jubalsqaud
Puritan Board Freshman
After doing some studying of the one and the many apologetic I have realized a fatal flaw in the reasoning.
The reasoning is roughly this
P1. The one and the many need to be co-ultimate
P2 .The trinitarian God is the only God concept that allows co-ultimacy
C: Therefore the christian God is the only God that can explain this.
The problem is premise 2 is false.
Unitarian gods can explain the one and the many using the exact same basic formula of that the trinitarian uses.
This is because the trinity uses the distinctions in the divinely simple God in order to have its co-ultimacy of the one and the many.
However there is nothing stopping a unitarian from claiming his mono-personal simple God has distinctions within him.
One might wonder what these distinctions are, however he need not be aware of what the distinctions are if God revealed the fact that disctions exist without revealing the identity of the distinctions to him.
Likewise one might want to say "well if the God is simple he cant have distinctions"
But if this is true then the trinity is false, for the trinity requires simplicity and distinctions.
As such I kinda think Van Til's efforts were largely in vain.
The reasoning is roughly this
P1. The one and the many need to be co-ultimate
P2 .The trinitarian God is the only God concept that allows co-ultimacy
C: Therefore the christian God is the only God that can explain this.
The problem is premise 2 is false.
Unitarian gods can explain the one and the many using the exact same basic formula of that the trinitarian uses.
This is because the trinity uses the distinctions in the divinely simple God in order to have its co-ultimacy of the one and the many.
However there is nothing stopping a unitarian from claiming his mono-personal simple God has distinctions within him.
One might wonder what these distinctions are, however he need not be aware of what the distinctions are if God revealed the fact that disctions exist without revealing the identity of the distinctions to him.
Likewise one might want to say "well if the God is simple he cant have distinctions"
But if this is true then the trinity is false, for the trinity requires simplicity and distinctions.
As such I kinda think Van Til's efforts were largely in vain.