Quote:
Originally Posted by Civbert  I think you missed the point. If it were as simply as "person" being used in different senses, then Van Til could not say there was an apparent contradiction. You have resolved any appearance of contradiction by saying (as Van Til clearly does not) that is simply a matter of different senses of the term "person". There has to be a sense in which "person" is used in the same sense for both God and the three persons of the Trinity at the same time. Otherwise there is no appearance of contradiction. |
Let me quote myself from above.
"One can maintain that God is one person and three persons and say that the sense of person is different and maintain that it is all an apparent contradiction." So the ball is in your court to show that such is a wrong application of the term apparent contradiction.
Go ahead and google the term, and show us what you come up with.
Quote:
|
And you need to also account that the Doctrine of the Trinity is the product of Scriptural interpretation.
|
Easily done.
Quote:
|
If Scripture can not contradict itself, then, as Rev. Winzer pointed out, no correct Scriptural doctrine contradict itself.
|
Agreed.
Quote:
|
Van Til insisted in formulating the Doctrine of the Trinity in a explicitly contradictory manner.
|
Nothing you have shown thus far has justified such a position.
Quote:
|
Also keep in mind the VT had another issue he was trying to resolve - the Greek problem of "the one and the many". This issue was central to VT's theology and was one of the reasons he insisted on the explicit contradiction of God being both three and one.
|
There is no explicit contradiction. This is really getting tiring. What is the difference between an apparent contradiction and a regular real contradiction.
Quote:
|
VT's apparent contradictions are there because he believed that they could not be resolved. "Person" in different senses resolves the contradiction so it's not what VT was thinking.
|
It does not resolve anything. It just pushes it back a step.
CT