Van til and the Trinity

[MW]

Letham in his usual style is careful to say that VT's intention may be good but his formula leads to heresy. Furthermore, he is unambiguous in stating that a term other than "one person" is required to express God's one essence "exactly what the fathers used" i.e. "one essence, three persons"

Not directly; he is saying that is what would follow as a consequence if you denied his "reasons." Van Til didn't deny his reasons. In fact the second quotation from Letham shows that he understood Van Til did not use the word person in the relational sense. He understood Van Til to be speaking so as to affirm God is not less than personal. The "essence" is not some fourth thing additional to the "persons." As I noted earlier, if the essence is something different you end up with a fourth something. The tradition stops short of this and is willing to let the mystery stand. Van Til goes too far in trying to explain it because of his paradoxical methodology. To say it again, it is this methodology that is problematic.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Your response is illustrative of your immaturity.

Your response that you are trying to defend a historical formulation is evidence. Nobody here (especially me) has argued otherwise. I harve repeatedly stated the exact opposite. What I have argued is that it strains credulity to claim that this usage by Van Til has led many astray.

I didn't state that Mathison had no reason to critique Van Til on this statement. What I did was compare the influence of two men on the Trinity. I illustrated my point that it is silly to assert Van Til led many men astray by the reality that one cannot find anyone in particular who has confused the Trinity by this formulation among those men trained by him. In contrast, it is quite common to find men who are confused on Chalcedonian Christology. Were I to be an immature Churcman, I would lay that at the feet of R.C. Sproul. I am not, however, so inclined because men in the Church have pointed out those places where R.C. drifts and nobody is giving a pass to people who are soft on the Hypostatic union.

Thus, my point stands that the way Van Til expressed himself is heterodox on the surface and ought not to be repeated. What I refuse to assent to is a childish assertion that he has influenced men to follow the seeming conclusions and deny Nicene orthodoxy. The reason is taht I have years of experience in the Church and have never met such a man.

It doesn't excuse Van Til for the language, but it suffices to demonstrate that the breathless concern that he has led many astray by these words is silly. And, in spite of protestations, demonstrators demonstrate immaturity when a man simply repeats assertions and then, when corrected, claims that he is standing for orthodoxy when others are willing to compromise on it when they are simply noting how it has not led to the "damage" to the Church that some repeatedly assert.

This is a very unfortunate response.

I have interacted with you in a highly respectful manner, despite disagreeing with you. You have failed to show the same respect for me.

This only serves to undermine your argument. Words matter. Debating one another in a respectful manner should be a given, particularly on a forum such as this.

 

[jwright82]

I think it is unlikely that we will agree on the portion that you missed out since Letham is clear that the use of the term 'person' in place of 'essence' leads to heresy:



Letham in his usual style is careful to say that VT's intention may be good but his formula leads to heresy. Furthermore, he is unambiguous in stating that a term other than "one person" is required to express God's one essence "exactly what the fathers used" i.e. "one essence, three persons"

Who's been led to heresy on the Trinity? You've never said a single person.
Imagine you're the prosecutor in the Presbyteri of Van Til and you claim that it's led to people becoming heretics but you can't produce a single person. How strong is your case?
On the contrary the defense can produce people who have never gone into heresy on the Trinity, over and over again. That's the situation you're in. Produce someone who is heretical on the Trinity because of Van Til.
Believe it or not we're trying to help you get clarity on this. You clearly have a sharp mind and I compliment you for that. But in this situation I suspect you may be in over your head. We're all trying to help you. I do care about you here.
To react to Letham, who I have not read, he's one guy plus you and a handful of people online and in some in academia (our beloved Mathison's book is of course in a different category) against a host of people here and in academia who have defended him.
So your argument succeeds or fails on two different questions. Does person mean the same thing in both senses and has anyone been led to heresy because of Van Til on the Trinity? I do care about you in this.

 

[MW]

I have interacted with you in a highly respectful manner, despite disagreeing with you. You have failed to show the same respect for me.

I think a great deal of patience has been shown, which is a form of respect shown to you. There comes a point where it is evident you do not want to accept the verdict that this is not heresy. For all the respect you have shown to others there also appears to be an underlying desire to find a heresy. We have met with this again and again on the board. It makes people unwilling to listen to facts and to engage in real discussion of the issues. It comes across as a waste of time to bring up relevant points because at the end of the day "heresy" cannot be defended. Nothing will mitigate this charge.

The traditional formulations are intended to "unite" believers, not "divide" them. If people are discussing things within the bounds of orthodoxy we should be able to credit them as orthodox even though at times we find their explanations problematic.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Not directly; he is saying that is what would follow as a consequence if you denied his "reasons." Van Til didn't deny his reasons. In fact the second quotation from Letham shows that he understood Van Til did not use the word person in the relational sense. He understood Van Til to be speaking so as to affirm God is not less than personal. The "essence" is not some fourth thing additional to the "persons." As I noted earlier, if the essence is something different you end up with a fourth something. The tradition stops short of this and is willing to let the mystery stand. Van Til goes too far in trying to explain it because of his paradoxical methodology. To say it again, it is this methodology that is problematic.

Not so. Letham is unequivocal on the heretical entailments of the use of “one person”.

The second quote does not moderate this assertion. Here Letham is interacting with VT’s intention and is not affirming his formula.

I think a great deal of patience has been shown, which is a form of respect shown to you. There comes a point where it is evident you do not want to accept the verdict that this is not heresy. For all the respect you have shown to others there also appears to be an underlying desire to find a heresy. We have met with this again and again on the board. It makes people unwilling to listen to facts and to engage in real discussion of the issues. It comes across as a waste of time to bring up relevant points because at the end of the day "heresy" cannot be defended. Nothing will mitigate this charge.

The traditional formulations are intended to "unite" believers, not "divide" them. If people are discussing things within the bounds of orthodoxy we should be able to credit them as orthodox even though at times we find their explanations problematic.

Is it respectful to selectively quote one of the leading theologians on the Trinity in a way that misrepresents him in order to support your point?

I have sought to have a robust debate. If you feel that my points are weak and lack any weight you could have ceased to interact with me and there would be no need to selectively quote.

 

[MW]

Not so. Letham is unequivocal on the heretical entailments of the use of “one person”.

Read again. This time without trying to find someone who supports your charge of heresy.

The second quote does not moderate this assertion. Here Letham is interacting with VT’s intention and is not affirming his formula.

No, he is not. But he is also crediting his orthodoxy and his orthodox intentions. Something you are unwilling to do.

Is it respectful to selectively quote one of the leading theologians on the Trinity in a way that misrepresents him in order to support your point?

According to you, someone vested in finding heresy here. Since you have read Letham you should be aware that he was very slow to proceed with the idea of "heresy" when it comes to discussions like this.

I have sought to have a robust debate. If you feel that my points are weak and lack any weight you could have ceased to interact with me and there would be no need to selectively quote.

Here is the latent disrespect in your interactions. First, I have been very clear that I am in the middle on this. My only concern is to show that Van Til was within the limits of orthodoxy even though his formulation is wrong. Second, you suppose I selectively quote. Everyone selectively quotes. What I left out was not germane to my point. As it stands, you misappropriate to support your heresy-hunting.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Read again. This time without trying to find someone who supports your charge of heresy.



No, he is not. But he is also crediting his orthodoxy and his orthodox intentions. Something you are unwilling to do.

Quite the contrary. I have been clear throughout our discussion that I believe VT to be orthodox and I believe his intentions were orthodox. My point throughout has been that the formula “one person, three persons” should be utterly rejected as it is liable to lead to heresy.

Here is the latent disrespect in your interactions. First, I have been very clear that I am in the middle on this. My only concern is to show that Van Til was within the limits of orthodoxy even though his formulation is wrong. Second, you suppose I selectively quote. Everyone selectively quotes. What I left out was not germane to my point. As it stands, you misappropriate to support your heresy-hunting.

What you left out was germane to the point that we have been discussing all along.

Furthermore. I have gone to great lengths to assert that your interactions with me are very much appreciated and have been incredibly helpful to me. I will also say that you have interacted with me in a highly respectful manner, the quote issue aside. I thank you for that.

 

[MW]

Quite the contrary. I have been clear throughout our discussion that I believe VT to be orthodox and I believe his intentions were orthodox. My point throughout has been that the formula “one person, three persons” should be utterly rejected as it is liable to lead to heresy.

Letham: "Van Til’s intention is clearly orthodox and positive; his problems are posed by the limitations of language." Limitations of language; not "liable to lead to heresy." One is linguistic and finds fault in the subject matter itself. Letham's patience in dealing with these limitations is evident throughout the book. Your issue is with Van Til himself. You evidently want to find fault with him. You lack Letham's charity and broad-mindedness.

What you left out was germane to the point that we have been discussing all along.

No; it wasn't. Again, you want to find something germane. As I noted, Van Til did not espouse anything that Letham states in the ellipsis. You want to find it there because it supports your uncharitable reading of Van Til.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Letham:
However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal being,” warns against calling him a person.

The reasons for this should be clear, for the persons of the Trinity are relational. They are persons in relation to others (ad alios). The Father is Father in relation to the Son. Hence, if the one being of God were a person in the same sense that the three are persons, we would have to ask: in relation to whom? The answer could only be one of three possibilities, each heretical: (1) The being of God would be in relation to the three, and so would be a fourth, forming a quaternity. Or (2) he would be in relation to some other being, and we would have a pantheon, not a Trinity. Or (3) the three persons would be reduced to attributes of the one absolute person. But if God is not one person in the same way in which the three are persons, a different term is needed for the way in which he is one – exactly what the fathers used”

Letham here points out the dangers of speaking of God as one person.

You lack Letham's charity and broad-mindedness.

Another personal comment that is completely unnecessary. Attack my argument by all means but please refrain from such unhelpful comments.

 

[MW]

Letham:
However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal being,” warns against calling him a person.

The reasons for this should be clear, for the persons of the Trinity are relational. They are persons in relation to others (ad alios). The Father is Father in relation to the Son. Hence, if the one being of God were a person in the same sense that the three are persons, we would have to ask: in relation to whom? The answer could only be one of three possibilities, each heretical: (1) The being of God would be in relation to the three, and so would be a fourth, forming a quaternity. Or (2) he would be in relation to some other being, and we would have a pantheon, not a Trinity. Or (3) the three persons would be reduced to attributes of the one absolute person. But if God is not one person in the same way in which the three are persons, a different term is needed for the way in which he is one – exactly what the fathers used”

Letham here points out the dangers of speaking of God as one person.

Again, having cleared Van Til of speaking in this relational way. You are stuck on the words; Letham is looking at substance.

Another personal comment that is completely unnecessary. Attack my argument by all means but please refrain from such unhelpful comments.

This is a good way of avoiding any criticism of your overall approach. Now you do not have to address where you are amiss. That only succeeds in placing yourself above criticism.

 

[jwright82]

Letham:
However, Torrance, while recognizing that God is “fulness of personal being,” warns against calling him a person.

The reasons for this should be clear, for the persons of the Trinity are relational. They are persons in relation to others (ad alios). The Father is Father in relation to the Son. Hence, if the one being of God were a person in the same sense that the three are persons, we would have to ask: in relation to whom? The answer could only be one of three possibilities, each heretical: (1) The being of God would be in relation to the three, and so would be a fourth, forming a quaternity. Or (2) he would be in relation to some other being, and we would have a pantheon, not a Trinity. Or (3) the three persons would be reduced to attributes of the one absolute person. But if God is not one person in the same way in which the three are persons, a different term is needed for the way in which he is one – exactly what the fathers used”

Letham here points out the dangers of speaking of God as one person.


Another personal comment that is completely unnecessary. Attack my argument by all means but please refrain from such unhelpful comments.

You're just equivocating here on terms to make your point. If you're comfortable with believing Van Til is a heretic based on an equivocation of terms, than fine. But you you still can't avoid the obvious problems in your argument that have been pointed out over and over again.
Just take the draw on bad and confusing language but not heresy. Letham has not even acknowledged he's a heretic, you have (by extrapolating from him). You haven't even answered my questions? Please start there.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Again, having cleared Van Til of speaking in this relational way. You are stuck on the words; Letham is looking at substance.

I think this summarises my position nicely:
“More serious is the concern about CVT’s doctrine of the Trinity. His language cannot be justified. God is not one person. If one’s philosophy allows him to use such language it should be clear that his philosophy is no longer being used in the service of theology. However, I would caution being over-zealous with charges since theologians have struggled to explain consciousness in relation to personality. Some room should be provided to navigate the issue. That said, “one person” language is not sound no matter how it is qualified. Words matter!"

This is a good way of avoiding any criticism of your overall approach. Now you do not have to address where you are amiss. That only succeeds in placing yourself above criticism.

Not so, please feel free to criticise my argument but no need to call my motives into question.

 

[MW]

I think this summarises my position nicely:
“More serious is the concern about CVT’s doctrine of the Trinity. His language cannot be justified. God is not one person. If one’s philosophy allows him to use such language it should be clear that his philosophy is no longer being used in the service of theology. However, I would caution being over-zealous with charges since theologians have struggled to explain consciousness in relation to personality. Some room should be provided to navigate the issue. That said, “one person” language is not sound no matter how it is qualified. Words matter!"

"However, I would caution being over-zealous with charges since theologians have struggled to explain consciousness in relation to personality. Some room should be provided to navigate the issue." You cut off that room to navigate the personal nature of God with the red flashing light of "heresy," refusing to allow words to have any other meaning.

Not so, please feel free to criticise my argument but no need to call my motives into question.

I don't question your motivation but the overt direction of your posts in this thread. An unwillingness to deal with things presented to you is indicative of an attitude which is within the purview of others to judge for themselves.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Letham has not even acknowledged he's a heretic

I agree with you entirely.

, you have (by extrapolating from him). You haven't even answered my questions? Please start there.

Van Til was not a heretic.
[automerge]1760657203[/automerge]

"However, I would caution being over-zealous with charges since theologians have struggled to explain consciousness in relation to personality. Some room should be provided to navigate the issue." You cut off that room to navigate the personal nature of God with the red flashing light of "heresy," refusing to allow words to have any other meaning.



I don't question your motivation but the overt direction of your posts in this thread. An unwillingness to deal with things presented to you is indicative of an attitude which is within the purview of others to judge for themselves.

That said, “one person” language is not sound no matter how it is qualified. Words matter!"

 

[MW]

I can confirm that I was working from the first edition, not the revised and expanded edition of Letham.

 

[Ploutos]

I can't agree with @greenbaggins that this board has an anti-CVT bias, but I will readily assert that this board has a lot of CVT-themed ridiculousness!

 

[faithandfreedom]

I don't question your motivation but the overt direction of your posts in this thread. An unwillingness to deal with things presented to you is indicative of an attitude which is within the purview of others to judge for themselves.

I don’t see the point of this comment it is yet another comment designed to put me down and undermine me.

As I have repeatedly stated it is not an unwillingness to deal with things as presented. It is just that I have fundamental disagreements with you on some of the points that you have raised. Once again, this lowers the tone. “Words matter”

 

[MW]

That said, “one person” language is not sound no matter how it is qualified. Words matter!"

Correct. But again, we have to look at Van Til's project and the specific questions he was answering. Since you have Letham you could look at the way he examines Origen. It is a good model. He concludes that Origen was not the forerunner of Arius even though certain phrases are taken up by the latter. I would urge the same charitable evaluation of Van Til and his so-called "influence."

 

[faithandfreedom]

Correct. But again, we have to look at Van Til's project and the specific questions he was answering. Since you have Letham you could look at the way he examines Origen. It is a good model. He concludes that Origen was not the forerunner of Arius even though certain phrases are taken up by the latter. I would urge the same charitable evaluation of Van Til and his so-called "influence."

Thank you. I will look into that.

 

[MW]

I don’t see the point of this comment it is yet another comment designed to put me down and undermine me.

No, sir; but to get you to look at what you are doing. I am sorry that you feel you are "above" looking at your overall direction. If anyone adopted this idea it would put them beyond the possibility of correction by brethren.

As I have repeatedly stated it is not an unwillingness to deal with things as presented. It is just that I have fundamental disagreements with you a some of the points that you have raised. Once again, this lowers the tone. “Words matter”

The fundamental disagreement is in your approach; but you want to make yourself immune from having your approach addressed.

 

[faithandfreedom]

No, sir; but to get you to look at what you are doing. I am sorry that you feel you are "above" looking at your overall direction.

I am not above looking at my direction. However, you are not the keeper of my conscience.

If anyone adopted this idea it would put them beyond the possibility of correction by brethren.

Thankfully I don’t adopt this idea.

The fundamental disagreement is in your approach; but you want to make yourself immune from having your approach addressed.

No. I just think my approach is correct.

 

[Ploutos]

No. I just think my approach is correct.

If that were an accurate summary of your behavior in this thread, that would be one thing.

But it's not an accurate summary. The problem is not just that you think your approach is correct, but that you are extremely insistent on everybody else thinking so as well. If, after debating with us for a little while, you acknowledged the viewpoints of others and maintained your own opinion, this thread would have ended long ago.

 

[John Nyberg]

If anything, my biggest problem is getting people to understand and apply the language of our Standards that clearly teach Nicene and Chalcedonian ideas.

This is a great reminder to love and learn our creeds and confessions. And to teach our children to do the same!

 

[jwright82]

I am not above looking at my direction. However, you are n

This is a great reminder to love and learn our creeds and confessions. And to teach our children to do the same!

Amen brother.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Amen brother.

Thanks, my friend. Even if I did cause you some frustration

I appreciate the way that you and I were able to have a robust but respectful back and forth. I look forward to interacting with you on other topics (I think I’ll avoid any further CVT threads for a while).

 

[faithandfreedom]

If that were an accurate summary of your behavior in this thread, that would be one thing.

But it's not an accurate summary. The problem is not just that you think your approach is correct, but that you are extremely insistent on everybody else thinking so as well. If, after debating with us for a little while, you acknowledged the viewpoints of others and maintained your own opinion, this thread would have ended long ago.

You are right this is not an accurate summary of my interactions.

Up until Wednesday 10:24 I had largely been interacting with jwright82. At that point I openly said that I had been made to question my argument was I going too far etc. I then quoted a number of passages from Mathison’s book. jwright82 acknowledged these quotes and we seemed to be at the end of our discussion. Cordial words then passed between myself and jwright82.

Unfortunately at that point MW seems to have taken exception to the Mathison quotes. This led to a flurry of posts where MW and I went back and forth about the meaning and interpretation of the formula “one essence three persons”. MW brought up some perceived weaknesses in the orthodox formula and I countered these.

This culminated in MW posting a couple of quotes from Letham. As I mentioned these made me reflect on my previous statements (further evidence that I have been reflecting on my position in light of various statements made throughout this debate).

However on further inspection the Letham quote had been posted sans a key passage that casts Letham’s position in an entirely different light. Thus Letham had been misrepresented.

I called MW out on this. This led to various posts where MW made comments aimed at the person instead of the argument. This included one comment that was posted for all to see but later edited.

Yes I have been persistent in sticking to what I believe to be a vital position but I am not the one who has resorted to questionable tactics, in order to shut down debate.

If MW took exception to anything I said he could have simply said “many thanks for the discussion but I don’t think it is worth pursuing further.” This would have sufficed for me to cease further interactions with MW on the topic.



I think in light of this lengthy debate and the significant number of people who have viewed it, it is important to set the record straight.

 

[MW]

I think in light of this lengthy debate and the significant number of people who have viewed it, it is important to set the record straight.

You have omitted the crucial detail that you have repeatedly oscillated between calling it confusion and heresy. That explains why I came back into the discussion and why I felt it necessary to address the way you were approaching it. Regrettably, any attempt to address your approach is taken as if it were a personal attack on you. That will be my final word on the thread as I care very little for self-justification.

 

[faithandfreedom]

You have omitted the crucial detail that you have repeatedly oscillated between calling it confusion and heresy.

I have re-read each and every one of my posts and yours too. I cannot find a single instance where I have stated or implied that formula “one person, three persons” is merely confusing.

I did say that VT’s formula introduced confusion into the doctrine of the Trinity, but that statement was then immediately expanded upon by the following statement “Van Til's formula contradicts the formula that is set out in the Ecumenical Creeds and indeed the Reformed Confessions, hence it is false.”

I said that using the term person in two different senses involves confusion, that Van Til’s formula will undoubedtly lead to some his students becoming confused on the doctrine of the Trinity and then suggested that this has likely led some of those people to unwittingly developing heretical views.

On the contrary, I have consistently stated that the formula is unorthodox and is out of line with the historic creeds. I have also consistently stated that it is liable to lead people to adopt a heretical view of the Trinity.

That explains why I came back into the discussion and why I felt it necessary to address the way you were approaching it. Regrettably, any attempt to address your approach is taken as if it were a personal attack on you.

What exactly is the issue with my approach? You have failed to establish that there is any issue. I have been abundantly clear that I am critiquing the formula and not VT himself. Over and over again I have stated that VT was not a heretic. For you to say that I being uncharitable to VT does not stand up to scrutiny.

Reading between the lines it comes across that you think that it is wrong of me to disagree with you and to push back on statements that you have made about the “one person, three persons formula” and your interpretation of historical theology. Disagreement does not necessarily entail disrespect.

That will be my final word on the thread as I care very little for self-justification.

You have state that I have shown “latent disrespect” am guilty of an “uncharitable reading of Van Til” and that “You lack Letham's charity and broad-mindedness.”.

I would suggest that there is no evidential basis for the first two statements, and whilst it is certainly true the Dr Letham exceeds me in the way that he works out his Christian faith, this does not entail me lacking charity or broad-mindedness. To be broad minded one does not have to agree with the sentiment that the formula “one person, three persons” is merely confusing.

Comments such as "is indicative of an attitude which is within the purview of others to judge for themselves.” do nothing other than to cast aspersions on my Christian character.

I would respectfully suggest that since such comments have been made in a public forum, you should retract these statements.

 

[Cornelius Van Halen]

Something has bothered me about this interaction that I couldn't quite put my finger on until I reread the back and forth on reading Letham's work in context.

Has anyone quoted Van Til on the matter, at any length?

The introduction of the problematic idea is found in The Introduction to Systematic Theology, and Van Til doesn't just drop "God is three persons and one person" into the air. In fact, the statement comes 348 pages into a 397-page book! His study directed at God begins on page 260 - so, there are 88 pages dedicated to the Doctrine of God before it, and pages unpacking the meaning afterwards. To me, it seems odd to just lock in on this single quote without even examining the context of the quote, especially since the context involves interactions with Bavinck, Hodge, Warfield, and others.

Additionally, to my knowledge, there isn't a place where you'll find Van Til saying, "God is three persons and one person." I believe that the closest you'll find is the quote on p. 348 (I stand to be corrected here):

"Here the God who is numerically and not merely specifically one when compared with any other form of being, now appears to have within himself a distinction of specific and numerical existence. We speak of the essence of God in contrast to the three persons of the Godhead. We speak of God as a person; yet we speak also of three persons in the Godhead."

I am not interested in defending what he wrote - my feelings aren't hurt when people are critical of his formulations. And I don't think his feelings are hurt either, as he has better things to presently enjoy.

But I am interested in 6 pages of CVT debate without (unless I overlooked them) any direct citations from him.
I am interested in giving the quote as he said it, not as someone else summarized it.
I am interested in whether or not critics of Van Til have read Van Til or have read about people reading Van Til.
I, personally, know many critics who have read him, and I appreciate their insights.
I also know many who have only had second-hand Van Til knowledge. Their insights tend to be less useful.

Also, I think this is important. Someone mentioned the problem of an impersonal God not being an issue - I think Ligonier's recent study would disagree. Many people believe the Holy Spirit is a force.
Outside of that study, I personally know people who think God is a nebulous "something". Jesus was a real person, but the idea of God ends up being an impersonal thing, equated with an ultimate reality, as in Hinduism. The problem Van Til was trying to solve is a real one.

 

[RamistThomist]

Also, I think this is important. Someone mentioned the problem of an impersonal God not being an issue - I think Ligonier's recent study would disagree. Many people believe the Holy Spirit is a force.

That's not quite what I said. I said the issue of an impersonal essence was a non-problem. God is personal. Three persons, actually.