Van Til's "Trinity Heresy"
- Thread starter B.J.
- Start date
- Status
I do not recognize the voice, but perhaps it is John Robbins with the Trinity Foundation. I would be curious to learn more about this. I found this to be disturbing. The statement, "the trinity is one absolute person" is heresy. He makes some other statements that are contradictory. I find Van Til to be confusing anyway.
shackleton
Puritan Board Junior
You can get that exact lecture from the "Trinity Foundation?" website. He is talking about the Clark VanTil controversy.
Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology. It is under MP3 Down load lectures. I tried to look it up and link it but my **** blocker blocks it out.
Trinity Foundation: Explaining God, man, Bible, salvation, philosophy, theology. It is under MP3 Down load lectures. I tried to look it up and link it but my **** blocker blocks it out.
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Why? Because it's from Robbins it's automatically fallacious? He may be a hothead, but I think Van Til's cult status is amazing, and that his followers are as adamant about defending his views, no matter what, as the Clarkians seem to be. Nevertheless, here's a defense of Van Til's position at the Triablogue. Note that Van Til clearly talks about the Trinity as one divine person with three subsistences. The Clarkians call it heresy and the Van Tillians find a way to explain it. Who's right? You decide!
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Although I adopt Van Tillan Apologetics and Epistemology, yet I do not think Dr. Van Til helped himself with his style of writing. Thankfully, reading Greg Bahnsen makes understanding presuppositional apologetics and epistemology much easier to understand.
Backwoods Presbyterian
Puritanboard Amanuensis
Amen Daniel. I own Bahnsen's work on Van Til and it has made a world of difference.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
*yawn*
This is old stuff and has been dealt with repeatedly
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/neolegalism-rc-sproul-jr-5825/#post83898
(My post is a summation of Doug Jones' rebuttal to Robbins).
This is old stuff and has been dealt with repeatedly
http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/neolegalism-rc-sproul-jr-5825/#post83898
(My post is a summation of Doug Jones' rebuttal to Robbins).
I'll look into it...but yes, Robbins likes burning straw men left and right. I take his critiques with a grain of salt...make that less than a grain.
I'm not a gigantic Van Til fan, btw...I can't hardly understand him most of the time.
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
I agree Davidius. Having a problem with this lecture because it was given by Robbins doesn't make the arguments of the lecture wrong. It is "argumentum ad hominem" (argument to the man) if I'm not mistaken. The fact is that Van Til did say that the Trinity was one Person and yet three Persons at the same time. (In defiance of the law of non-contradition) Also, Van Til did believe that God created logic and was therefore not subject to it. Clark believed that logic, instead of being a creation of God, was actually an attribute of God. What is logic but truth?
Numbers 23:19 (Young's Literal Translation)
19God [is] not a man -- and lieth, And a son of man -- and repenteth! Hath He said -- and doth He not do [it]? And spoken -- and doth He not confirm it?
It truly is amazing that a man like Van Til (as well as many others) can reach what my brother Davidius called "cult status" and we dare not question him no matter how fallacious his arguments are.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
To bad Van Til didn't say they were One Person/Three Persons in the same sense, otherwise you would have a point. Reading Jones' rebuttal/rebuke of Robbins makes this clear.
And does anyone find it odd that if CVT truly held to this heresy (the favorite Reformed word of all time), that the OPC willingly, knowingly, ordained and supported such a known heretic? Maybe the OPC is heretical, too. Oops, that's been covered there as well...
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
As to the cult status, I am more of a Dooyeweerdian than a Van Tillian. So the cult charge doesn't apply to me (well, it does actually but not on this point).
Davidius
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
This is an excellent point, and I would say the same thing about Clark. Van Til and some other seminary professors weren't happy with the Church's approval of Clark's orthodoxy and tried to have his ordination revoked. Some folks then and now don't seem to consistently ask the same "do you find it odd" question with regard to him.
Nice parenthetical aside, by the way.
I would certainly classify myself as a presuppositionalist and agree with VanTil's basic views, but his style of writing and way of explaining things is confusing. He was Dutch and did not communicate well in English, so it did not help him.
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
I think a useful distinction to make when using terminology is that one may be a Presuppositionalist and embrace Van Tillian epistemology - as I do - and so, in that sense, be Van Tillian; but not endorse everything the man said. As a postmillennialist, I am definitely not "Van Tillian" on eschatology.
I must confess that I find the almost cult-like following of both Dr. Van Til and Gordon Clark to be somewhat disturbing. Both men had their good and bad points. Indeed, I once heard Brian Schwertley say that Gordon Clark's book on the Virgin Birth (I think it was that one) - which was published posthumously - actually taught Nestorianism.
Last edited:
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
This is an excellent point, and I would say the same thing about Clark. Van Til and some other seminary professors weren't happy with the Church's approval of Clark's orthodoxy and tried to have his ordination revoked. Some folks then and now don't seem to consistently ask the same "do you find it odd" question with regard to him.
Nice parenthetical aside, by the way.
Would it bother you that Clark told his students to read Van Til's stuff on philosophy for edification?
And Muether's bio demonstrates that CVT didn't play that big a role in Clark's trial.
Has anyone actually bothered to read the expositions on this point? Like what Doug Jones said and Frame's relevant chapters on this? No, that would be too easy.
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure how clear Jones actually made it as far as I could tell. But keeping with the the Westminster Confession of Faith, we never see where God is one Person in any sense. I see where you (and Jones) are coming from but I can't say that we can really call the Trinity "One Person." Having said that, I want to make myself clear. I wouldn't call Van Til or Clark a heretic. I do believe that Van Til was inconsistent but I wouldn't call him a heretic. Also, (on a more personal note) I have changed my avatar from a picture of Clark to a photo I took from Gene Cook's web site. I decided to do this because I realized that my avatar made me look like a Clarkian looking for a fight. I do believe that Clark was more consistent than Van Til and I have never enjoyed reading the little I have read by Van Til (especially his disciples Yuck! Frame, Bahnsen etc
).Westminster Confession on the Trinity: "God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth."
Whoops! God is referred to with a singular personal pronoun and later as three singular personal pronouns!?! One "he" and three "he's"??!? Heresy!!
Whoops! God is referred to with a singular personal pronoun and later as three singular personal pronouns!?! One "he" and three "he's"??!? Heresy!!
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
Westminster Confession on the Trinity: "God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth."
Whoops! God is referred to with a singular personal pronoun and later as three singular personal pronouns!?! One "he" and three "he's"??!? Heresy!!
Oops! I didn't think that one through! I stand corrected.
I'm not sure how clear Jones actually made it as far as I could tell. But keeping with the the Westminster Confession of Faith, we never see where God is one Person in any sense. I see where you (and Jones) are coming from but I can't say that we can really call the Trinity "One Person." Having said that, I want to make myself clear. I wouldn't call Van Til or Clark a heretic. I do believe that Van Til was inconsistent but I wouldn't call him a heretic. Also, (on a more personal note) I have changed my avatar from a picture of Clark to a photo I took from Gene Cook's web site. I decided to do this because I realized that my avatar made me look like a Clarkian looking for a fight. I do believe that Clark was more consistent than Van Til and I have never enjoyed reading the little I have read by Van Til (especially his disciples Yuck! Frame, Bahnsen etc
Yes, you have to be careful around here with identifying with Gordan Clark, because you might be guilty of being unconfessional
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Is that the Red Beetle guy who accused RSC of teaching salvation was through the church (in the Roman Catholic sense). If so, I believe Danny Hyde has done some investigation which revealed that his church does not acutally exist.
QUOTE=Daniel Ritchie;409350]
I did not know that. I remember the Red Beetle but thought he was perhaps from a hyper-Calvinist position. I will have to research the allegation against VanTil. This should be a lesson to those who like to use a quote from YouTube. Check the source before assuming it is accurate. I will be more skeptical next time.
Is that the Red Beetle guy who accused RSC of teaching salvation was through the church (in the Roman Catholic sense). If so, I believe Danny Hyde has done some investigation which revealed that his church does not acutally exist.[/QUOTE]
I did not know that. I remember the Red Beetle but thought he was perhaps from a hyper-Calvinist position. I will have to research the allegation against VanTil. This should be a lesson to those who like to use a quote from YouTube. Check the source before assuming it is accurate. I will be more skeptical next time.Thanks for identifying the source. We should be more careful in using a source that is questionable or does not reveal from where it comes.
I did not know that. You learn something new everyday.
I checked the YouTube link and it is this guy who was removed from PB. He has a link where he was arguing with Scott Clark here on the PB and denounces him as being non-Reformed. It appears that even John Robbins denounces this accusation against Van Til. I would like to retract my earlier statement that VanTils view of the Trinity is heretical. Until I can determine for myself from a reliable source that VanTil taught that the Trinity is one person, I will assume that VanTil was not heretical on this position.
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
First of all, let me say to you guys who have been discussing this subject for a long time that I apologize for keeping the subject going. But I have only been a member of the PB for a month or two. Another thing I'd like to say is that some of us (myself at least) were introduced to Presuppositional Apologetics by the writings of Dr. Gordon Clark long before we knew that the Clark/Van Til controversy existed. It seems to me (and I say this with all humility) that once a person has been taught Apologetics by a system that is based on the laws of logic with no room for contradiction, that some of Van Til's ideas are hard to embrace. Having said all this and realizing that I am indeed an amateur for certain I want someone to give me a (civil) response to the following quote by Gordon Clark. If he was lying I am man enough to accept it. If not, it flies in the face of the claims of Van Tillians. Here goes... "
"Incidentally, I guess you could say Van Til's theology... I suppose you could say "mainly" or "basically that of the Reformed tradition" (Clark is quoting Frame's comments on Van Til's theology being "basically that of the Reformed tradition) "but not very ... not always quite the same thing. Uh, he has a view of the Trinity that no theologian, uh, no orthodox theologian that I know of has ever come up with at all. He holds that God is not only three persons in one substance (we use that horrible Latin word that doesn't mean anything) he holds that God is both three persons and one person. And he explicitly denounces the usual apologetic defending the doctrine of the Trinity which is that God is three in one sense and one in another sense and hence there is no contradiction because there are lots of things that are three in one sense and one in another. You can get all sorts of examples."
After saying these things in his lecture entitled "John Frame And Cornelius Van Til" Clark went on to give examples of things that are three in one sense and one in another. Then he says (again) that "Van Til denounces this and he (Van Til) calls this a paradox (this is putting it mildly according to Gordon Clark). I realize that this is a lengthy post. But I ask you, can anyone refute Clark's claim that Van Til "explicitly denounces the usual apologetic defending the doctrine of the Trinity which is that God is three in one sense and one in another sense?"
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Sure. Van Til doesn't "renounce" the traditional formulation of the Trinity (see his works on the early church fathers and his commitment to the creeds and confessions). There is nothing to refute or prove. He was simply finding another way, if possible, to say the same thing.
You say he "renounces." I say he doesn't. You are using language that poisons the well.
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not saying anything. I'm quoting Clark and asking if he was being dishonest. Also, Clark is not saying "renounce" he is saying "denounce." That may be trivial but I just wanted to clear it up. I've read in more than one place that Clark and Van Til misunderstood one another. Maybe this is an area where Clark misunderstood Van Til.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Of course CVT doesn't denounce the creedal formulations of the Trinity. As corrupt as Robbins thinks the OPC is, they would have drawn the line there.
Elsewhere (and I will consult the references later) CVT defends Chalcedon.
Elsewhere (and I will consult the references later) CVT defends Chalcedon.
kalawine
Puritan Board Junior
Westminster Confession on the Trinity: "God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth."
Whoops! God is referred to with a singular personal pronoun and later as three singular personal pronouns!?! One "he" and three "he's"??!? Heresy!!
OK... I'm still looking into this subject and I want to throw out some things I've been reading on this. The following quote comes from Doug Comin's review of Gordon Clark's book on the Trinity. First, Comin reviews the first chapter of Clarks book.
(See Review of The Trinity by Gordon Clark -NRA for the entire article)
"Chapter 1, entitled "Preliminary Scripture," provides an overview of the doctrine of the Trinity as it is found in the pages of God's Word, the Bible. The author acknowledges that there is no attempt made to deal with every biblical passage that deals with the subject, and the reader is challenged to do some personal study. Dr. Clark notes that the strong influence of idolatry and polytheism during Old Testament times necessitated an emphasis upon the unity of the One God of the people of Israel, and therefore the Old Testament nowhere explicitly teaches the formal doctrine of the triune nature of God."
From the words above I can see why the WCF speaks of God as Him, He, etc. Living today and looking back at the Old Testament we can see hints of the Trinity there. But God wanted the Old Testament believers to understand that he is one God. This does not make him one person. Here is more from Comin's review:
"Two more thinkers go under the microscope in Chapter 11. These are Herman Bavinck and Cornelius Van Til, who was greatly influenced by Bavinck. The proposition put forth by Bavinck that God is unknowable because "our knowledge is confined to the realm of experience" (taken from Kant), is disposed of in the first part of the chapter. The remainder shows how these ideas were carried on by Dr. Van Til, who substantially agreed with this definition of incomprehensibility. This faulty definition, says Clark, led to the unorthodox position of Van Til "that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person." In saying this, Van Til sought to evade the charge of anti-trinitarians that the doctrine is self-contradictory because something cannot be both three and one at the same time. But in hiding behind the incomprehensibility of God, Van Til was forced to argue in the realm of the irrational. Dr. Clark then, exposes the faulty logic and directs the reader back to an orthodox defense of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity."
The Athanasian creed gives a summary of the early Church's teaching on the Trinity :
We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost; but the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten; the Son is of the Father alone, not made, nor created, but begotten; the Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son, neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding.
It seems to me that Clark was saying, "There are three persons and one essence" while Van Til was saying, "There are three persons who make up one person."
Clark wrote this about Van Til's view:
"Strange to say, a recent theologian has renewed the logical difficulty or perhaps has invented a new one. Cornelius Van Til asserts unity and plurality of the Trinity in exactly the same sense. He rejects the Athanasian doctrine of one substance and three Persons, or one reality and three hypostases. His words are, “We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person” (An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 229. The mimeographed syllabus on its title page says that it is for classroom purposes only and is not to be regarded as a published book. What this means is unclear. The author teaches it in class and so makes it public. There is no reason for not regarding it as his own view).
In the context, Van Til denies that the “paradox” of the three and the one can be resolved by the formula, “one in essence and three in person.”
Again I ask you: Is Dr. Clark being dishonest about Van Til's view or not?
I haven't read every book by both men but if I can come to a conclusion from what I am gathering from here and there, I see why people accuse Van Til of being irrational and illogical.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
