Hello Gentlemen,

Consider the Trinity in light of the Hypostatic Union. You have one being made up of three persons. In addition to this, one of these persons is said to be fully God and fully man. This whole convoluted (do not take 'convoluted' in a prejorative sense) situation appears to be inconsistent. Now, I do not believe it is inconsistent because I think it is what Scripture teaches and I think whatever Scripture teaches will be consistent even if I cannot see it. I agree that my understanding is lacking, but it may be the case that because of my finitude I will never be able to understand some things such as the Hypostatic Union and the Trinity - especially taken together. In this sense, I can say that I am embracing an apparent contradiction. I do not believe it is an actual contradiction. But, I cannot adequately explain the situation so as to make things explicitly consistent. My guess is that everyone on this board is in the same situation as I am. In the end, we accept the Trinty and the Hypostatic Union with all the difficulties it presents our minds because we believe it to be taught by Scripture.

Sincerely,

Brian

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA

Brian,

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).
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.

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.

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. And we are not to embrace these contradictions. Rather, we should allow that our knowledge and understanding has it's limits, and we reject any thing that violates our reasoning. We may not fully understand the inter-workings of these doctrines, but neither can we put our faith into something that violates or reason because God does not contradict himself.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

Hello Anthony,

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

__________________
Brian Bosse
Faith Community Church
Tucson, Arizona
Scientiam Dei

But what if, for person X, B does not entail ~A? I made mention of this earlier. Gordon Clark was labeled as a rationalist by the Van Tillians for proposing a logical solution to the problem of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. What you're saying about humbling ourselves before God's Word makes perfect sense as long as we live in a world in which everyone agrees that A and B lead to an "apparent contradiction." But what if it isn't a contradiction for someone? Why is the limit of Van Til's ability to reconcile something the final arbiter of what is and isn't possible to be reconciled? Why is the limit of Van Til's intellectual capacity the rule against which we will measure someone and call them either a humble individual who "just accepts God's Word" (if they accept the "apparent contradictions" popularly accepted) or an arrogant rationalist?

__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

Then person X should be able to explain how B does not entail ~A to other people. I highly doubt that the majority of people who find certain doctrines paradoxical just don’t “see” and “get” what person X does. Of course anybody can say some doctrine isn’t paradoxical to them, but it is an entirely different matter to demonstrate that is the case.

Source? I’m willing to bet this isn’t what Van Tilians argue. Even Van Tilians argue for logical solutions to the problem of God’s sovereignty and human responsibility. Paul Manata-–a Van Tilian--was one of the most knowledgable members of this board when it comes to the compatibilist/libertarian debate. Of course there is much more to the problem than that debate, but it is part of answering the problem.

Also, can you quote Gordon Clark and give his answer to the sovereignty/moral responsibility problem. I apologize if I come off bad in this post, because that is not my intent. I do really want to have Clarks answer to this problem summed up, as I have not seen it yet in other threads. Thanks, ~Caleb

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA

I pretty much doubt that account because no Van Tillian that I know of think that the problem is a logical problem. Or put another way, the problem/issue is not against logic.

Who said anything about Van Til by himself? It is not like everyone was solving a certain problem then Van Til said, I just can't see it, and then everyone just started saying it was unsolvable. Mystery and Apparent contradiction etc. has been accepted for a long period of time in the church.

Next, lets say someone was able to "solve" a certain paradox, that before everyone else could not solve? What would have been gained? Until you solve every last one, you really have not gained that much.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Here is the quote, taken from http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=220:
Determinism and Responsibility

There are some books which touch on the subject here.

__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

What is the standard to say which quandaries (in the bible) are the ones we should spend our time trying to solve and which are "beyond us"? There is a huge difference in saying "we don't have an answer yet" and saying "an answer is not possible and anyone who tries to produce one is in grave error."

I suppose that one would say that if we can't solve every paradox now then we just need to wait, since the development of theology in general also didn't happen overnight. But telling everyone to just believe what they don't understand would slow the process down, don't you think? We have many less minds working diligently than we could.

__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

Ha!! After reading Clark's Thales to Dewey, listening to Frame's lecture series on philosophy, and tackling Derrida (in French, by the way, what a job), this is exactly what I've been thinking these last three weeks. I've just been looking for the best way to express it.

The funny thing I've seen after reading Clark, Frame, Van Til, and even some secular modern writers on philosophy, is that they all seem to agree on one thing: the quest for philosophical certainty outside of the Word of God is really a quest for self-autonomy. As Clark pointed out, every secular system has failed. I am coming to understand that this formerly dirty secret is something postmodernism is now starting to expose. Mayhaps God will use the general despair of relativism to turn his people back.

Thanks Rich, for the insight.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

If my understanding is that A and B entail a contradiction, then to believe them implicitly would be to impugn God as the author of a contradiction. For my understanding of A and B to entail a contradiction, I must believe that only one can be true, and the other must be false. That is what it means for A and B to appear entail a contradiction.

So it is impossible for me to believe both A and B are true if I also believe they entail a contradiction at the same time. I can not believe both A and ~A at the same time and the same sense without a violation of my conscience. This is not a matter of choice. I can not will myself to believe something I also believe entails a contradiction. So even if I acknowledge my understanding is limited and faulty, I still am unable to embrace apparent contradictions.

Think about this. If something "appears" to you to be a contradiction - you are saying, that as far as you understand, they can not both be true. To believe implicitly what you believe is a contradiction is not simple irrational, it's impossible. It is immediately self defeating. It is to say I can believe in round squares when I also say I believe that round squares are a contradiction.

Now I understand what Van Til is trying to say, that we can not always comprehend God. But this does not make it is necessary that God's word appears to be self contradictory to us. This is poor reasoning on Van Til's part.

First: if (B implies ~A), then ~(A & B). In other words, by definition A & B can not be God's Word because nothing in God's word is false. I can not separate A and B from what I think A and B mean. To assert A is to assert what I understand is A, and ditto with B.

Second: Let P = (p1 + p2 + p3 + p4...) be propositions of God's Word and are all true. Then no any combination of (p1, p2, p3, p4, ...) will cause a contradiction. Now let us say it is inevitable that I believe q1 is a member of P, but I am wrong. Maybe I'm thinking q1 is the same as p1. Regardless if q1 is true or false, it is not necessary that q1 imply ~P, a contradiction. I can have a false belief about what is a a member of P and it is not necessary that it entail a contradiction of P. Nothing demands the q1 -> ~P.

Van Til believed that due to the limitations of man's ability to understand God's Word, (the "creature Creator distinction) that it is necessary that God's Word seem contradictory to man. But the very fact that God has not revealed the totality of truth in his Word that means that we can hold false beliefs without contradicting Gods' Word. It is only if all truth revealed through God's word either explicit or by implication, would any false belief necessarily entail a contradiction of God's Word. But God has kept some truths hidden from us.

You also wrote:I disagree. It is not necessarily the case that further speculation of the meaning of the terms will lead to a contradiction. In fact, I think it is important for us to go further so as to make sure we are not making any assumptions which lead to contradictions. You see, one can only say that there is an apparent contradiction if one has consciously speculated some definition of the terms that lead to contradictions. If the doctrines of the Trinity and Hypostatic Union are truly implied by Scripture, then we can speculate regarding the definitions of the terms involved without necessarily coming to a contradiction. In fact, by doing this, we can eliminate possible definitions which are clearly not correct. We still may not know for certain what the perfectly correct definitions are, but we can a least determine which ones can not possibly be true at the same time. This is why we are to reason through the Word with prayer. We are to understand the Word as best we can, trusting in the Holy Spirit to guide us to truth. If we don't reason out the meaning of Scripture, then we will never grow spiritually in the knowledge of Christ.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

As a side note, all of the admonitions in the scripture to acquire understanding, the elevation of the value of true knowledge and wisdom, and the rejoicing of men like David (Ps 119 et al.) in the understanding found in God's word would seem misplaced. The hidden thoughts of God and the "mystery" of his (secret) will and his ways (providence) are often areas in which scripture requires silence on our behalf but where is God's revealed word ever spoken of in such a way? The revealed things are for us and our children. Those that are not revealed are not for us to know. Truths such as the Trinity and sovereignty/responsibility are revealed truths in scripture. They are descriptive, qualitative concepts which aren't the same as asking, like Job, "why is this happening to me?" God has not revealed to Job or to anyone else why providence looks the way it does. He has however, revealed things like I previously mentioned. So why should we act as if it's impossible to understand them, seeing that they are revealed?

__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

And likewise you have no standard by which to say X is solvable and that Y is not. So one big question is what do I lose by not solving a solvable but difficult paradox? What is at stake? There is always a finite amount of time to spend on any issue. So why would I spend a great deal of time on a problem that may not have a solution.

On top of all this, the Bible does not every give anyone any indication that all mysteries can be solved, and it is Reformed orthodoxy that mystery is essential to Theology.

To be fair concerning the development of theology, there have been very few if any paradoxes solved. What has been done is the Biblical data has been clearly put together into a system. An interesting side effect is that as the picture becomes clearer, the mystery comes into better focus, or put another way, our limits become much more clearly defined.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Well, in particular, to relate this particular discussion back to the OP, presuppositional apologetics is at stake. My question was how we can be intellectually honest by using a system of apologetics to point out inconsistencies and irrationality in other world views while embracing them in our own. It sounds self-defeating.

__________________
DAVIDIVS DOCTVS VTRIVSQVE LINGVAE
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics

Where has anyone said when one runs into a paradox or mystery, then there is no understanding?

Also where does true knowledge etc exclude mystery?

Lastly, if you are going to all God to have secret will and counsel then how are you going to be able to demand that God reveals enough that there is no mystery.

Who said one cannot understand the Trinity? God is one in some fashion and three in another. There is still a ton of mystery, but that does not exclude understanding.

CT

__________________
Hermonta Godwin
Christ The King PCA
Raleigh, NC

Actually, when Scripture uses the term mystery, it always speaks of what was hidden, but is now made known. Mystery in Scriptures are revealed knowledge. So you are correct: mystery, those things that were hidden in the past, but are now revealed in Christ, are essential to theology.



What are these paradoxes? There must by many you can list.

__________________
R. Anthony Coletti
Midway Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Jonesborough, TN
[i]et venite et arguite me dicit Dominus[/i]

First, you write: Then you back this claim up with this quote: “It is difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that by his refusal to permit the scriptural teaching of divine sovereignty and the scriptural teaching of human responsibility to stand alongside each other and by his claim that he has fully reconciled them with each other before the bar of human reason Dr. Clark has fallen into the error of rationalism.”

Your claim doesn’t follow from this quote. I pointed out before that even Van Tilians propose solutions to the problem of God's sovereignty and human responsibility. The point is that Clark seems to think he has fully reconciled them with each other before the bar of human reason. I think by saying fully reconciled, the author of this source means that there is no mystery.

Nobody is claiming that "anyone who tries to produce one is in grave error".

__________________
Caleb
Trinity Baptist Church
Spokane, WA