When we say that God’s knowledge is qualitatively different from our knowledge. Is this merely in relation to His Archetypal-Knowledge (i.e. His essence), or does the qualitative distinction maintain it’s character even in respect to God’s Ectypal-knowledge (Theology that we know analogically).

Thanks.

I looked up RedBeetle, and you weren’t kidding. His extremism would be an embarrassment if anybody actually knew about him. James White, though, did mention the RedBeetle in passing in 2011 (RedBeetle has posted the clip on YouTube, seemingly as some badge of honor.) He insists, among other things, that sanctification is monergistic and that R.C. Sproul and John Piper are not true Calvinists.

When you say God is one person or one consciousness who thinks wills and loves. While at the same time remaining 3 distinct persons or consciousnesses who think will and love.

Are you saying when they come together as one consciousness there is a mixture of the 3 consciousnesses and with respect to the one consciousness the 3 are no longer distinct while at the same time in another sense with respect to the 3 consciousness they are distinct?

Or are you saying that because each knows each other fully including their thoughts and fully indwell each other. Although the 3 conscioussnesses don’t mix they are together in perfect unity and when speaking about them as a unit they could be considered one consciousness or person?

Thanks God bless

Peter

In Christ,

Jeff

That is not true. Both Dr. Oliphint and Camden are misrepresenting Clark’s view. Of course Dr. Clark wasn’t arguing that Father or the Son or the Spirit may not know everything. Clark was saying that, although every person of the Trinity is omniscient, there are certain propositions that would APPLY ONLY to the Son (e.g., I walked the shores of Galilee), others that would apply only to the Father (e.g., I am the Father), and others only to the Spirit (e.g., I indwell God’s people). And obviously, the Father knows that Jesus walked the shores of Galilee and that the Holy Spirit indwells believers. All of the persons in the Trinity know the exact same thing–i.e., everything–including the propositions that apply to only one of the Persons, which also distinguishes that person from the other two.

Joel Parkinson has written a very helpful article about this called “The Intellectual Triunity of God.” Here is a brief quote:

Thus the subjective thoughts of the three divine Persons and their objective knowledge are not one and the same even though they are both all-encompassing. The Father does not think, “I will or have died on a cross,” nor does he think, “I will or do indwell Christians.” Only the Son can think the former and the latter is unique to the Holy Spirit. But all three know “the Son will die or has died on a cross,” and “the Holy Spirit will or does indwell Christians.” So the subjective thoughts distinguish the Persons even though their objective knowledge is shared and complete.

http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=70

[…]The Clark/Van Til Controversy – ReformedForum.org[…]…

[…]The Clark/Van Til Controversy – ReformedForum.org[…]…

[…]The Clark/Van Til Controversy – ReformedForum.org[…]…

GH Kay

So when Van Tilians say contrary, they really mean contradictory? Do they prove the impossibility of the contradictory, with the TAG?

Sheesh

On the other hand, maybe not.

Don,
This personal recollection of yours (from 30+ years ago) is not very helpful because it can’t be verified. Even if CVT did say such a thing, we should judge his arguments on the basis of what he has written. From your website I gather your dislike conflict (a commendable quality); you’re a broad consensus IVF sort of guy. You are exactly the sort of student that President Clowney was trying to attract to Westminster in the mid 70s. But I wonder if your get-along disposition might not be the reason you disapprove of Van Til’s transcendental argument and method; Van Tillian apologetics is just too confrontational for your taste.

Don

I wouldn’t worry about it too much, I’m sure he also contradicted himself on this advise somewhere else. It was likely only an apparent contradiction, so we can accept both that we should tell someone who does not accept the Bible as authoritative they are going to hell and that we should not do so. We should make no attempt to reconcile this paradox because all teaching of scripture is apparently contradictory. On the other hand, how can we fault the person who does not accept the Bible as authoritative if every one of its teachings appears to contradict itself? Hmmm….

I forgot that my knowledge (if you can call it that) is (only) analogical and, therefore, must be paradoxical. That clears things up. Well, I guess it both does and does not clear things up.

Need I say more?

Hi GH Kay
i do not have to defend any of G Clark’s views,he has done that very well in his books.
the “rationalist” accusation though is simply a joke and vantilians should just take out of their vocabulary

Hi Mo Se Jun and any others interested in the proof of God’s existence so as not to contradict the Bible, as Van Till *always demanded* it must be and can be done, please see this following free book:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/56556977/Biblical-Christianity-is-Reasonable

which explicitly discusses this in great detail. It also shows that Clark _agreed_ with Van Till and in fact Clark actually shows how the proof is to be constructed by _biblical_ Christians.

Also, can I commend you to see the archives or join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GHClark_List1 to discuss in more detail.

God Bless,

Hi gigi,

While you err on the one side of defending certain of Clark’s view (see some of my other replies here that note this) what you write from the other side against movement-like Vantillians is just as pertinent and true!

That is, the utterly stupid and even irresponsible and demonstrably false accusations that Clark was a rationalist. Nevertheless, it seems, as long as the lie is mindlessly repeated and repeated, it gains a life of its own, until many believe it, be it due to laziness or whatnot.

Anyone however even a bit informed – both about what constitutes rationalism, in its technical sense, and also what Clark ACTUALLY believed and copiously wrote about – could never spread such a lie about Clark. And to continue do so with such knowledge would be at best highly irresponsible and at worst malicious and thoroughly unchristian.

That so many informed people nevertheless continue to accuse Clark of this, strongly suggests they are using the “rationalist” label in a less technical sense, and primarily for its propaganda and pejorative value. They do not seem really interested to actually state Clark’s views as they really are.

Can I commend you and all to read this free book that covers in much detail just this very issue: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56556977/Biblical-Christianity-is-Reasonable

Also, can I commend you to see the archives or join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GHClark_List1 to discuss in more detail.

God bless,

Hi Charlie (and similar others), I applaud your desire to uphold what you see as orthodoxy along the lines of Clark and Robbins. Alas……

All genuine and sincere followers of Clark’s thought and as those who wish to remain logically consistent, as Clark would commend and exhort them to do so, then all such need to change their mind one way or another.

As I point out to Steve and gigi, it is simply irrefutable on Clark’s *own* connotative definition of a person, that Clark actually had to say, logically was compelled to say the same thing as and agree with Van Till, if Clark wished to remain logically consistent and NOT fall into some heterodox or even heretical conception of the Trinity and Godhead! Even though we know that Clark objected to Van Till’s claim of 1P = 3P.

It is childishly easy to prove that Clark’s connotative definition of a person logically compels Clark and all who follow his views on this here, must, simply MUST agree with Van Till, whether they like it or not.

Of course I realise that many movement-like Clarkian followers will not change their mind on this and instead will rather demonstrate their emotive commitment and proclivity to insults and ridicule, that to actually deal with the proof from Clark’s own words that 1P = 3P is and must be so.

Again, I commend you to see the archives or join http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GHClark_List1 to discuss in more detail.

God bless,

Hi Steve, gigi and others,

who are rightly concerned about Godhead is 1P (person) = Trinity is 3 P (persons) seeming irrationality, allegedly popularised by Van Til (CVT).

Laudably, you all desire to uphold the rationality and orthodoxy of 1 Godhead consists of the Three Divine Persons, the Trinity. All this is in line with the “orthodox” Clarkian view, to put it so crudely. John Robbins further reinforced this line, and ever since most Clark followers just repeat uncritically more or less the same ideas.

However, on *Clark’s* own connotative definition of what a PERSON is (a definition I personally love, as it is clear, and cuts through so much mumbo jumbo AND solves real problems), it is absolutely irrefutable, yes irrefutable, that Clark agrees with Van Till that the Godhead is a Person, ONE Person, in the exact same sense (i.e. connotative definition) as the Three Divine Persons of the Trinity. It is childishly simple to prove this logically.

No critically thinking Clarkian can or should dispute this fact on the pain of their own inconsistency or even irrationality. Ironically, many resort just to such a manoeuvre to avoid where Clark leads, simply to maintain their animosity towards CVT regardless of what Clark’s connotative definition demands.

It is true however that _psychologically_ most Clarkians do not grasp what is irrefutably contained logically in Clark’s works on this, despite the fact that Clark objects to CVT’s formulation 1P = 3P.

Please, again, if you with to check or discuss this, either peruse the archives or you are most welcome to join the Clark List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GHClark_List1

God Bless,

Hi Steve, what you say on contraries vs contradictories is precisly correct – technically speaking.

Alas, many movement Clarkians (I am not say you are one; and I am very favourable towards Clark myself) simply do not look at the context of Vantilian’s intented meaning of this peculiar phrase “impossibility of the contrary”. The way they use it (see their many examples) they mean to claim *contradictories* it would seem to me. And, colloquialy, people often use “contrary” when they mean “contradictory”. So, unfortunately, imo both sides therefore add to the confusion.

See: http://www.scribd.com/doc/56556977/Biblical-Christianity-is-Reasonable which discusses this in more detail.

Please see archives of (or join) the Clark List http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GHClark_List1 to discuss in more detail. God Bless,

that would be the logical step but i have a ‘feeling’ the vantilian bias will win out…LOL

Camden

You wrote,”Van Til was using the word “person” in a philosophical sense when he made his statement.”

Then you wrote, “In the Godhead, we must consider the unity (ousia, essence) as thinking, willing, loving, etc. just as much as we can consider any individual hypostasis (“creedal” person) doing these things.”

Am I correctly understanding you to be saying when Van Til speaks of the unity of God as one person he is speaking of a “philosophical person”, but when he speaks of the three persons of the Godhead he is speaking of “creedal persons”?

Is it possible to distinguish between a creedal person and a philosophical person without first knowing what a person is?

Jeff

I interacted and you still did not reply

Camden

You wrote, “Van Til was using the word “person” in a philosophical sense when he made his statement.”

Neither you nor Van Til are willing to tell us what a “philosophical person” is. What is the difference between a philosophical person and a theological person? I assume you consider there to be some difference.

If unwilling to define person, why use the word at all? Is it just that you and Van Til purposely wish to obfuscate?

I believe that is the case.

Camden

It is interesting to me that you are willing to define the historical positions of other people, but unwilling to perspiciously put forth your own view.

Camden

You said, “A biblically informed philosophical defense of personhood and its relation to Trinitarian theology is not going to fit in a comment.”

I asked for a definition of person. Apparently, you won’t define it because you believe you would have to write a book on the subject? I am not buying that explanation (or lack thereof). I think it is because any definition you might provide would expose the contradictory nature of your viewpoint (and Van Til’s).

Camden

I think I should clarify my last comment. It is confusing.

VanTilians cannot consistently maintain that if the one is possible (that the Godhead is one person and three persons) the other is not possible (that Christ was one person and two persons).
.

Camden

If neither you nor Van Til define what a “person” is in Van Til’s formulation of the Trinity (that the Godhead is one person and three person) then it is simply meaningless. You haven’t defined it nor have you cited a definition in Van Til’s writings. I am justified having no idea what you (or Van Til) mean. I am also justified in stating that neither of you have any idea what you mean.

You have given no meaningful response to the question of why can’t Christ be one person and two persons when the Godhead can be one person and three persons. You have stated that both Christ’s natures think will and love, but since you are unwilling (because you say it would take too long to do it in a post) to define person you have no good reason to deny that Christ was both one person and two persons other than it would conflict with certain traditions you hold to.

I don’t believe that Christ was one person and two persons or that the Godhead is one person and three persons, but VanTilians cannot consistently deny that if the one is possible the other is not possible, but then Van Tilains are not known for holding consistency in high regard.

Steve, we want to maintain the Chalcedonian formula and reject monophysitism. Christ’s human and divine natures are united to one another, but always remain distinct. Some throughout church history have held that Christ’s human nature was absorbed into his divine making one new nature (Eutychianism). Even others have held that Christ’s human nature had a “living principle” but that the Logos took over that role – becoming what we typically consider as the human nature’s mind (Apollinarism). Those views are outside the bounds of orthodoxy.

My intent was to stress that Christ’s human nature does not exist apart from being hypostatically united to the eternal Son of God. The human nature thinks, wills, and loves, though not independently from its permanent union to the eternal Son of God.

Definitions of person in a philosophical sense can be very slippery. Some, such as Locke, have defined person as something with self-consciousness or self-awareness over some duration. Boethius presented another definition that became very influential in church history. He defined a person as “an individual substance of a rational nature.” Basically for Boethius a person is that which possesses an intellect and a will. The intellect and will do not constitute a person as such – rather a person is that which possesses an intellect and a will.

I am not intending to defend any of these positions. A biblically informed philosophical defense of personhood and its relation to Trinitarian theology is not going to fit in a comment. I simply want to point out a few of the dynamics undergirding Van Til’s statement that God is one person and three persons. He was not intending to deny the creedal formulations. He was speaking in a more philosophical sense.

Camden
Thank you for answering. I was not expecting an answer this long after initial posing this question.

“When the Son of God takes to himself a human nature he does not add to himself a philosophical person – one who thinks, wills, loves, etc. Nor does he instantiate any type of perichoresis.”

Are you saying that Christ’s human nature did not think will or love?

Please define a “philosophical person”.

Please define “person” at all. No one else on this blog has defined person other than to scoff Clark’s definition.

Your reply is quite deep. It is really too deep for me to understand. I’m thinking I may need my shovel.

Steve, let me remind everyone what Van Til does not say. He doesn’t say God is one hypostasis and three hypostases. It seems much of the objection in this thread stems from the apparent issues with the creedal formulations. Van Til was using the word “person” in a philosophical sense when he made his statement.

When the Son of God takes to himself a human nature he does not add to himself a philosophical person – one who thinks, wills, loves, etc. Nor does he instantiate any type of perichoresis. Does that make Christ’s human nature impersonal? The human nature can never be considered apart from the hypostasis or the Son as “philosophical” person. There is no human nature walking around which the Son picks out and decides to take to himself. The Son’s human nature is conceived by the Holy Ghost in the womb of the virgin Mary. It is always hypostatically united to the Son of God.

In the Godhead, we must consider the unity (ousia, essence) as thinking, willing, loving, etc. just as much as we can consider any individual hypostasis (“creedal” person) doing these things. Yet we always know that any individual hypostasis fully indwells the other hypostases in and through subsistence in the essence. Van Til’s statement is meant to answer two questions: Does the Godhead, acting as a unity, think, will, love, etc? Yes. Does each individual hypostasis think, will, love, etc.? Yes.

Not to spare the Van Tilians which I am not, I am Clarkian in my epistemology and metaphysics. To understand the fallacy of the Van Tillian/Augustinian view of the Trinity you have to go to the source: ADS Simplicity and seeing the hypostatic source to be the divine nature instead of the Father. The latter is Cappadocian and Nicean, i.e. Orthodox. Van Til/Augustine see the hypostatic source to be the divine nature and so they talk about the nature itself being personal, which is modalist par excl.It’s a classic confusion of nature and person and a massive confusion among the persons. Read the Cappadocian brothers, the council of Nicea and Fr. John Behr’s stuff on the monarchy of the Father; it is awesome and Joseph P Farrell’s stuff on Augustine’s view of the Trinity in his Introduction to the Mystagogy is the check mate to Van Til/Augustine on the Trinity. Farrell’s criticisms of Calvinism are straw men, but his criticism of Scholasticism is yummy to the Scripturalist tummy.

I don’t have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. I was looking for a response from a Van Tilian. I have gathered that you are not one. If you are a Van Tilian, please answer in a fashion that is consistant with Van Til’s position. If not, please let a Van Tilian respond.

In reference to the Clarkian thing about how human will implies a human person I suggest to you Maximus the Confessor’s works and the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Drake

I am not really expecting an answer because I know how busy you become when asked a question you have difficulty answering.

Steve M
like a true clarkian…you got that right !

Concerned

Christianity:
The propositions of the 66 books of Scripture together with their logical implications.

Steve,
Seriously, I’m pretty sure we don’t want to be asking Drake to define anything at this point.

You said, “Lose your woman, every friend you’ve had your whole life, your scholarship from school, your career and your health for Christianity”.

Please define “Christianity.”

Assertion, Opinion;

“do the work”

I’ve been doing it everyday for 12 years now and I don’t know you but from my “experience” with American Christians I can guess that I have paid the costs a hundred fold more than you. Pay the cost and then we can talk. Lose your woman, every friend you’ve had your whole life, your scholarship from school, your career and your health for Christianity and then we can talk, grasshopper.

“It is impossible for anyone to believe the same thing to be and not to be…and if IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT CONTRARY ATTRIBUTES SHOULD BELONG AT THE SAME TIME TO THE SAME SUBJECT…obviously it is impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be.”

Aristotle, Metaphysics Book Gamma:3:1005b20, p. 737 from Free Choice in Maximus the Confessor by Farrell

Here is your problem: Christianity posits two DISTINCT natures in one subject/person and two DISTINCT wills in one subject/person. Aristotle won’t have it. Aristotle’s/Your position is the exact position that Sergius and the monothelites held to which you are and must be. Scholasticism is monothelitism.

This clearly shows that any real distinction between God’s nature and will is meaningless with the Scholastics. There are no distinctuions in God at all to them. To grasp one aspect of God is two grasp all which Clark denies. Owen tried this in John Owen, The Works of John Owen, Volume 9, A Dissertation on Divine Justice, pg. 360-363 [London: Printed for Richard Baynes, 1826] http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/theology-proper/john-owen-on-necessary-and-free-volitions-in-god, in reponse to the Arminian objection that Calvinism posits a completely necessary God and the inter trinitarian acts are no different than external acts of creation. Yet the scholastic cannot do this. To posit an act of the will is to posit an act of the nature. This is Neoplatonism and it is not Christian.

Farrell says, “Because the One [The Neoplatonic One] was simple, any act of the One in willing to create finite particulars was also an act of Its essence, since essence, will and activity are all “wholly indistinguishable.” Creation is but the “overflowing of the divine essence into creation.”17 There was, in theological terms, no distinction between the essence and the energies of the One, or between theology and economy. This is an important point to remember in the ensuing discussion.”

The Scholastic position is the Origenist tradgedy all over again.