Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader  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. |
What is wrong with it....
...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristianTrader What is the difference between an apparent contradiction and a regular real contradiction. |
The answer is in the fact that you had the ask what is the difference. And the answer is not that one is real and the other is not real.
Tell me this, what makes the doctrine of the Trinity appear to be a contradiction? It only appears to be a contradiction if you formulate it as VT did, "God is one person and three persons." That's what Frame called Van Til's "apparent contradiction". Why? Why is that an apparent contradiction.
You said earlier
Quote:
|
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.
|
But how is this an apparent contradiction? Think about it.
If I said that this apple is both red and green - this would be an apparent contradiction. Right? But the resolution of the contradiction is
easily resolved. The apple has both colors but at
different places on it's skin. It is not both red and green in the same places (i.e. in the same sense).
Now take Van Til's "God is one person and three persons". Same thing? God is one person and three persons, but not in the same sense. Right? ... Wrong. Because for Van Til, the apparent contradictions could not be resolved by the mind of man. Why, because God is three persons and one person in the same sense. Had Van Til simply said "but this is person in different senses", then he would not have conflicted with Gordon Clark. The "different senses" is the Clarkian solution. Van Til rejected your definition of "apparent contradiction" because you have given a
rational and easily comprehended resolution -- you have given the
Clarkian solution. Van Til did not allow for your solution.