Note: This is a guest post since presently I am traveling. This is by Thomas Linton who blogs here.
Understanding Van Til’s Trinitarian Apologetics in a Baptist Context
By Thomas Linton
Introduction
In this article there will be an attempt to present Van Til’s Presuppositional Apologetics and Trinitarian theology as consistent within a Reformed Baptist context. A review of Van Til’s background is from a Dutch Reformed position and taught Systematic Theology and Apologetics from Westminster Theological Seminary. Since this is his background it is important to show a comparison of Presbyterianism through the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and The London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 (LBCF). Then there will be a section that involves a comparison of the WCF with the LBCF. Following the comparison between WCF and LBCF there will be an introduction to Trinitarian theology emphasizing Van Til’s apologetic method. Finally, there will be an explanation of the Scriptural support for the Trinity and Presuppositional apologetics. The main point will be that a Baptist can hold to Van Til’s unique Trinitarian Theology and Presuppositional Apologetics consistently without compromising a commitment to the fundamental aspects of the LBCF that differ from the WCF.
Background of Van Til
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) was a professor of Systematic Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Theological Seminary from 1929 until his retirement in 1972. During his time at Westminster, he developed an apologetic approach that differed from the Classical Apologetics method. As a Dutch immigrant, Van Til was influenced by Dutch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck.[1] Van Til was also influenced by Geerhardus Vos who was a part of Princeton Theological Seminary and often called the father of Reformed Biblical Theology. Van Til then became familiar with B.B. Warfield while studying at Princeton Theological Seminary. Also, while studying Warfield, Van Til accepted Warfield’s approach to the extent that there is a need for apologetics but rejected Warfield on his view of Natural Theology and Classical Apologetics. This led to the development of a method now known as Presuppositionalism. Van Til’s Presuppositionalism was popularized by the debate between Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein.[2] Greg Bahnsen outperformed Gordon Stein and it was apparent that Gordon Stein was not prepared for the types of arguments presented by Bahnsen.
Since Van Til was a Presbyterian and not a Baptist it seems logical to explain the differences and the places of continuity between Reformed Baptist credobaptist federalism and Presbyterian paedobaptist federalism. Most Presbyterians are familiar with Van Til and many of their pastors have read Van Til in seminary. Again, the main thesis is that a Baptist can hold to Van Til’s Trinitarian theology and Presuppositional Apologetics consistently without giving up a commitment to the fundamental aspects of the LBCF.
A comparison between Presbyterian Federalism and Covenant Baptist theology
When Van Til mentions an allegiance to Reformed theology he means an allegiance to the WCF and Three Forms of Unity rather than the LBCF.[3] In comparing the LBCF and WCF the reader will see that the distinctions do not affect the aspects that apply to Van Til’s Trinitarian Theology and his Presuppositional Apologetic method. The doctrine of Holy Scripture and the commitment shared of Sola Scriptura are seen in WCF chapter 1 and LBCF chapter 1 and the Trinitarian theology is WCF chapter 2 and LBCF chapter 2 and there are no apparent contradictions.
Regarding the position of Presbyterian federalism one can review the WCF chapter 25 and paragraphs 1 and 2 (25.1-2) state the following:
- The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.
- The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
In paragraph 1 it states that there is the elect who have been called to participate in the substance of this covenant. In paragraph 2 under the visible church, some profess, and that can be both regenerate, or unregenerate, and it includes their posterity are the kingdom of Christ under the external administration of the Covenant of Grace. The cornerstone of Presbyterian federalism is that there is an organic unity to the Old in New Testaments in the Covenant of Grace. This means that the Covenant of Grace is one covenant under two administrations. This can be seen in the Westminster Larger Catechism:
- 33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
- The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.
- 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
- Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.
These two catechism questions, demonstrate the Presbyterian interpretation of the Covenant of Grace. If the Presbyterians are correct in their interpretation of the Covenant of Grace as being one covenant in two administrations, then it makes sense that children of the church membership would be baptized at a young age and before a confession of faith.
When the WFC is compared to the LBCF on the nature of the Covenants it is important to look at LBCF 7.2 and 7.3:
Paragraph 2: Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
Paragraph 3: This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.
WCF 7.5-6:
- This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore signifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
- Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
According to Pascal Denault:
“The distinction between the revelation and the administration of the Covenant of Grace finds its whole meaning when the second element of Baptist federalism is added to it, that is to say, the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant. If the Westminster federalism can be summarized “one covenant under two administrations,” that of the 1689 would be “one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant.”[4]
This is the distinction between the LBCF and the WCF. It seems that the differences are not significant enough as to make the Trinitarian theology and Apologetic method of Van Til inconsistent with Reformed Baptist theology.
There is an important aspect regarding using covenant language within Van Til’s Presuppositionalism. K. Scott Oliphint appeals to WCF 7.1 as a means to explain the necessary change in language in Van Til’s apologetics from Presuppositional to Covenantal Apologetics.[5] In LBCF 7.1 there is identical language to WCF 7.1, so there is no issue of inconsistency in this matter.
Van Til’s Trinitarian Theology
Van Til has an orthodox Trinitarian theology, and he says, “We hold that God exists as a tri-personality. ‘The Trinity is the heart of Christianity.’ The three persons of the Trinity are co-substantial; not one is derived in his substance from either or both of the others. Yet there are three distinct persons in this unity; the diversity and the identity are equally underived.” [6] This is the basis for which Van Til’s Trinitarian theology can be explained.
When it comes to Van Til’s Trinitarian theology application to apologetics, the problem of One and Many as well as the notion of an Absolute personal God are crucial. There is also need to discuss Van Til’s Representational Principle as explained by Lane Tipton and Bavinck’s Organic Motif. It is important to address both but the one and many provides a positive basis for why a Trinitarian theology as opposed to Unitarian theology is to be held as more philosophically consistent.
When it comes to the philosophical problem of the One of the Many concerns whether reality is ultimately a unity or a plurality. Van Til’s solution to this philosophical problem is that it is solved with the Trinity. Regarding the One and the Many problem Bosserman writes:
The doctrine of the Trinity, despite its apparent contradiction, turns out to be the most logical, and indeed most necessary of all ideas. For, even if we cannot comprehend His nature entirely, we may, and indeed already have, deduced that only such a person can be free from the one-many problem in himself, and as such, be the indispensable authority and reference point for human reasoning.[7]
Bosserman argues that only the Triune God can be the solution to the philosophical problem of the One and the Many and thus the grounds for all human reasoning. Elsewhere, Bosserman makes this claim to the One and the Many problem:
the “one and many” question has vast implications. The epistemological problem regarding whether our sense perceptions correspond to external reality, is ultimately one of how we may be certain that our rational categories (the one) do justice to the spatio-temporal objects (the many) they supposedly represent. A similar, metaphysical question is whether the future must be consistent with the past, such that there is a discernible unity of development (the one) that binds together the diverse moments of time (the many). When one ponders whether moral absolutes exist, he is asking whether there are unchangeable ethical standards (the one), which are equally authoritative in all situations (the many). Identification of the proper social dynamic between governments, religious bodies, families, and their individual members rests upon our ability to determine whether the needs of the group (the one) sufficiently represent the needs of each individual (the many), or whether one takes precedence over the other.[8]
Here, Bosserman is explaining the problem of One and Many as it relates to epistemology, metaphysics and ethics or the whole worldview. This is why a Van Til Presuppositionalism can argue that without the Triune God of the Bible, there is no solution to the problem of the One and the Many. Mere abstraction cannot account for the problem.
Another important factor with Van Til’s Trinitarian theology is the notions of Absolute personality and equal ultimacy among the persons of the Trinity. Regarding the God with Absolute personality, Van Til says this:
Christianity offers the triune God, the absolute personality, containing all the attributes enumerated, as God in whom we believe. This conception of God is the foundation of everything else that we hold dear. Unless we can believe in this sort of God, it does us no good to be told that we may believe in some sort of God, or in anything else. For us everything depends for its meaning upon this sort of God. Accordingly we are not interested to have anyone to prove the existence of any other sort of God but this God.[9]
This provides the basis for both the Presuppositional Apologetics and Trinitarian theology. It is this sort of God that Ralph Smith says, “A covenantal relationship among the persons of the Trinity introduces the possibility of a worldview in which the doctrine of God is the fountain from which all other truths flow.”[10]
Similar to the idea of the Absolute Personal God within the trinitarian theology is Lane Tipton’s contribution to Van Til’s Representational Principle. The Representational Principle can best be explained as the persons of the Trinity are mutually representational and it is the central principle integrating his trinitarianism, anthropology, and apologetics. This also is connected with the deeper Protestant conception. According to Tipton, “Van Til’s representational principle is the programmatic response of confessional Reformed Trinitarianism and federalism to various expressions of correlativism and mutualism. The representational principle necessitates Van Til’s distinctive apologetical method of defending the truth of Reformed Trinitarianism and federalism as a unit.”[11] The idea of correlativism and mutualism essentially mean the same thing and is essentially is that with the Creator-creature relationship there is mutual develop through time. This principle can serve as a polemic against possible heresies and in the apologetic method against various non-Christian philosophies.
When it comes to the contribution of Herman Bavinck’s organic motif there are four guiding principles. The four guiding principles of Bavinck’s organic motif are: creation marked by a simultaneous unity and diversity, unity precedes diversity, there is order in the unity/diversity and the organisms have a definite goal of being made for the glory of the Triune God.[12] This organic motif can be applied to Van Til’s Trinitarian theology consistently in a way that provides a helpful understanding of the problem of the One and the Many. It is this type of Trinitarian theology that can be helpful to an apologetic methodology.
Van Til’s Apologetic Method
Implementing Van Til’s Trinitarian theology into his apologetic method is an important construct of a non-mechanic universe. As Eglinton notes, “The notion of a closed-system universe operating solely by uninterrupted cause and effect (in essence, a mechanical cosmos) is, for Bavinck, irreconcilable with Christian theism. A worldview founded on a Trinitarian doctrine of God must move towards a non-mechanical interpretation of the universe.”[13] This emphasis on a non-mechanical universe can also be stated as a personal interpretation. This notion of a personal Triune God will be effective in exposing the impersonalism of unbelieving worldviews. This is not to say there is a personalism and change or an unactualized potential.
The next important concept for Van Til’s Trinitarian theology in apologetics comes in the problem of the One and the Many Greg Bahnsen explains how the problem of the One and the Many of Van Til’s Trinitarian theology plays a crucial part in his apologetic methodology. Bahnsen writes:
In Van Til’s outlook, we engage in conceptual reasoning (utilizing universals and laws) because we have been created in God’s image and thus can think His thoughts after him on the finite, creaturely level….As Christians, we hold that in this universe we deal with is a derivative one and many, which can be brought into fruitful relation with one another because, back of both, we have in God the original One and Many. If we are to have coherence in our experience, there must be a correspondence of our experience to the eternally coherent experience of God. Human knowledge ultimately rests upon the internal coherence within the Godhead; our knowledge rests upon the ontological Trinity as its presupposition…For Van Til, the “universals” must not be conceived of as absolute abstract, existing impersonally apart from God.[14]
Based upon our Trinitarian theology we have an Absolute personality and therefore it must be stated that everyone is in some sort of relationship with this God. We see in Romans 1:19-20 that everyone knows God from creation and by His divine attributes, but the sinner is actively suppressing this truth in unrighteousness. In Matthew 7:24-27, a parable of Jesus equating His words as a Rock to build the house of our life on and not do so is to build on ruinous sands of man’s perceived autonomous reasoning. These passages speak to what is known as the myth of neutrality. The unbeliever is not neutral towards God and the Christian should not be either. Since there is a clear line between believing and unbelieving worldviews there is an antithesis between believer and unbeliever.[15]
This antithesis must be addressed using the authority of Scripture. Jesus himself spoke with authority as seen in Matthew 7:29. As Bahnsen puts it:
The apologist must take the Word of Christ to be the necessary foundation for philosophy or argument of any kind; thereby he can challenge his opponent’s very principles and position. If, then, the apologist is required by God’s Word to presuppose the authority of Scripture’s self-attesting truth, he is obligated not to bring that Word into question in his apologetical approach to the unbeliever. He must not assume that God’s Word needs to be proven or shown to be probably correct on the basis of independent scholarly research and autonomous standards of credibility.[16]
The key here is the self-attesting truth of God’s word is the standard of truth and morality. The Bible is therefore the ultimate authority. This means that Christians do not participate in putting the Scriptures to the test of human reason as the standard above Scripture. The Christian apologist then can move to the two-step apologetic approach presented in Proverbs 26:4-5. The Christian does not answer the unbeliever according to the unbeliever’s presupposition but the Christian must show the unbeliever the outcome of his own presuppositions.[17] One of the distinguishing features of Van Til’s Presuppositionalism from other apologetic methods is that theology is more important to apologetics than secular philosophy.[18] This is because for Van Til the Scriptures should influence both Christian philosophy and theology. The impact that biblical and systematic theology had more influence on Van Til’s apologetics than non-Christian philosophies. This is important to properly understand Van Til’s apologetic methodology.
The Scriptural Support for Sola Scriptura and the Trinity
When it comes to Scriptural support for Sola Scriptura is 2 Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-2:12 we have the passage that provides Scripture as the very word of God and in the LBCF 1689 1.4 provides the additional confessional response that the Bible is to be accepted because it is the testimony of God and not because of the testimony of any man or church. For Scriptural support on the Trinity the Christian must start with the prologue of the gospel of John. It is important to compare John 1:1-3 with the creation account of Genesis 1:1. James White says, “Just as Genesis introduces God’s work of creation, so John 1:1 introduces God’s work of redeeming that people and that work has been going on just as long as creation itself.”[19] Another important passage is Thomas’ confession in John 20:26-29 in which Thomas calls Jesus God. Finally, Hebrews 1:6-8 is another important passage that speaks to Jesus being greater than angels. In addition to the Scripture passages, we see in the LBCF 1689 2.1-2.3, which addresses the Trinity as well and the Scriptural supports for these paragraphs are 1 John 5:7, Matthew 28:19, and 2 Corinthians 13:14.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this article demonstrated that the Trinitarian theology of Cornelius Van Til can be consistently held from a Baptist perspective. Van Til’s background is consistent with Presbyterianism and the WFC so it is shown that the differences between the WCF and LBCF are not matters that impact the doctrine of the Trinity nor issues pertaining to Van Til’s Presuppositional method of apologetics. There is then a positive presentation of Van Til’s Trinitarian theology from some of the leading Van Til scholars that can be utilized by Baptists. This is followed by a brief explanation of how the Presuppositional method followed by Scriptural support for the Trinity and Presuppositional commitment to Sola Scriptura with references to the LBCF.
Works Cited
Bahnsen, Greg. Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended. Powder Springs: American Vision, 2010.
Bahnsen, Greg L. Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 1998.
Bahnsen, Greg, and Gordon Stein. “Dr. Gordon Stein (Athiest) vs Dr Greg Bahnsen (Jesus follower)” (video). Accessed August 30, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anGAazNCfdY&t=30s.
Bosserman, B. A. The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014.
Denault, Pascal. The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: Revised Edition. Revised ed. Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2017.
Eglinton, James. Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif (Tandt Clark Studies in Systematic Theology). NIPPOD ed. New York, NY: T&T Clark, 2014.
Frame, John. “Cornelius Van Til.” FRAME-POYTHRESS.ORG Triperspectival Theology for the Church (blog), May 16, 2012. Accessed October 24, 2017. https://frame-poythress.org/cornelius-van-til/.
Tipton, Lane, G. The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til, Libertyville: Reformed Forum, 2022.
Oliphint, K. Scott. Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith. Wheaton: Crossway, 2013.
Smith, Ralph A. Paradox and Truth: Rethinking van Til on the Trinity by Comparing van Til, Plantinga, and Kuyper. Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2003.
Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. 2nd ed. Edited by William Edgar. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 2003.
Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. 4 ed. Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Publishing, 2008.
White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity. Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1998.
[1] John Frame, “Cornelius Van Til,” FRAME-POYTHRESS.ORG Triperspectival Theology for the Church (blog), Walter Elwell, ed., Handbook of Evangelical Theologians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 156-67., May 16, 2012, accessed August 30, 2017, https://frame-poythress.org/cornelius-van-til/
[2] Greg Bahnsen and Gordon Stein, “Dr. Gordon Stein (Athiest) vs Dr Greg Bahnsen (Jesus follower)” (video), August 30, 2017, accessed August 30, 2017, https://youtu.be/anGAazNCfdY.
[3] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4 ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2008), 1.
[4] Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 63.
[5] K. Scott Oliphint, Covenantal Apologetics: Principles and Practice in Defense of Our Faith (Wheaton: Crossway, 2013), 39.
[6] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4 ed. (Barakaldo Books, 2020, Kindle Edition), 35.
[7] B. A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 90.
[8] Ibid, 52.
[9] Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4 ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2008), 34.
[10] Ralph A. Smith, Paradox and Truth: Rethinking van Til On the Trinity (Moscow, Idaho: Canon Press, 2003), Amazon Kindle Edition, 575.
[11] Lane G. Tipton, The Trinitarian Theology of Cornelius Van Til, (Libertyville: Reformed Forum, 2022), Kindle Edition, pg. 18.
[12] James Eglinton, Trinity and Organism: Towards a New Reading of Herman Bavinck’s Organic Motif, (New York, NY: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2012), 67-69.
[13] Ibid, 67.
[14] Greg L. Bahnsen, Van Til’s Apologetic: Readings and Analysis (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1998), 239.
[15] Ibid, 172-174.
[16] Greg Bahnsen, Presuppositional Apologetics Stated and Defended (Powder Springs: American Vision, 2010), Amazon Kindle Edition, 1056.
[17] Ibid, 1387.
[18] Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed., ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2003), 23.
[19] James R. White, The Forgotten Trinity (Minneapolis, Minn.: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 49.
Thanks for the great insight. Very well researched and presented.
Blessings.
I like that it is about apologetics and London Baptist confession!!
this is so deep a dive for me
With no disrespect intended, I am not sold on this idea of the Trinity as ‘the One and the Many’. Partly because of this, I don’t see how this can be used as an analogy to the philosophical problem of the one and the many. I say “partly” because mostly I don’t think it ever proper to use the Uncreated in some analogical fashion to His creation. It’s for this latter reason (in part) I reject the ‘social’ Trinitarians who, essentially, treat the Trinitarian ‘Persons’ as if human persons by equivocation on the term persons (I always capitalize the “P” and place single quotes around ‘Persons’ to indicate the difference between what is meant by the Divine ‘Persons’ and human persons). I see the van Tillian “Many” as doing the same basic thing. It’s Trinitarian Monotheism, not Trinitarian tritheism—the latter how I see both social Trinitarianism and this analogy to ‘the One and the Many’.
To be more specific, a human person is usually defined as one aware (conscious) of one’s surroundings. This implies three discreet ‘consciousnesses’ in the Divine ‘Persons’. In other words, tritheism. Conversely, a robust Trinitarianism defines the Divine ‘Persons’ sharing one consciousness/will. My experience has been that those espousing Social Trinitarianism claim three Divine wills, which devolves into tritheism. Can such an analogy of God as ‘the One and the Many’ escape this same fate?
I appreciate the comment. I will have to think about what you have said before providing a more in depth response. I will say I don’t think I am a social Trinitarian equivocating Divine Persons with human persons. But thanks for the comment.
Thanks for writing this guest post
Thomas,
Allow me to add a bit to my thoughts. Years ago, while reading a number of works on the Trinity (and Christology), I came across a work that was footnoted in a book by Oliver Crisp (Divinity and Humanity, IIRC). I bought it for reference. It contains some of the most straightforward explanations I’ve found on Trinitarianism. Following is a quote from this work, authored by RCC theologian Gerald O’Collins (S. J.). Preceding the quote is a prefatory comment I’d made on another forum, which I think is relevant here:
One can only define the ‘Persons’ of the Trinity by their intra-Trinitarian relationships. If you delineate too sharply, you imply tritheism, which is obviously heretical:
“…Here the distinction between divine and human persons (and the distinction between divine and human interrelationships) comes into sharp focus. In the case of the tripersonal God, the distinctness of interrelated persons is not constituted by separation of conscious and free subjectivities. A threefold subsistence does not entail three consciousnesses and three wills, as if the three persons, each with their own separate characteristics, constituted a kind of divine committee. One consciousness subsists in a threefold way and is shared by all three persons, albeit by each of them distinctively…Unless we accept that all the divine essential or natural properties (like knowing, willing, and acting) are identical and shared in common by the three persons of the Trinity, it is very difficult to see how we can salvage monotheism. Each person must be seen to be identical with the divine nature or the substance [ED: Ousia] of the [G]odhead. Otherwise, the distinction between the three persons will be upheld at the expense of the real divine oneness; the divine unity will be something recognized only after the distinct and even separate constitution of the three persons [ED: i.e., imply tritheism].
“How then are the divine relationships crucial and unique? They are just that because being person in God is defined ONLY through relationship to the other persons. (Here the finite model of personhood does call for adjustment.) The three divine persons are mutually distinct only in and through their relations of origin. The internal relations between the three persons form their sole distinguishing feature…[T]he (subsistent) relations account for what differentiates (and unites) the one trinitarian reality” (The Tripersonal God: Understanding and Interpreting the Trinity [Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1999], p 178).
My overarching point here is that I don’t think it ever proper to analogize the Trinity to humanity or human relations. If we take the philosophical ‘the one and the many’ as, say, the State vs. those governed by the State, we really cannot apply the same idea to the Trinity or we would be taking the Divine Ousia and juxtaposing it with the Divine ‘Persons’. The 3 are in the 1, yes, but the 3 are NEVER separated from the 1. The 3 are ALWAYS in the 1 because the ‘Persons’ are all “constituted” in the 1 Ousia. That is, God is always ONE numerically; God is never 3 numerically (think Divine Simplicity). Thus, God is ONE: Trinitarian MONOTHEISM. Monotheism is the noun and Trinitarian is the adjective modifying that noun.
[…] Guest Post: Understanding Van Til’s Trinitarian Apologetics in a Baptist Context […]
Slim do you need more guest post?
No more guest post needed for this trip; I do need guest posts later this summer though!
ok then
[…] 6.) Guest Post: Understanding Van Til’s Trinitarian Apologetics in a Baptist Context […]