Van til and the Trinity

[jwright82]

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.

I look at it this way, he was never brought up on charges in the school or the OPC. So if there's a failure it involves way more than him. Or there's a reason no one bothered to do it. I won't speculate but that should give us pause. I mean a whole school being wrong and a whole denomination, both of which are very much orthodox BTW. There may be more to the story than we'll ever know. Just my two cents.

 

[Theoretical]

I do not know Dutch, but I wonder if English being a presumably second language may have played some role in terms of his personal translation dictionary so to speak. I wonder if in Dutch, there's 2 words that clearly articulate the proper distinctions between person and personality but his understanding of their English meaning is that he felt like the English word to address personality wasn't a strong enough use to describe what he was trying to do.

I have no firsthand knowledge here of his work, but I wonder if that subtly led to his speaking in a confusing way to accomplish an orthodox goal.

 

[RamistThomist]

I do not know Dutch, but I wonder if English being a presumably second language may have played some role in terms of his personal translation dictionary so to speak. I wonder if in Dutch, there's 2 words that clearly articulate the proper distinctions between person and personality but his understanding of their English meaning is that he felt like the English word to address personality wasn't a strong enough use to describe what he was trying to do.

I have no firsthand knowledge here of his work, but I wonder if that subtly led to his speaking in a confusing way to accomplish an orthodox goal.

Maybe but he came to America as a young boy and his English would have been more or less the same as a native born.

 

[Solparvus]

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.

Even to this day we know about Peter's offenses, alongside the incredible service that he did. At the time it was necessary that a regionally-circulated letter should call out Peter's Judaizing offense for the safety of the sheep. The Lord deemed that we still need to know about it 2000 years later. Just another reason to remember, "Be not many teachers." No man can appreciate to what extent he could influence God's people for better or worse.

No specific comments on Van Til, though I'm still wrestling with the issues of nature and personhood in relation to simplicity, so I hope to give this thread a much more slow read at some point.

 

[MW]

Maybe but he came to America as a young boy and his English would have been more or less the same as a native born.

Yes; his academic education to the highest level was done in English, as was his professorship. It is hard to believe he had a language problem. His commitment to paradox made him needlessly difficult to digest, unlike the common sense philosopher-theologians of the time, but he definitely knew what he was saying.

 

[greenbaggins]

I will let my review of Mathison's book stand as my reply.

 

[Theoretical]

Maybe but he came to America as a young boy and his English would have been more or less the same as a native born.

I appreciate that background and I wasn't sure.

 

[RamistThomist]

I will let my review of Mathison's book stand as my reply.

What do you think we are saying about CVT? No one is saying he is a heretic, only that is formulation wasn't helpful.

 

[greenbaggins]

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.

This goes quite a bit beyond saying that his formulation wasn't helpful. And no, not in vain at all. This seems to imply that all of VT is junk, despite your qualifications in other posts. You are seeming to say here that VT doesn't deserve any positive reputation whatsoever.

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

This goes quite a bit beyond saying that his formulation wasn't helpful.

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.

None of VT's followers believe (to my knowledge) that VT is immune to criticism. I have criticized him myself in the book review of Mathison.

What do you think we are saying about CVT? No one is saying he is a heretic, only that is formulation wasn't helpful.

Every few months on the PB people seem to find it helpful or necessary to criticize VT for something or other. To my knowledge, no other theologian in the entire Reformed world has been subjected to this on the PB. Sproul has problems in his Christology (he borders on Nestorianism, though not quite there), and his viewpoints on the second and fourth commandments, but he gets quite a pass. Sproul is arguably FAR more influential and celebrity-like a figure than VT ever was. And yet it is VT who gets bashed over and over and over again on this board. It is more than tiresome. It is ridiculous.

 

[Sam Jer]

This goes quite a bit beyond saying that his formulation wasn't helpful.

It was a genuine question that I got an abswer to. I didn't mean it as a rhethorical question!

 

[jwright82]

This goes quite a bit beyond saying that his formulation wasn't helpful. And no, not in vain at all. This seems to imply that all of VT is junk, despite your qualifications in other posts. You are seeming to say here that VT doesn't deserve any positive reputation whatsoever.

This goes quite a bit beyond saying that his formulation wasn't helpful.

None of VT's followers believe (to my knowledge) that VT is immune to criticism. I have criticized him myself in the book review of Mathison.

Every few months on the PB people seem to find it helpful or necessary to criticize VT for something or other. To my knowledge, no other theologian in the entire Reformed world has been subjected to this on the PB. Sproul has problems in his Christology (he borders on Nestorianism, though not quite there), and his viewpoints on the second and fourth commandments, but he gets quite a pass. Sproul is arguably FAR more influential and celebrity-like a figure than VT ever was. And yet it is VT who gets bashed over and over and over again on this board. It is more than tiresome. It is ridiculous.

Agreed.

 

[RamistThomist]

To my knowledge, no other theologian in the entire Reformed world has been subjected to this on the PB.

Perhaps. I couldn't say either way.

. Sproul has problems in his Christology (he borders on Nestorianism, though not quite there), and his viewpoints on the second and fourth commandments, but he gets quite a pass. Sproul is arguably FAR more influential and celebrity-like a figure than VT ever was.

Agreed.

 

[Sam Jer]

Every few months on the PB people seem to find it helpful or necessary to criticize VT for something or other. To my knowledge, no other theologian in the entire Reformed world has been subjected to this on the PB. Sproul has problems in his Christology (he borders on Nestorianism, though not quite there), and his viewpoints on the second and fourth commandments, but he gets quite a pass. Sproul is arguably FAR more influential and celebrity-like a figure than VT ever was. And yet it is VT who gets bashed over and over and over again on this board. It is more than tiresome. It is ridiculous.

Perhaps. I couldn't say either way.


Agreed.

I opened a new thread to clarify regarding Sproul, to avoid derailing this one

S

Thread 'R. C. Sproul and the Hypostatic union'

Oct 8, 2025

I did not want to derail the previous thread, so I will ask here.

Every few months on the PB people seem to find it helpful or necessary to criticize VT for something or other. To my knowledge, no other theologian in the entire Reformed world has been subjected to this on the PB. Sproul has problems in his Christology (he borders on Nestorianism, though not quite there), and his viewpoints on the second and fourth commandments, but he gets quite a pass. Sproul is arguably FAR more influential and celebrity-like a figure than VT ever was. And yet it is VT who gets bashed over...

• Sam Jer
• Replies: 37
• Forum: Theological Forum

 

[Ploutos]

Sproul has problems in his Christology (he borders on Nestorianism, though not quite there), and his viewpoints on the second and fourth commandments, but he gets quite a pass. Sproul is arguably FAR more influential and celebrity-like a figure than VT ever was.

Strong disagreement. I've never seen any indication that Sproul gets a pass here. Rather, PBers are so consistent in NOT giving him a pass on these issues that there's really nothing left to talk about. If you agree with his views on the 2nd and 4th commandments, you probably can't even be a member here.

 

[greenbaggins]

Strong disagreement. I've never seen any indication that Sproul gets a pass here. Rather, PBers are so consistent in NOT giving him a pass on these issues that there's really nothing left to talk about. If you agree with his views on the 2nd and 4th commandments, you probably can't even be a member here.

I'm talking about the frequency of criticism. I simply don't see Sproul coming up for the relentless criticism that VT gets here. I have thought many times that the board could almost truthfully rename itself "The Anti-Van Til Board."

 

[Ploutos]

I'm talking about the frequency of criticism. I simply don't see Sproul coming up for the relentless criticism that VT gets here. I have thought many times that the board could almost truthfully rename itself "The Anti-Van Til Board."

That's because there's nothing to discuss. This forum is largely unanimous in its rejection of his views here, so much so that membership is largely predicated on sharing in that rejection. It's a given, and givens are not much talked about by definition

Van Til, on the other hand, does have supporters determined to vociferously respond to every criticism made of him. That is why this happens and NOT because of any pervasive anti-CVT bias here. There are few places on the internet I can go to find more eloquent and determined defenses of CVT than some of the threads on here.

If there were a group of people here determined to defend Sproul's views on the 2nd and 4th commandments, I guarantee you that "The Anti Sproul Board" would also be a viable alternative name for the forum. I also guarantee you that I'd be able to find obituaries for Chris and Rich, because it's only over their dead bodies that I could imagine such a thing happening on here.

 

[greenbaggins]

That's because there's nothing to discuss. This forum is largely unanimous in its rejection of his views here, so much so that membership is largely predicated on sharing in that rejection. It's a given, and givens are not much talked about by definition

Hardly true. I do not reject what I believe him to have meant. And there are other Van Tillians on here (such as Alan Strange).

Van Til, on the other hand, does have supporters determined to vociferously respond to every criticism made of him. That is why this happens and NOT because of any pervasive anti-CVT bias here. There are few places on the internet I can go to find more eloquent and determined defenses of CVT than some of the threads on here.

From my perspective, the only reason I vociferously respond is because people seem so determined to attack him! Most people who have a bias don't think they have one. It is invisible to them. But I can assure you, as a convinced Van Tillian, the anti-VT bias of this board is glaringly, blindingly obvious.

 

[Ploutos]

Hardly true. I do not reject what I believe him to have meant. And there are other Van Tillians on here (such as Alan Strange).

From my perspective, the only reason I vociferously respond is because people seem so determined to attack him! Most people who have a bias don't think they have one. It is invisible to them. But I can assure you, as a convinced Van Tillian, the anti-VT bias of this board is glaringly, blindingly obvious.

You misread my antecedent. The forum is unanimous in its rejection of **Sproul's** views.

Some of the best arguments for Van Tillian thought that I've come across are on this board, and in many ways my perception of him has become more positive as a result. That speaks against your assertion that the board has it in for him.

 

[jwright82]

That's because there's nothing to discuss. This forum is largely unanimous in its rejection of his views here, so much so that membership is largely predicated on sharing in that rejection. It's a given, and givens are not much talked about by definition

Van Til, on the other hand, does have supporters determined to vociferously respond to every criticism made of him. That is why this happens and NOT because of any pervasive anti-CVT bias here. There are few places on the internet I can go to find more eloquent and determined defenses of CVT than some of the threads on here.

If there were a group of people here determined to defend Sproul's views on the 2nd and 4th commandments, I guarantee you that "The Anti Sproul Board" would also be a viable alternative name for the forum. I also guarantee you that I'd be able to find obituaries for Chris and Rich, because it's only over their dead bodies that I could imagine such a thing happening on here.

Do you feel that adequate answers are given to push past these things?

 

[greenbaggins]

You misread my antecedent. The forum is unanimous in its rejection of **Sproul's** views.

The nearer antecedent of "his" was Van Til in the post to which you were responding. It might just be possible that you weren't clear. ;-) Regardless, I am glad you were speaking of Sproul and not VT.

Some of the best arguments for Van Tillian thought that I've come across are on this board, and in many ways my perception of him has become more positive as a result. That speaks against your assertion that the board has it in for him.

Difference in perception, I guess. There might be many brilliant defenses people have offered. Doesn't mean VT isn't persistently a target for many people on this board.

 

[MW]

This goes quite a bit beyond saying that his formulation wasn't helpful. And no, not in vain at all. This seems to imply that all of VT is junk, despite your qualifications in other posts. You are seeming to say here that VT doesn't deserve any positive reputation whatsoever.

"All in vain" refers to the attempt to save his reputation on this point. I regularly speak to his praise on other points to do with presuppositional apologetics, arcetypal-ectypal theology, and related things; and I have consistently called for perspective and proportion in this thread.

 

[faithandfreedom]

None of VT's followers believe (to my knowledge) that VT is immune to criticism. I have criticized him myself in the book review of Mathison.

I may not have expressed myself clearly, but my point is that CVT was a prominent teacher who has had a wide influence, particularly in terms of training men for the ministry. In that sense he was somewhat of a celebrity compared to your average minister.

Stating that God is one person is problematic. the Trinity is one of the most important teachings of the faith. Prominent members of the Reformed community seem to acknowledge that the one person statement is an issue, but try to explain it away. I have previously given a similar example of a statement that if I were to make, I would rightly be pilloried. I also suggested how this statement could be explained away.

Words matter, this is why we ascribe to confessions that use extra biblical language, which has been very carefully chosen to explain vital doctrines. As I have said before, would we be so charitable in our reading of a RC theologian for example?

Every few months on the PB people seem to find it helpful or necessary to criticize VT for something or other. To my knowledge, no other theologian in the entire Reformed world has been subjected to this on the PB. Sproul has problems in his Christology (he borders on Nestorianism, though not quite there), and his viewpoints on the second and fourth commandments, but he gets quite a pass. Sproul is arguably FAR more influential and celebrity-like a figure than VT ever was. And yet it is VT who gets bashed over and over and over again on this board. It is more than tiresome. It is ridiculous.

Since I began the thread I feel somewhat responsible for the sentiments that you are expressing in this quote. I have explained the celebrity aspect already. I am new here, so have no knowledge of previous criticism of VT. I was under the impression that VT was held in high regard by many in the US.

I have not read any of Sproul’s work so I cannot comment on that. I would respectfully disagree with you characterising this thread as VT bashing. I am simply responding to teaching that VT put into the public domain - I believe I have a right and a responsibility to do that.
[automerge]1759962347[/automerge]

Difference in perception, I guess. There might be many brilliant defenses people have offered. Doesn't mean VT isn't persistently a target for many people on this board.

Again, having begun the thread I would disagree with the characterisation of “targetting”. I would stress that it is the teaching that is being critiqued and not the man.

I have no idea what VT was like as a person, but I’d happily sit down for a beer with him if he were alive.

 

[jwright82]

I may not have expressed myself clearly, but my point is that CVT was a prominent teacher who has had a wide influence, particularly in terms of training men for the ministry. In that sense he was somewhat of a celebrity compared to your average minister.

Stating that God is one person is problematic. the Trinity is one of the most important teachings of the faith. Prominent members of the Reformed community seem to acknowledge that the one person statement is an issue, but try to explain it away. I have previously given a similar example of a statement that if I were to make, I would rightly be pilloried. I also suggested how this statement could be explained away.

Words matter, this is why we ascribe to confessions that use extra biblical language, which has been very carefully chosen to explain vital doctrines. As I have said before, would we be so charitable in our reading of a RC theologian for example?


Since I began the thread I feel somewhat responsible for the sentiments that you are expressing in this quote. I have explained the celebrity aspect already. I am new here, so have no knowledge of previous criticism of VT. I was under the impression that VT was held in high regard by many in the US.

I have not read any of Sproul’s work so I cannot comment on that. I would respectfully disagree with you characterising this thread as VT bashing. I am simply responding to teaching that VT put into the public domain - I believe I have a right and a responsibility to do that.
[automerge]1759962347[/automerge]

Again, having begun the thread I would disagree with the characterisation of “targetting”. I would stress that it is the teaching that is being critiqued and not the man.

I have no idea what VT was like as a person, but I’d happily sit down for a beer with him if he were alive.

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.

 

[MW]

Lane is correct, a thread will get started and then us Vantillian's will respond and then on and on and on.

If you ask me these threads are pussy cats compared with the days when we had the more rabid Clarkians going hammer and tongs against Van Til.

 

[jwright82]

If you ask me these threads are pussy cats compared with the days when we had the more rabid Clarkians going hammer and tongs against Van Til.

You know I actually I remember that. Good form sir, good form. I may stand corrected. In fact I think I may have participated in some of those.

 

[jwright82]

If you ask me these threads are pussy cats compared with the days when we had the more rabid Clarkians going hammer and tongs against Van Til.

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. We owe everyone that much.
I'm not Clarkian but I'd be the first to defend him against the spurious claim that he denied out and out knowledge through the senses. It's true that he did say that and in my opinion it's probably his rather dated philosophy.
But to truly get after what he's saying you have to understand the Augustinian background of those statements. That's he may very well be guilty of that view but showing it by tackling the background (philosophical and Augustinian) is a different matter all together.
Surely we owe everyone, including Van Til, the same thing. If you want to to understand Clark on this read Ronald Nash's PhD thesis entitled "Light Of The Mind". Although I can't remember if he brings up Clark but it's an incredible book on understanding Augustine.

 

[RamistThomist]

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. We owe everyone that much.

Fun fact: I actually know the background context for his claim about "concrete universal." I actually think it is fairly impressive. I don't think many Van Tillians (few of his critics) understand him on that point.

 

[jwright82]

Fun fact: I actually know the background context for his claim about "concrete universal." I actually think it is fairly impressive. I don't think many Van Tillians (few of his critics) understand him on that point.

Do share. I always thought he appropriated it from Idealism.

 

[RamistThomist]

Do share. I always thought he appropriated it from Idealism.

I'm hesitant to say CVT took it from Idealism or Hegel because some of his defenders, upon hearing the word "idealism," think I am saying he was an Idealist. I am not saying that. That said, yes, he borrowed it from Idealism. When you read him on Idealism, pay attention to the names Bradley and Boussanquet. The following discussion references Tseng's book on Hegel.

Substance metaphysics says that universals are defined (or determined) by their abstract forms. Not only is such a process mechanical, it is empty. The abstract form of cat does not exist the way this cat does (87). When Hegel says abstractions do not exist, he is not a nominalist. Take the sentence

“This cat is small and that cat is big.” Each cat is an abstract particular. Having gotten our unity by generalizing, “by abstracting from particulars in order to include them into larger unities,” we have emptied these universal forms of any real definable content (Van Til). What Hegel (and Van Til) suggest is a concrete universal.

A concrete universal, then, “is conceptually comprehended as absolute spirit as a concrete living substance” (Tseng 89). It is “the organic unity of every particular thing, and it makes every particular meaningfully related to all others.”

That helps, but it is not the clearest. Here is my tentative effort. Instead of seeing “this cat” as an exemplar of the form “Cat-ness,” “this cat” is now a focal point to the universal reality of cat. Quite so, but what is the payoff for Van Til? Van Til wants to see the Trinity as a concrete universal. This might work, but Van Til’s often sloppy language prevents it from fully working.

As such, a divine person would be the particular that “fully exhausts” the divine essence. Perhaps, but one has to be careful in seeing a divine person as a “particular.”

 

[jwright82]

I'm hesitant to say CVT took it from Idealism or Hegel because some of his defenders, upon hearing the word "idealism," think I am saying he was an Idealist. I am not saying that. That said, yes, he borrowed it from Idealism. When you read him on Idealism, pay attention to the names Bradley and Boussanquet. The following discussion references Tseng's book on Hegel.

Substance metaphysics says that universals are defined (or determined) by their abstract forms. Not only is such a process mechanical, it is empty. The abstract form of cat does not exist the way this cat does (87). When Hegel says abstractions do not exist, he is not a nominalist. Take the sentence

“This cat is small and that cat is big.” Each cat is an abstract particular. Having gotten our unity by generalizing, “by abstracting from particulars in order to include them into larger unities,” we have emptied these universal forms of any real definable content (Van Til). What Hegel (and Van Til) suggest is a concrete universal.

A concrete universal, then, “is conceptually comprehended as absolute spirit as a concrete living substance” (Tseng 89). It is “the organic unity of every particular thing, and it makes every particular meaningfully related to all others.”

That helps, but it is not the clearest. Here is my tentative effort. Instead of seeing “this cat” as an exemplar of the form “Cat-ness,” “this cat” is now a focal point to the universal reality of cat. Quite so, but what is the payoff for Van Til? Van Til wants to see the Trinity as a concrete universal. This might work, but Van Til’s often sloppy language prevents it from fully working.

As such, a divine person would be the particular that “fully exhausts” the divine essence. Perhaps, but one has to be careful in seeing a divine person as a “particular.”

This is good, very thought provoking. About to start work and I'll think about it. Thanks.