RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I'll be honest with you. I don't read long quotations from Clark/Robbins/anyone. I simply don't have time for it. Many theology message boards don't allow it since it is too easy when one should be able to summarize in a few words the gist of the passage. Being said, I will respond to some earlier concerns. I realize, in apparent disjunction with my above statement, the following is sort of lengthy. But that's okay. This ground has been covered numerous times on PB, with the same old charges being brought against CVT and the same orthodox rebuttals.
Also, in Defense of the Faith and in the Intro to Systematic Theology, where the quote Robbins, Clark, et al, use to make this charge, Van Til endorses the statements of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, and the Westminster Confession. Since he specifically endorsed the orthodox formulation, critics should be cautious and charitable when they try to make a charge of inconsistency or heresy. One thing all scholars know, and what we ask of atheologians when they read the Bible, is the principle of charity. You assume the author wasn't insane or retarded, and so you try as hard as you can to read them in the best light or resolve any apparent tensions you find in their work.
Furthermore, the claim: one in essence three in person is fine to render the doctrine *formally* consistent, but when we seek to understand the metaphysical affirmations expressed by the orthodox statement, that's when problems arise. One absolute, unified God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are *identical* to God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are *distinct* from each other. What is the relation of this "identity?" Is it numerical or generic? Orthodoxy leans toward the former, tri-theism leans toward the latter, viz., three humans who all share or are identical with, a generic, impersonal human nature. But numerical identity is transitive such that: A = B, B = C, A = C. How do we maintain both rationality and orthodoxy in our *metaphysical affirmations*. *No one* claims that Christians cannot present a *formally consistent* statement of the Trinity. That is easy: One is essence, three in person. But that *bare* claim can be used to support social trinitarianism, relative identity trinitarianism, WCF trinitarianism, etc. So it is helpful as far as it goes, but the simplistic rest in it. As if merely asserting "One in essence, three in person" rescues one from all the trinitarian questions and problems.
Christian theists need to move away from being content with cliches and platitudes and face and address, in Old Princeton and Westerminster fashion, the problems of the day. To think that the mere assertion: one in person, three in essence is enough to rescue you from the ins and outs of trinitarian debates is to live in a padded room, where mom brings you milk and cookies every night
Also, in Defense of the Faith and in the Intro to Systematic Theology, where the quote Robbins, Clark, et al, use to make this charge, Van Til endorses the statements of Nicea, Constantinople and Chalcedon, and the Westminster Confession. Since he specifically endorsed the orthodox formulation, critics should be cautious and charitable when they try to make a charge of inconsistency or heresy. One thing all scholars know, and what we ask of atheologians when they read the Bible, is the principle of charity. You assume the author wasn't insane or retarded, and so you try as hard as you can to read them in the best light or resolve any apparent tensions you find in their work.
Furthermore, the claim: one in essence three in person is fine to render the doctrine *formally* consistent, but when we seek to understand the metaphysical affirmations expressed by the orthodox statement, that's when problems arise. One absolute, unified God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are *identical* to God. The Father, Son, and Spirit are *distinct* from each other. What is the relation of this "identity?" Is it numerical or generic? Orthodoxy leans toward the former, tri-theism leans toward the latter, viz., three humans who all share or are identical with, a generic, impersonal human nature. But numerical identity is transitive such that: A = B, B = C, A = C. How do we maintain both rationality and orthodoxy in our *metaphysical affirmations*. *No one* claims that Christians cannot present a *formally consistent* statement of the Trinity. That is easy: One is essence, three in person. But that *bare* claim can be used to support social trinitarianism, relative identity trinitarianism, WCF trinitarianism, etc. So it is helpful as far as it goes, but the simplistic rest in it. As if merely asserting "One in essence, three in person" rescues one from all the trinitarian questions and problems.
Christian theists need to move away from being content with cliches and platitudes and face and address, in Old Princeton and Westerminster fashion, the problems of the day. To think that the mere assertion: one in person, three in essence is enough to rescue you from the ins and outs of trinitarian debates is to live in a padded room, where mom brings you milk and cookies every night