No Neutral Ground Between the Believer and the Non-Believer
Van Til eschewed any apologetic that would end up proving a god exists, for this would be denying the Scriptures and their teachings that the unbeliever can even be met on a common ground, for the unbeliever is wholly at enmity with God. Van Til also believed strongly that Christian theism is a unit, and any apologetic that compromised the unity of Christianity was a faulty apologetic.
The only real apologetic is one that ends with the Christian worldview, which necessarily includes the Trinitarian view. To deny the Trinity is to deny the personality of God.
The Trinity is perhaps the singularly unique aspect of Christianity, and we find that the rivals of Christianity deny or ignore the Trinity. And even within Christianity, when we examine the heresies, the doctrine of the Trinity is usually the first thing denied. Denying the Trinity causes the definition of God to be diluted and His marks of personality to be erased. The Gnostics, Arians, Neoplatonists all worshipped a non-Trinitarian God—a god of “pure oneness”, without plurality of any kind. Of course, we ask, “A oneness of what?” “A unity of what?” Nothing could be said to answer these questions. To say anything in this “oneness” view suggests division, plurality, certainly at least between subject and predicate. Indeed, to say “God is x” creates a plurality between God and x. Hence, speaking of God at all is meaningless to these non-Trinitarian views, and God’s nature becomes “wholly other”—indescribable in human language since the human mind could not even grasp this blank oneness.
That said, the Unitarians of old would try to speak of God as the perfect unity of those things separated in creation. Yet, if God is defined simply in terms of creation, then God is relative to creation. These forms of anti-Trinitarianism lead to these effects—a “wholly other” God, rather than the Biblical sense of a transcendent God. It also leads to a God who is relative to His creation, rather than the Sovereign Lord. We end up with this blank “One”, versus the absolute personality of the Scriptures. The Creator-creation distinction becomes a matter of degree rather than a difference of being. One need only look at Islam’s predestination doctrines to see the impersonal determinism versus the wise and good planning of the Scriptural God Almighty. Furthermore, within Islam, we find a god who can arbitrarily change his very nature, versus the character of the ever-abiding, dependably personal God of Scripture.
Unlike these non-Christian or Christian heresies, the Scripture has a very clear answer to the “A unity of what?” question—one unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When we examine Scripture we cannot help but find that when Scripture is touting the unity of God, it cannot resist the naming of more than one person of the Trinity (see, 1 Cor. 8:4ff; Ephesians 4:4-6; John 17:3; Matthew 28:19ff). Now if you were a “oneness” proponent you would think that the authors of such passages would have been more careful to avoid confusing matters alluding to the Trinity in these contexts, no? Yet the writers of Scripture clearly thought otherwise. Why? Because the Trinity confirmed, rather than compromised, the unity of God. Indeed, God’s “oneness”, God’s unity, is precisely is a unity of three persons.
So what, then? Only with the Trinitarian worldview, where God is three and one, can God be described in personal terms without God being made relative to the world. Consider, 1 John 4:8, “…God is love.” What does that mean? Well, the non-Trinitarians will answer “love of the world”. An immediate problem arises. Apparently the divine attribute of Love depends on the existence of the world. Since the attributes of God and the essence of God are co-inherent, such a response is claiming that God Himself depends upon the world. Here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly revealed” God. All right, then should we not say that “love” is metaphorically related to something mysterious? Then here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly other” God. Thus we encounter the heresies of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Arianism. For if God is simply “One”, He is either “wholly other” or God is relative to the world—or somehow is both.
The Trinitarian God is the only God that an apologetic should be focused upon. And without this God there is no truth, rationality, etc. (meaning), therefore God exists. For Van Til the only legitimate theistic proof is reduced to the proof from the possibility of predication. That is, God exists, because without God it is impossible to reason, to think, or even attach a predicate to a subject (predication). To Van Til, any proof that results in making God less than something He is is no proof at all. Van Til was clear that we should not use apologetics that simply prove that God is an intelligent designer, a moral legislator, or a first cause. For Val Til the only proof is one that demonstrates the God of Scripture—transcendental, immanent, absolute personality, sovereign, Trinitarian.
Van Til was correct, in that we should never mount an apologetic that suggests we can reason, predicate, examine probabilities, apart from God. The Scripture is clear, and Van Til rightly observed, that there is no neutral ground upon which the believer and the non-believer may stand, given the Scripture’s clear teachings on the depravity of man.
Further, as I have noted above, the whole debate with Arians and others than deny the Trinity fails to adequately explain the love of God without making God dependent upon His creation.
More food for thought:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12m.pdf
AMR
Van Til eschewed any apologetic that would end up proving a god exists, for this would be denying the Scriptures and their teachings that the unbeliever can even be met on a common ground, for the unbeliever is wholly at enmity with God. Van Til also believed strongly that Christian theism is a unit, and any apologetic that compromised the unity of Christianity was a faulty apologetic.
The only real apologetic is one that ends with the Christian worldview, which necessarily includes the Trinitarian view. To deny the Trinity is to deny the personality of God.
The Trinity is perhaps the singularly unique aspect of Christianity, and we find that the rivals of Christianity deny or ignore the Trinity. And even within Christianity, when we examine the heresies, the doctrine of the Trinity is usually the first thing denied. Denying the Trinity causes the definition of God to be diluted and His marks of personality to be erased. The Gnostics, Arians, Neoplatonists all worshipped a non-Trinitarian God—a god of “pure oneness”, without plurality of any kind. Of course, we ask, “A oneness of what?” “A unity of what?” Nothing could be said to answer these questions. To say anything in this “oneness” view suggests division, plurality, certainly at least between subject and predicate. Indeed, to say “God is x” creates a plurality between God and x. Hence, speaking of God at all is meaningless to these non-Trinitarian views, and God’s nature becomes “wholly other”—indescribable in human language since the human mind could not even grasp this blank oneness.
That said, the Unitarians of old would try to speak of God as the perfect unity of those things separated in creation. Yet, if God is defined simply in terms of creation, then God is relative to creation. These forms of anti-Trinitarianism lead to these effects—a “wholly other” God, rather than the Biblical sense of a transcendent God. It also leads to a God who is relative to His creation, rather than the Sovereign Lord. We end up with this blank “One”, versus the absolute personality of the Scriptures. The Creator-creation distinction becomes a matter of degree rather than a difference of being. One need only look at Islam’s predestination doctrines to see the impersonal determinism versus the wise and good planning of the Scriptural God Almighty. Furthermore, within Islam, we find a god who can arbitrarily change his very nature, versus the character of the ever-abiding, dependably personal God of Scripture.
Unlike these non-Christian or Christian heresies, the Scripture has a very clear answer to the “A unity of what?” question—one unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When we examine Scripture we cannot help but find that when Scripture is touting the unity of God, it cannot resist the naming of more than one person of the Trinity (see, 1 Cor. 8:4ff; Ephesians 4:4-6; John 17:3; Matthew 28:19ff). Now if you were a “oneness” proponent you would think that the authors of such passages would have been more careful to avoid confusing matters alluding to the Trinity in these contexts, no? Yet the writers of Scripture clearly thought otherwise. Why? Because the Trinity confirmed, rather than compromised, the unity of God. Indeed, God’s “oneness”, God’s unity, is precisely is a unity of three persons.
So what, then? Only with the Trinitarian worldview, where God is three and one, can God be described in personal terms without God being made relative to the world. Consider, 1 John 4:8, “…God is love.” What does that mean? Well, the non-Trinitarians will answer “love of the world”. An immediate problem arises. Apparently the divine attribute of Love depends on the existence of the world. Since the attributes of God and the essence of God are co-inherent, such a response is claiming that God Himself depends upon the world. Here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly revealed” God. All right, then should we not say that “love” is metaphorically related to something mysterious? Then here we see the slippery slope to a “wholly other” God. Thus we encounter the heresies of Gnosticism, Neoplatonism, and Arianism. For if God is simply “One”, He is either “wholly other” or God is relative to the world—or somehow is both.
The Trinitarian God is the only God that an apologetic should be focused upon. And without this God there is no truth, rationality, etc. (meaning), therefore God exists. For Van Til the only legitimate theistic proof is reduced to the proof from the possibility of predication. That is, God exists, because without God it is impossible to reason, to think, or even attach a predicate to a subject (predication). To Van Til, any proof that results in making God less than something He is is no proof at all. Van Til was clear that we should not use apologetics that simply prove that God is an intelligent designer, a moral legislator, or a first cause. For Val Til the only proof is one that demonstrates the God of Scripture—transcendental, immanent, absolute personality, sovereign, Trinitarian.
Van Til was correct, in that we should never mount an apologetic that suggests we can reason, predicate, examine probabilities, apart from God. The Scripture is clear, and Van Til rightly observed, that there is no neutral ground upon which the believer and the non-believer may stand, given the Scripture’s clear teachings on the depravity of man.
Further, as I have noted above, the whole debate with Arians and others than deny the Trinity fails to adequately explain the love of God without making God dependent upon His creation.
More food for thought:
http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj12m.pdf
AMR
