Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
Thank you for the gentle correction!
Van til and the Trinity
- Thread starter faithandfreedom
- Start date
- Status
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Thank you for this and you're right. He said "we speak of God as one person", going all the way back to one of my earlier posts (although I unfortunately was not quoting Van Til) I made reference to the way the Bible speaks of him in the singular and how ordinary people do as well. But thanks for throwing this in here.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
Van Til makes further pertinent comments on pg. 362-364.
I might be wrong, but you may be referring to what I said in the quotes below. My point was not that God being impersonal is not an issue, but that the formula “one being, three persons” entails God being personal.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
He never used that statement to my knowledge. So am I to understand, I'll ask this question knowing how bad you've been about answering to the point questions, that all you want is for Vantillian's to not use a made up phrase? That's it?
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes he does. My issues is that you aren’t dealing with the actual quotes. What does he say there? Also, what does he say in the entire chapter? It’s pertinent!
Look, with all sincerity - I don’t want to convince you one way or another about CVT. But, it was you that’s suggested that selective quoting of Letham was not respectful. I’m suggesting that you actually interact with Van Til, not merely others interactions with Van Til. Prove him wrong, by all means. But at least try and quote him.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
Reading this post genuinely makes me sad.
I have patiently read and responded to countless questions that you have raised about my argument over the last week or two. As I have previously stated, I appreciate how cordial our interactions have been. For you to now turn around and suggest I have been evasive is frankly insulting. I am left wondering if you have been influenced by others, who have also made personal remarks about me and have yet to take any responsibility for their actions.
Have you read p362-364?
“One absolute person”
“We do assert that God, that is, the whole Godhead, is one person”
It defies credulity to suggest that Van Til does not speak of the Godhead as one person, he also says that God is three persons, hence the formula widely attributed to VT, in both popular and academic literature, “one person, three persons”.
For Van Tillians to defend his recasting of the orthodox formula of God without being aware of what he taught on the subject is a danger to the church.
The doctrine of the Trinity is the fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith.
For what it’s worth, my advice would be to read Letham’s Holy Trinity. There you will find a treatment of the Holy Trinity that is rooted in patristic scholarship. You will be alerted to the dangers that have been posed by repeated attempts to recast the doctrine of the Trinity throughout history and will learn an immense amount about the entailments of a right expression of this doctrine. In short, by understanding more of this doctrine your, heart and soul will be lifted up to worship our almighty Triune God, in harmony with saints down through the ages.
Post automatically merged:
See my post responding to jwright82.
Selectively quoting Letham was wildly different. I have not misrepresented VT, Letham was misrepresented.
JvMill
Puritan Board Sophomore
Seven pages to get here:
“One person, three persons” = bad/unhelpful formulation.
Van Til was not a heretic
One ‘side’ says: formulation leads to heresy and shouldn’t be used. (I can’t really tell what else was being argued tbh)
Other ‘side’ says: Van Til said what he said for certain (commendable) reasons. Doesn’t excuse an unhelpful formulation, but gives historical context. Agrees formulation shouldn’t be used.
My contribution, hopefully to end this thing:
Taken at face value, yes, it can lead to heresy/contradiction. At face value it is a = not-a, a contradiction. BUT, if there was ever a theologian not to take at face value, it would be Van Til - paradox is literally built into his system.
And as has been said multiple times here, it’s not entirely obvious that droves of people have been led into heresy by this formulation. Few people read Van Til in general, fewer read him where he says the questionable quote, and fewer still understand what he is trying to say.
Everyone agrees:
1. It’s a bad formulation and we shouldn’t explain the Trinity using this language.
2. Van Til was not a heretic
Therefore, let’s put it to rest.
And @faithandfreedom, let me give you some advice. Those who are ‘well seasoned’ on this board have seen dozens of people join, argue some niche point attempting to persuade everyone else they’re wrong, then get kicked off because it is clear they don’t want discussion but have an axe to grind.
You don’t seem to be that kind of guy. You seem to want real discussion. But your behavior reflects that attitude in certain ways, primarily in that you come off as thinking you can’t be wrong. I know you don’t think that, but some of your comments, and your insistence on continuing the debate when there is general agreement, and speaking as if this one issue is of unprecedented importance and everyone else is foolish for not seeing it, reflects such an attitude that the ‘more seasoned’ members have seen time and again. There is a time to agree to disagree.
When multiple people (at least two of which are elders) say you are engaging in conversation improperly, it would behoove you to take a step back and reflect. The Lord’s day is a perfect opportunity to do that.
Blessings to all,
“One person, three persons” = bad/unhelpful formulation.
Van Til was not a heretic
One ‘side’ says: formulation leads to heresy and shouldn’t be used. (I can’t really tell what else was being argued tbh)
Other ‘side’ says: Van Til said what he said for certain (commendable) reasons. Doesn’t excuse an unhelpful formulation, but gives historical context. Agrees formulation shouldn’t be used.
My contribution, hopefully to end this thing:
Taken at face value, yes, it can lead to heresy/contradiction. At face value it is a = not-a, a contradiction. BUT, if there was ever a theologian not to take at face value, it would be Van Til - paradox is literally built into his system.
And as has been said multiple times here, it’s not entirely obvious that droves of people have been led into heresy by this formulation. Few people read Van Til in general, fewer read him where he says the questionable quote, and fewer still understand what he is trying to say.
Everyone agrees:
1. It’s a bad formulation and we shouldn’t explain the Trinity using this language.
2. Van Til was not a heretic
Therefore, let’s put it to rest.
And @faithandfreedom, let me give you some advice. Those who are ‘well seasoned’ on this board have seen dozens of people join, argue some niche point attempting to persuade everyone else they’re wrong, then get kicked off because it is clear they don’t want discussion but have an axe to grind.
You don’t seem to be that kind of guy. You seem to want real discussion. But your behavior reflects that attitude in certain ways, primarily in that you come off as thinking you can’t be wrong. I know you don’t think that, but some of your comments, and your insistence on continuing the debate when there is general agreement, and speaking as if this one issue is of unprecedented importance and everyone else is foolish for not seeing it, reflects such an attitude that the ‘more seasoned’ members have seen time and again. There is a time to agree to disagree.
When multiple people (at least two of which are elders) say you are engaging in conversation improperly, it would behoove you to take a step back and reflect. The Lord’s day is a perfect opportunity to do that.
Blessings to all,
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
Good to interact with you again brother. I’m sorry that you feel that my behaviour has been problematic. You are of course entitled to your opinion and I take no offence. Indeed, I thank you for not making any personal comments about me in a public space, it reflects well on you.
As I’ve repeatedly said, my intention has been to debate the formula “one person, three persons”. I have benefitted from the robust debate around this and have welcomed others challenging my position. I recognise that others do not share my assessment of VT’s formula and that is fine by me. I firmly believe that those who disagree with me are my brothers in Christ and defend VT’s formula for genuine reasons.
As to my next move, I am more than willing to continue the conversation with Van Halen and Wright. Otherwise, I intend to comment on the interesting thread that you started on liturgy.
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
This is unrelated, but I sometimes forget the absurdity of my username, and seeing myself referred to simply as "Van Halen" made me laugh out loud.
Also, I have no further interest in debating CVT. My perspective is succinctly presented in @John The Baptist's summary.
Also, I have no further interest in debating CVT. My perspective is succinctly presented in @John The Baptist's summary.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
It’s the best username I’ve seen. Thanks for interacting with me. I’ve enjoyed the conversation.
Ploutos
Puritan Board Senior
@John The Baptist - you said what I was thinking, very much better than even I was thinking it. I refrained from voicing my thoughts because, in what is no doubt a reflection on my maturity and charitability, I didn't think I could have aired those thoughts in a helpful way. But yes, I've seen this movie and its remakes many times, and it always saddens me when I think of the potential contributions to this board that are lost through perfectly avoidable tendentiousness.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
I agree.
Thank you for the advice.
Unfortunately said Elders made some demeaning comments about me which had no factual basis and were not provable. As a Presbyterian, I have every right to challenge such statements and to request them to be retracted. As Reformed churchmen we do not believe in a hierarchical system where Elders are “above” the laity.
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Well than why did I ask over and over again for you to answer my questions? But, unless I missed something, you avoided the serious ones. You still have not produced one name of someone who went into heresy because of Van Til. Not one.
Van Halen gave the full quote, you seem to be avoiding the whole quote? Then you pick and choose a made up phrase for affect, I can only assume, but it's not there.
Are you referring to John Robbins here? And are you saying they're not equally guilty of what you're doing? Defies credulity? Someone who is very wise once said to me "if you're the only one in the boat who thinks it's about to sink, what's more likely true that everyone is wrong or just you?"
This is as ridiculous as it's wrong. So all of us Vantillian's are unaware of what he taught? You complain about personal attacks but what could be more personal than accusing an entire group of fellow believers of naiveté and/or willful ignorance.
You present a straw man of Van Til and Vantillian's when papers were presented along with lectures. You simply refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of him meaning the word person in two different senses.
You say a danger to the Church without, again, producing a single individual who became a heretic on the Trinity.
Why are you surprised that no one will engage with your straw man of Van Til and Vantillian's? You present a straw man and appear shocked that no one goes along with it. Why would we?
So now I'm the one in particular who is ignorant? I've debated people for over 20 plus years and I've come across this tactic a long time ago. Just accuse the other person of ignorance and one doesn't have to deal with their argument.
I understand that you feel personally attacked but to turn around and personally attack someone who has bent over backwards to be kind, is not a wise way to defend yourself.
The burden of proof is on you. That Van Til meant the term in the same sense in both uses and that people have been led to heresy because of it.
According to mostly everyone else you have.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I don't see how the whole quote is any better.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
No not Robbins.
I think it’s been made clear that my views on VT’s formula of the Trinity are unwelcome on PB (not by you but by others). I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I’ve even received a direct intervention from John the Baptist, who raised the spectre of being removed from the board.
I would be happy to respond to each and every one of your questions, but I’m not sure it’s wise, given the strength of feeling expressed by others. I’ve not intentionally avoided any of your previous questions, it’s just that each of your posts contained multiple questions so to avoid writing an essay, I cherry picked.
I am sorry if my last post caused you any offence. I was tying to make a genuine point about what you and Van Halen were suggesting; that the one person, three person formula is an invention of my imagination. (We could call this the Wright-Van Halen thesis)
I have really enjoyed our back and forth and I appreciate you. To avoid further censure, would it be worth discussing via PM?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Maybe we can wrap it up this way:
The Godhead is One Person
Contradictory? No
Paradox? Yes
Helpful: You decide
The Godhead is One Person
Contradictory? No
Paradox? Yes
Helpful: You decide
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
That works.
Post automatically merged:
Your post didn't cause any offense, I was simply pointing out the unintended consequences of what you seem to be implying. I don't think you thought about it honestly. The Wright-Van Halen thesis is that the straw man you refer to is an invention of your imagination.
Cornelius Van Halen
Puritan Board Freshman
For what it's worth I don’t think you made it up - I just was surprised that in a 6 page conversation on CVT, he had never been quoted.
If I may, enjoying PB threads means you’ll engage with people who you’ve clashed with. It would be a shame to not enjoy the wealth of wisdom from brothers because of a spicy back and forth on here. Blessed are the peacemakers, and such.
If I may, enjoying PB threads means you’ll engage with people who you’ve clashed with. It would be a shame to not enjoy the wealth of wisdom from brothers because of a spicy back and forth on here. Blessed are the peacemakers, and such.
faithandfreedom
Puritan Board Freshman
Love this. You’re a gentleman and a scholar my friend. Apologies for not quoting CVT. That was an oversight on my part.
Post automatically merged:
Glad to hear it. It’s been a wild ride, but you’ve made me think hard.
You’re a tough opponent
. Huge respect brother!
jwright82
Puritan Board Professor
Well I come from a huge Irish-American family and we all argue with each other. I've enjoyed the debate as well. Thanks for keeping me on my toes.Love this. You’re a gentleman and a scholar my friend. Apologies for not quoting CVT. That was an oversight on my part.
Post automatically merged:
Glad to hear it. It’s been a wild ride, but you’ve made me think hard.
You’re a tough opponent
- Status
