Hello Anthony,
Quote:
|
I can see that these doctrines are difficult, but what is the "apparent" contradiction in them. Nothing you said involves a contradiction (apparent or otherwise).
|
I have purposefully avoided defining my terms because once I begin to do so then the trouble starts. In other words, I have purposefully left things vague to avoid trouble. If you look at how the Council of Chalcedon carefully spoke regarding the Hypostic Union, they did not get too specific. In fact, someone once said that if you go beyond the formulation, then pick your heresey. Essentially, they were saying that if you tried to clarify the doctrine beyond what was said in their statement, then you end up contradicting some other doctrine.
Quote:
It seems to me you have actually avoided the appearance of any contradiction.
The Trinity: God is one in essence, and three in persons.
Hypostatic Union: Jesus is both fully God and fully man.
Now I haven't joined these two statements into a single argument because they are not using the same terms in the same sense. I did not say simply that "Jesus is God", but more specifically that "Jesus is fully God". To me this means that Jesus is one person of the Trinity. He is also (according to the doctrine of the Trinity) one in essence with the Godhead.
|
Please define your terms explicitly. What do 'God,' 'essence,' and 'person' mean in the sentence "God is one in essence, and three in persons"? What does 'Jesus' 'God' and 'man' mean in the sentence "Jesus is both fully God and fully man"? What does the adjective 'fully' mean? What does 'Godhead' mean?
Quote:
|
Contradictions may occur if we incorrectly define some of the terms used in the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Doctrine of Hypostatic Union. The apparent contradictions may occur when we speculate beyond what Scripture clearly reveals.
|
This is a good point. The trouble we encounter is that speculation is desired because the terms end up being underdefined. With these underdefined terms it may be the case that we are not able to go any further and still avoid a contradiction. This is an apparent contradiction. Theologians referred to this as mystery.
Quote:
|
We may not know for certain what the exact relationship is between the Trinity and Hypostatic Union, but we can say for certain that if we define the terms of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union in such a way as they cause a contradiction, then we are wrong.
|
Anthony, we need to be precise here. There is a difference between my perception of a contradiction and there actually being a contradiction. Something may appear to be contradictory to me, and may actully not be contradictory. This happens all of the time in our experience. However, normally we are able to resolve these apparent contradictions with more information. So, apparent contradictions are not necessarily real contradictions. I am suggesting that in some cases we may never be able to resolve such apparent contradictions and that nevertheless they are not real contradictions.
Quote:
|
Rather, we should allow that our knowledge and understanding has it's limits, and we reject any thing that violates our reasoning.
|
Here is the heart of the matter. Is our reasoning the final arbiter when confronted by things that may be beyond us? Or, do we acknowledge the limitations of even our own reasoning and embrace apparent contradiction on the basis of the one asking us to embrace it? In other words, if God said to you A and B are true, yet in your understanding B entailed ~A, would you humble your intellect to God's word? If so, then you agree with Van Til on this point. If not, then you place your own reasoning above God's word. Of this whole post (and thread), this last point is the key.
Sincerely,
Brian