keep looking.

 

[jwright82]

View of Van Til’s Insights on the Trinity | Global Missiology English

Here's one last essay defending Van Til on this. I hope it suffices. If you have any more questions than please post them.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Short answer: he equivocated on person to mean personality in the first instance and person in the second instance. So technically, on the most charitable reading, he wasn't saying formal nonsense. It was still a terrible way to talk about the Trinity.

That’s a helpful summary, thank you.
[automerge]1759442960[/automerge]

Review: Lane Tipton's The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til - The Heidelblog

We live in an age that has lost the plot. In this case it is not the world at large, but rather the broadly Protestant/evangelical world in the West—many things taken almost for granted by previous generations of Christians are met with bewilderment or even scorn by modern American believers.…

heidelblog.net

Lane G. Tipton wrote his dissertation on this subject and here's a review of it. Jacob also reviewed the book on here. But you raise a good point. Having not read Mathison's book I can't comment on that. But he's a member of this site.
How was he able to get away with it? It almost has a conspiracy like tone to it because he was in fact never brought up on charges for anything. Now to be fair to both sides of this debate, it should be pointed out that because of how central Van Til was to WTS Philadelphia and the OPC's existence I'm sure there's a kind of letting him slide on this involved whether for right or for wrong. But they were human beings after all.
But also it could be the case as John Frame points out in various places something like "he's guilty of equivocating on the term person but not heresy". That's that he used the term "person" in two different ways in his definition, that's sloppy for sure but probably not heresy. God acts like one person, like the statement "God rescued the Israelites from captivity to Egypt", but we know that he's "Three Persons With One Essence".
As you pointed out, he knew better but he didn't think he was doing that. So having not read either book, I can't comment on that but I do plan to get Tipton's book for Christmas.
A bit of history to place the context, from his PhD dissertation on he was always admittedly concerned to protect the Orthodox Theology of God. I think most of, if not all, of the criticism of him here would never say he knowingly contradicted the Creeds or Orthodox Theology but that in some way he unknowingly did that despite his zeal.
But it's a reasonable concern to have and to debate. He has been defended. I'll try to find some stuff for you to digest on this without buying a book.
It's also true that we do talk about God in a meaningful sense as acting like "one person", "God answered my prayers" for instance. When we hear somebody say that, we understand it and it's biblical. So I would keep all this in mind when studying this subject about Van Til's thought and I'll see what I can find.
[automerge]1759357449[/automerge]

Here's a video of Tipton on this subject. It's a multi parted series of videos. I think you can listen to all of them in this link.

Thank you for the helpful response and the resources you shared. I will interact with them and may come back with further queries

 

[RamistThomist]

That’s a helpful summary, thank you.
[automerge]1759442960[/automerge]

Thank you for the helpful response and the resources you shared. I will interact with them and may come back with further queries

I reviewed the Tipton volume here.

The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til (Tipton)

Tipton, Lane G. The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til. Libertyville, IL: Reformed Forum, 2022. Greg Bahnsen explained Van Til’s apologetic method. John Frame touched on broader theolo…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Here is the heart of our frustration: Usually when we mention to Van Til's disciples that his formula of the Trinity is terrible, they will say, "But he loved Chalcedon!" That's great, but that's not the issue at hand.

If pressed, they will then tell us we need to listen to 10+ hours of Tipton's lectures to see that CVT was right. No, we don't. If you say the Trinity is three persons and one person, the onus isn't on me to listen to 10 hours to prove that your formula is acceptable.

 

[MW]

How was he able to get away with this?

It appears he didn't get away with it; that is why people are trying to save his reputation. All in vain, as far as I can see. But it would be worthwhile reading the articles so as to understand where he was coming from. He didn't do this in a vacuum. There was a theological milieu. And since we belong to that milieu it is important to be awake to the dangers. "Always reforming" has its pitfalls.

 

[jwright82]

It appears he didn't get away with it; that is why people are trying to save his reputation. All in vain, as far as I can see. But it would be worthwhile reading the articles so as to understand where he was coming from. He didn't do this in a vacuum. There was a theological milieu. And since we belong to that milieu it is important to be awake to the dangers. "Always reforming" has its pitfalls.

I agree. I mean we must be honest it was a sloppy way to say it but as you said it's worth while to figure out where he's coming from. I do think at best he's guilty of equivocating on terms but not heresy.
[automerge]1759542311[/automerge]

I reviewed the Tipton volume here.

The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til (Tipton)

Tipton, Lane G. The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til. Libertyville, IL: Reformed Forum, 2022. Greg Bahnsen explained Van Til’s apologetic method. John Frame touched on broader theolo…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Here is the heart of our frustration: Usually when we mention to Van Til's disciples that his formula of the Trinity is terrible, they will say, "But he loved Chalcedon!" That's great, but that's not the issue at hand.

If pressed, they will then tell us we need to listen to 10+ hours of Tipton's lectures to see that CVT was right. No, we don't. If you say the Trinity is three persons and one person, the onus isn't on me to listen to 10 hours to prove that your formula is acceptable.

Again he's probably guilty of equivocating but not heresy. I think you're right about the response I gave with lectures but I don't have the time to go into all of that at that time. Now I do and I think just admitting to equivocating is suffice to answer it. But his history and influence of various thinkers on this might say even out the sharp edges of his mistake.

 

[faithandfreedom]

I reviewed the Tipton volume here.

The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til (Tipton)

Tipton, Lane G. The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til. Libertyville, IL: Reformed Forum, 2022. Greg Bahnsen explained Van Til’s apologetic method. John Frame touched on broader theolo…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

Here is the heart of our frustration: Usually when we mention to Van Til's disciples that his formula of the Trinity is terrible, they will say, "But he loved Chalcedon!" That's great, but that's not the issue at hand.

If pressed, they will then tell us we need to listen to 10+ hours of Tipton's lectures to see that CVT was right. No, we don't. If you say the Trinity is three persons and one person, the onus isn't on me to listen to 10 hours to prove that your formula is acceptable.

Thank you for sharing your review. I thought it was interesting that you brought up Aquinas, I would like to do more reading to ascertain his understanding of the Trinity since he is such an influential theologian.
[automerge]1759562835[/automerge]

Review: Lane Tipton's The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til - The Heidelblog

We live in an age that has lost the plot. In this case it is not the world at large, but rather the broadly Protestant/evangelical world in the West—many things taken almost for granted by previous generations of Christians are met with bewilderment or even scorn by modern American believers.…

heidelblog.net

Lane G. Tipton wrote his dissertation on this subject and here's a review of it. Jacob also reviewed the book on here. But you raise a good point. Having not read Mathison's book I can't comment on that. But he's a member of this site.
How was he able to get away with it? It almost has a conspiracy like tone to it because he was in fact never brought up on charges for anything. Now to be fair to both sides of this debate, it should be pointed out that because of how central Van Til was to WTS Philadelphia and the OPC's existence I'm sure there's a kind of letting him slide on this involved whether for right or for wrong. But they were human beings after all.
But also it could be the case as John Frame points out in various places something like "he's guilty of equivocating on the term person but not heresy". That's that he used the term "person" in two different ways in his definition, that's sloppy for sure but probably not heresy. God acts like one person, like the statement "God rescued the Israelites from captivity to Egypt", but we know that he's "Three Persons With One Essence".
As you pointed out, he knew better but he didn't think he was doing that. So having not read either book, I can't comment on that but I do plan to get Tipton's book for Christmas.
A bit of history to place the context, from his PhD dissertation on he was always admittedly concerned to protect the Orthodox Theology of God. I think most of, if not all, of the criticism of him here would never say he knowingly contradicted the Creeds or Orthodox Theology but that in some way he unknowingly did that despite his zeal.
But it's a reasonable concern to have and to debate. He has been defended. I'll try to find some stuff for you to digest on this without buying a book.
It's also true that we do talk about God in a meaningful sense as acting like "one person", "God answered my prayers" for instance. When we hear somebody say that, we understand it and it's biblical. So I would keep all this in mind when studying this subject about Van Til's thought and I'll see what I can find.
[automerge]1759357449[/automerge]

Here's a video of Tipton on this subject. It's a multi parted series of videos. I think you can listen to all of them in this link.

"It's also true that we do talk about God in a meaningful sense as acting like "one person", "God answered my prayers" for instance. When we hear somebody say that, we understand it and it's biblical."

Regarding this, is it not true that rather than talking about God as one person, we actually refer to "One God" and when we do that the work of each of the three persons is entailed? Equally when we talk about one of the persons, all three of the persons is involved in whatever action we are discussing? So whenever we talk about God we talk about the Three and whenever we talk about the Three we are talking about God?

 

[jwright82]

Thank you for sharing your review. I thought it was interesting that you brought up Aquinas, I would like to do more reading to ascertain his understanding of the Trinity since he is such an influential theologian.
[automerge]1759562835[/automerge]

"It's also true that we do talk about God in a meaningful sense as acting like "one person", "God answered my prayers" for instance. When we hear somebody say that, we understand it and it's biblical."

Regarding this, is it not true that rather than talking about God as one person, we actually refer to "One God" and when we do that the work of each of the three persons is entailed? Equally when we talk about one of the persons, all three of the persons is involved in whatever action we are discussing? So whenever we talk about God we talk about the Three and whenever we talk about the Three we are talking about God?

Yes I agree but to ordinary people, they don't really think that deeply into it. Specifying one God is fine and correct but I think when I made those statements I more emphasized "like one person" not the same as "one person". That's equivocating again but I'm not because I'm pointing out how the term is being used in different way.
If I didn't state it that way, than my apologies that's what I meant. Like "one person" not the same as "one person".

 

[faithandfreedom]

Yes I agree but to ordinary people, they don't really think that deeply into it. Specifying one God is fine and correct but I think when I made those statements I more emphasized "like one person" not the same as "one person". That's equivocating again but I'm not because I'm pointing out how the term is being used in different way.
If I didn't state it that way, than my apologies that's what I meant. Like "one person" not the same as "one person".

That makes sense. Sorry if I misrepresented what you were saying.

 

[jwright82]

That makes sense. Sorry if I misrepresented what you were saying.

No problem my friend. That's why it's called a discussion amongst friends.

 

[greenbaggins]

It is not necessary to listen to 10 plus hours of Lane Tipton to understand what precisely VT was saying: he was saying, by his formulation, that the essence of God is personal. In doing so, he was following Bavinck's formulations (see particularly volume 2, pp. 301-3 where he says "The three persons are the one divine personality brought to complete self-unfolding, a self-unfoldment arising out of, by the agency of, and within the divine being"). He did it in a provocative way, one that I would not typically recommend to pastors to use because of the confusion possible. But that is what he meant, and any attempt to say otherwise will be guilty of false witness.

 

[MW]

One can express a genuine opinion on someone's teaching, and be flat out mistaken, but not be guilty of bearing false witness. At any rate, at the risk of being charged with bearing false witness, I think the presentation does more than open the possibility to confusion. It is in itself confusing. There is also a restructuring of the doctrine around absolute personality. This begins in subtle ways with Bavinck but is taken to logical conclusions in Van Til.

For Van Til, Unipersonality is pressed as a theological maxim in its own right: "We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person." It is not an explanation of how person unfolds from being. It is now made the definition of God's unity: "we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God, we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective 'personality' may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality; He is absolute personality."

In the case of Van Til there was also an apologetical paradox. He pushed this new definition of God's numerical identity into a mystery in and of itself. This is the fundamental danger of his view of paradox. It opens the door for new doctrines that one has no way of refuting on rational grounds.

 

[Sam Jer]

For Van Til, Unipersonality is pressed as a theological maxim in its own right: "We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person." It is not an explanation of how person unfolds from being. It is now made the definition of God's unity: "we must maintain that God is numerically one. He is one person. When we say that we believe in a personal God, we do not merely mean that we believe in a God to whom the adjective 'personality' may be attached. God is not an essence that has personality; He is absolute personality."

How is this diffrent from the unitarianism of Islam and Rabbinical Jews?

 

[MW]

How is this diffrent from the unitarianism of Islam and Rabbinical Jews?

He acknowledged three persons who are God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is important to keep this in perspective.

 

[Sam Jer]

He acknowledged three persons who are God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is important to keep this in perspective.

So is he using two diffrent meanings for the word person?

 

[Ploutos]

Is it at all worth noting - since we live in an age of such confusion and ignorance regarding traditional terminologies and categories - that most people probably also don't understand the "three persons" part of this as well? I have to frequently remind myself that these are not "persons" in the ordinary sense of the word in which I use it. I wonder if this played in at all to the way in which Van Til used these terms. I also wonder if it was a language issue as well.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

How is this diffrent from the unitarianism of Islam and Rabbinical Jews?

Van Til believes in the Triune God of Scripture. He affirms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, Van Til expressed the Godhead in terms of One Person, which has clearly caused issues. Dr. Mathison has written in a few different formats expressing concerns that need to be taken seriously. Hand-waving is not the solution (I'm eager for Reformed Forum to continue the dialogue with Dr. Mathison, someday!).

While there has been disagreement on why, it seems clear to me that Van Til is trying to avoid the idea of the Trinity as a grouping mechanism or an impersonal force. While I do not agree with the "one person" nomenclature, I also see a need today to reject the Trinity as an impersonal force, and/or a tendency to present a social Trinity grouped only in activity, and not in essence as One Personal God. Since God is One (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 44:6; 45:21-22; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, see WSC 5), I am sympathetic to language that desires to present God as a unified, personal being. However, I believe that investigating inseparable operations, more helpfully, confronts these issues.

I don't have the book, but another thread provided this definition from Matthew Barrett's Simply Trinity:

Inseparable operations: Since the persons of the Trinity are indivisible in essence, they are also indivisible in their external operations. Having the one, simple will in common, they perform a singular act in any external operation. Contrast with APPROPRIATION(S).

One essence, one nature, one will, Three Persons. This language is more helpful than one person, three persons.

Also, let the record show, I did not suggest any 10-hour listening projects.

 

[Pictet]

Is it at all worth noting - since we live in an age of such confusion and ignorance regarding traditional terminologies and categories - that most people probably also don't understand the "three persons" part of this as well? I have to frequently remind myself that these are not "persons" in the ordinary sense of the word in which I use it. I wonder if this played in at all to the way in which Van Til used these terms. I also wonder if it was a language issue as well.

This surely must be central to what he was doing? 'Person' is a word that has shifted drastically in meaning since it was first used. Van Til was trying to adjust to that - though in a way that hasn't helped in the long term.

 

[MW]

Is it at all worth noting - since we live in an age of such confusion and ignorance regarding traditional terminologies and categories - that most people probably also don't understand the "three persons" part of this as well? I have to frequently remind myself that these are not "persons" in the ordinary sense of the word in which I use it. I wonder if this played in at all to the way in which Van Til used these terms. I also wonder if it was a language issue as well.

This is a given in the professional field of Systematic Theology. He specifically drew on Bavinck who recognised Augustine's maxim that we use the word Person so as to give some expression to what are the Three. But it is just here that the lines become tangled and what should be confined to the Three is applied to the One.

 

[MW]

So is he using two diffrent meanings for the word person?

This is where it becomes very technical, but no, the language of absolute personality does not allow for equivocation. Yet I suppose Van Til would want to say he was speaking analogically. This is the point where his theory of paradox takes over. Traditional theology would say He is not Three and One in the same sense. Van Til would challenge that as being a form of rationalism that is doing away with the "mystery." At that point any attempt to critique the formulation would be seen as a challenge to the mystery.

 

[faithandfreedom]

It appears that most would say that the language that Van Til used was at best, confusing and at worst, problematic.

I guess I find it a little perplexing that people hold him in so high regard as a reformed theologian, when he was unable to clearly state his understanding of the Trinity.

We confessionalists are quick to call out errors in Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox teaching, but seem unconcerned with lack of precision from prominent members of our tribe.

A number of folks have said that Van Til used the language of one person and three persons to show that God is personal in his essence. This may be so, but he could easily have done this in a clearer manner and I am sure that he had the intellect to understand the implications of what he wrote. His statements were the result of mature reflection and not tweets sent out in the heat of the moment on social media.

What if I were to say “God is one God, but also three Gods.”?

I could say that I made this statement in an attempt to guard the truth that each of the persons of the Godhead is fully God. Does that make this an acceptable statement of Orthodoxy?

 

[MW]

We confessionalists are quick to call out errors in Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox teaching, but seem unconcerned with lack of precision from prominent members of our tribe.

We try to keep things in perspective and address matters with a sense of proportion. Van Til was a Christian, Protestant, Reformed, Presbyterian minister and Professor. We should give respect where it is due. As I noted, he has been called to account over this and his defenders have attempted to save his reputation. Some of the resources listed on this thread are testimony to that. Personally I would be happy to let Van Til rest in peace but he is a prominent figure who exercises continuing influence after his death. That means we have to deal with it to some extent and enter into "damage control." But we also want to make sure we do not detract from his genuine contributions.

 

[RamistThomist]

To oversimplify it, Person is what modifies the divine essence: Unbegotten, Begotten, Spirated.

Eternal generation is a relation of origin. The Cappadocian Fathers clarify this language. Gregory of Nazianzus says that terms like “Father” or “Son” designate a relationship, not an essence or activity (Gregory, Oration 29, quoted in White, 144). There is a connection between the difference of mutual relations and the difference of names (Oration 31).

So then, how do persons relate to the divine essence? The Cappadocians give us another phrase: persons are subsistent modes of being and relate to each other by way of origin (White 146).

Thomas Joseph White, The Trinity.

 

[faithandfreedom]

We try to keep things in perspective and address matters with a sense of proportion. Van Til was a Christian, Protestant, Reformed, Presbyterian minister and Professor. We should give respect where it is due. As I noted, he has been called to account over this and his defenders have attempted to save his reputation. Some of the resources listed on this thread are testimony to that. Personally I would be happy to let Van Til rest in peace but he is a prominent figure who exercises continuing influence after his death. That means we have to deal with it to some extent and enter into "damage control." But we also want to make sure we do not detract from his genuine contributions.

Apologies if I have caused offence to anyone. I am just genuinely concerned that we tend to raise up some men to a celebrity status in Reformed circles and they become immune to criticism. Van Til wrote for the Christian public and all I have done is interacted with what he has written. I am not sure how that lacks a sense of proportion.

I have not said that he is a heretic and I don’t believe him to be. However I have serious concerns about his influence and teachings.

In terms of him being a Professor etc I think it is dangerous to suggest that a man deserves to be respected due to his position as a ordained man. A man must earn respect through his actions. (This paragraph is a general statement and should not be taken as a comment on Van Til)

As I understand it, we have a duty as Christians weigh statements made by any minister/teacher of the Gospel in the light of historic church teaching and the scriptures. A lack of knowledge and understanding amongst the laity is the death knell of the Church.

Having said all that, I recognise that I am new here and that what I have said in this post may not be welcome. This is not my discussion board and I am happy to moderate my tone, if that is what is desired.

Blessings.

 

[MW]

Apologies if I have caused offence to anyone. I am just genuinely concerned that we tend to raise up some men to a celebrity status in Reformed circles and they become immune to criticism. Van Til wrote for the Christian public and all I have done is interacted with what he has written. I am not sure how that lacks a sense of proportion.

No problem. It is a fine line between criticism and respect.

On celebrity status, even Jesus had His time of popularity and a pinnacle moment when they would make Him king. He refused it, but He still used it. The individual himself must use the gifts that God has given to him. He learns to deal with it in his own way, hopefully with grace and humility. The crowd is to be blamed for praising the gift and forgetting the Giver.

 

[faithandfreedom]

No problem. It is a fine line between criticism and respect.

On celebrity status, even Jesus had His time of popularity and a pinnacle moment when they would make Him king. He refused it, but He still used it. The individual himself must use the gifts that God has given to him. He learns to deal with it in his own way, hopefully with grace and humility. The crowd is to be blamed for praising the gift and forgetting the Giver.

Many thanks.

I would like to reiterate that I am not here to cause offence to anyone. I am here to engage in robust Christian debate in a spirit of honesty and mutual trust.

I am thankful to all who have interacted with my posts and particularly those who have pushed back on points that I have made. To be able to discuss Christian doctrine with brothers and sisters in Christ is an immense privilege.