The Ontological Trinity in Van Til's Apologetic

An important point in Van Til’s theory of epistemic justification is that Christ’s Word in Scripture is self-validating in the sense that all of reality testifies to it when interpreted through its lens.[1] This is not to be confused with the process of beginning with reality and from there, moving to Scripture or perhaps other intermediary steps along the way. It is to say that every interpretation of reality apart from Scripture sooner or later culminates in an inescapable skepticism.

The prickly problem with which philosophy must contend and satisfactorily solve if human predication can be defended in any rational way is the problem of the one and the many. Centuries of work has gone into putting an end to this monster, that has been relentlessly lurking in the shadows, almost mocking every vain attempt to seal his fate. The challenge is to provide for the intelligibility around the relationship between particulars and the unifying principle that brings them together without destroying either the particular or the principle of unity. What is it that makes me, me, while at the same time unifies me with other humans, or even more specifically, other male humans? If we emphasize plurality we run the risk of ending in an infinite regress. The reason for this is that we must ask how the particulars are related to each other and how this relationship itself is related to the particulars and then by what principle that relationship is related and so forth. We cannot help but feel the infinite regress looming in the background. On the other hand, if we place too much emphasis on the prominence of unity, we end up without any distinguishing characteristics by which we may know the particulars. But once again, nothing can be known in principle about such a thing, because there can be nothing from which to distinguish it.[2] The stakes in this game are higher than most apologists appreciate. The very idea of human knowledge rides on our ability to work through the problem of the one and the many. The Christian apologist must bring this demand to bear on the discussion in order to demonstrate that philosophy apart from God is futile and that true knowledge in any scheme where man as independent from God is basically impossible.

The truth of certain empirical propositions belongs to our frame of reference.[3] The aspiration of philosophy is to provide for a comprehensive view of the world in which the diversity of human experience is intelligible. Every worldview operates within a system, or frame of reference. But one has to ask the question of Wittgenstein’s own proposition whether or not it is itself operating within a particular system and, if outside that system, it can be accepted as valid. The point is that worldviews are systems and every claim to knowledge operates within that system. Every test for every claim to knowledge takes place within that system and rests upon certain presuppositions that are part of that system. Hence, apologetics must operate at the level of systems if it is to operate effectively. We do not take the tree down one leaf or twig at a time. We go to the base and take it down with one pass of the chainsaw.

Nothing is more fundamental to human knowledge than the question of the one and the many and nothing is more basic to Christian theism than the self-contained ontological Triune God revealed in Scripture. It was the genius of Cornelius Van Til’s apologetic to demonstrate how the latter helps us deal with the former. Our view of reality or being involves our view of knowledge and ethics even as our view of knowledge and ethics involves and is based on our view of being.[4] To argue for such hard dichotomies between the three major branches of philosophy is more than a little naïve. How we know is indelibly bound up in what we are and vice versa. The question then becomes how does Christian theism, in contradistinction to secular philosophy think about the problem of the one and the many?

Human knowledge ultimately rests upon the internal coherence within the Godhead; our knowledge rests upon the ontological Trinity as its presupposition.^[5] All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are deposited in Christ (Col. 2:3). Christ is the true knowledge that all humanity should strive to know (Col. 2:2). It is the regenerate Christian who is being renewed to true knowledge (Col. 3:10). That true knowledge is according to the image of the One Who created him. True knowledge is measure by the degree to which man is a reflection of the image of the ontological Trinity revealed in Scripture. Only if one presupposes the God of Scripture is knowledge possible. Bosserman reminds us, “To recap the dilemma but one more time: abstract principles and brute facts prove to shed all definition when divorced from a concrete system.”[6] When man operates on the presupposition that he is autonomous, and reasons abstractly about so-called brute facts, knowledge becomes impossible. Moreover, it is this system that charges Christian theism with contradiction and abhors the presence of paradox as if such a phenomenon weakens the system. But Christian theism is only weakened by the presence of theological paradox if the secular philosopher’s system is superior in some way. In what world could it ever be rational to subject divine logic, eternal, uncreated, infinite logic to the created logic of the finite? And that is exactly what the non-Christian worldview insists on. Hence we see the importance of operating, proclaiming, and defending the faith at the level of worldview.

It is a well-known fact that all heresies in the history of the church have in some form or other taught subordinationism. Similarly, we believe all “heresies” in apologetic methodology spring from some sort of subordinationism.[7] The challenge before us is to solve the plurality of particulars while preserving the unifying principle of their relationships without destroying their particularity. Van Til says we need the notion of a concrete universal to help us better understand how the physical universe can operate the way it appears to operate. It is only in the Christian doctrine of the triune God, as we are bound to believe, that we really have a concrete universal. In God’s being there are no particulars not related to the universal and there is nothing universal that is not fully expressed in the particulars.[8] Hence, the term concrete universal does not signify the same thing in Van Til that it does in idealist philosophers. Functionally, they [idealists] treated their own intellects as if they were vested with the basic principles which govern the universe.[9] Unavoidably then, the idealist leads us into an in ever-increasing subjectivism that will ultimately end in skepticism and irrationalism. Once more, it seems we are back where we started. In Van Til’s estimation, a Trinitarian worldview is able to deliver where the absolute idealist systems come up dry. This claim turns on the fact that the Triune God represents a self-complete system over and above the temporal universe, and beyond the principles at work in the mind of man.[10]

In Van Til, creation must always mean fiat creation. In the beginning God spoke and the heavens and earth became. Being came from not just non-being, but from absolutely nothing. “Using the language of the One-and-Many question we contend that in God the one and the many are equally ultimate. Unity in God is no more fundamental than diversity, and diversity in God is no more fundamental than unity.”[11] This concept is the natural outworking of a biblical understanding of the nature of the ontological Trinity. And it is not difficult to see how such an understanding impacts one’s metaphysic and subsequently, apologetic methodology. The requirement that Christian theism subject itself to creaturely logic conflicts with this Christian metaphysic which itself creates serious issues in our understanding of the nature of God. The kind of logic we employ is related to our metaphysic, which is related to our understanding of God. At a minimum, if we employ poor logic in apologetic methodology, we find ourselves being inconsistent with the system that we are attempting to defend. Or worse, we elevate this poor use of logic to a place of prominence and end up allowing poor logic to shape our metaphysic as well as inform our doctrine of God. The latter must be avoided at all cost. After all, the former may not be ideal, but unlike the latter, it does not tend toward heresy. Hence, it follows that if one interprets reality through the lens that the reality is the fiat of the self-contained ontological Trinity, the one and the many problem evaporates.

Stated another way, the Trinity solves the one-many problem by being free from it himself, and then enabling believers to reason concretely on the basis of a systematic interpretation of reality so that they are effectively freed from it as well.[12] God exhibits ultimate unity and ultimate plurality: he is one is essence and three in person, as the traditional labels have it.[13] On this model we can understand that the one and the many isn’t really a problem for the Christian because the ontological Trinity serves as the paradigm by which we interpret reality. However, the unbeliever is in a precarious position. He is left without any justification whatsoever when he assigns certain qualities to empirical objects or claims a certain inferential relationship between ideas. The unbeliever cannot escape asserting, in practice, that reality is the very sort of place that, in theory, he denies it to be. Hence, to repeat Van Til’s conclusion, unbelieving thought is fundamentally self-defeating.[14]

---

[1] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox:an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 124.

[2] James Anderson, If Knowledge Then God. (Analogical Thoughts website)

[3] Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, harper Torchbooks ed, ed. G.E.M. Anscombe and G.H. von Wright (New York, NY: Harper Torchbooks, 1972), 12e.

[4] Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1985.

^[5] Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979) 23.

[6] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox:an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 92.

[7] Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1985, 25.

[8] Ibid., 26.

[9] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox:an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 78.

[10] Ibid., 79.

[11] Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 1985, 25.

[12] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox:an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 78.

[13] Anderson, If Knowledge Then God.

[14] Bosserman.

The Exoneration of Theological Paradox

The writer finds himself in complete agreement with those who insist that Christianity is supremely rational.^[1] With all due respect to Dr. Whitcomb, this begs the question as to the use of reason by the Christian versus the use of reason by the non-Christian. Christianity is indeed rational, but by who’s standard. To accept fully the concept of the infallible Word is to claim all facts for God and to insist that reality can only be interpreted in terms of Him and His Word.[2] Human reason must be understood and interpreted according to God’s revelation. It is by divine standards that we must ascertain an understanding of human reason. Christian theism is infinitely rational but it is rational as God Himself defines and is the expression of rationality, not as finite fallen humans would define it. The covenantal nature of our relationship with God extends to all parts of the relationship. There remains no component of the Creator-creature relationship that is outside the purview of the covenant. This obligates men to use every one of God’s created tools, especially creaturely logic, in a manner that accords with the terms of the covenant. This would mean that it is inappropriate and strictly forbidden to place God or His Word under any created rule of finite human reason, to include human logic. This is especially the case when that logic is the product of finite abstract reasoning.

Bosserman helps us understand how Christian thought can be logical while confidently embracing theological paradox when he writes, “However, pursuit of an appreciation for how distinct features and components (a) imply one another when viewed through the lens of a common system, and then (b) together enhance our perspective on that system is (on our account) one of the most basic characteristics of a concrete reasoning process.”[3] Bosserman points us to the example of flesh and bones and how the two are not at all the same thing but when understood through the lens of the human body our perspective of them is enhanced. Theological paradox works in a similar fashion. The divine condescension of God in the OT implies the divine incarnation in the NT. When viewed separately the two appear as contradictions but when viewed together, through the lens of the Christian system, each act is enhanced by the other so that our understanding of the divine revelation is deepened even though the paradox lingers on in what many theologians call mystery.

In place of the Triune person, the unbeliever embraces as his triad of, too often unarticulated, presuppositions: (a) human autonomy, (b) abstract reason, and (c) brute facts.[4] The unbeliever sets himself up as the final reference point, creates his own system of justification, and proceeds to treat facts as if they were the product of impersonal chance.

The issue we face is one of authority. It always comes back to the standard by which truth claims are justified. And at the very bottom of this issue there are two and only two possibilities: man or God. The unbeliever generally has three dominant theories at his disposal today when it comes to epistemic justification. One, a belief is justified when formed through a valid procedure that is translucent to the believer himself. Two, true beliefs are justified to the degree that they are mutually supportive of other true beliefs. Finally, beliefs are justified only if they form a healthy/reliable belief-forming mechanism.[5] Here we see that from one school of thought to the next, man remains the measure of all things. Man determines what is and it not true belief using finite abstract reasoning as his standard and final authority. Far too often, modern apologists fail to recognize the foundational presuppositions upon which unbelievers operate. What is worse, many schools of apologetics have unwittingly constructed their method on those same unbelieving principles. Van Til writes, “The Reformed apologist will frankly admit that his own methodology presupposes the truth of Christian theism. Basic to all the doctrines of Christian theism is that of the self-contained God, or if we wish, that of the ontological Trinity. It is this notion of the ontological Trinity that ultimately controls a truly Christian methodology.[6] If we were to take all the underlying objectives of Christian apologetics and ask what we are doing when we do apologetics, the answer would be that we are vindicating the divine self-disclosure of the God of Christian theism. The revelation of God is ubiquitous from the standpoint that every part of that revelation is a revelation of the self-contained ontological Trinity. This indicates that if there is theological paradox in the doctrine of the Trinity, and vindicating this doctrine is the essential thrust of Christian apologetics, then it only follows that Christian apologetics must reflect that paradox in it’s method of vindication as a matter of routine.

It is a sad state of affairs however, in modern apologetic method. Rather than begin with God and with God’s self-disclosure in Scripture and hold that up as our final reference point for human predication, we begin with pagan philosophy, secular science, and finite abstract reasoning. The insistence is that apologetic method must get in line and march in lock step with the rules of godless autonomous men rather than divine revelation. William Lane Craig, who is in his own right a brilliant philosopher, exhibits a mindset that should be very disconcerting to any God-fearing, Bible-believing apologist when he writes, “One of the awesome tasks of Christian philosophers is to help turn the contemporary intellectual tide in such a way as to foster a sociocultural milieu in which Christian faith can be regarded as an intellectually credible option for thinking men and women.”[7] Regrettably, this is the attitude of most apologists operating in conservative Christian communities today. Compare and contrast this with what Paul had to say,

            And when I came to you, brethren, I did not come with superiority of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testimony of God. For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.^[8]

Paul’s words stand in stark contrast with Craig’s idea. Because of the inherent antithesis present in unbelieving thought, the only way to accomplish Craig’s aspiration is to adopt a willing attitude to subject the claims and demands of Scripture to the authority of autonomous human reason. The gospel of Jesus Christ does not present itself in a way that men are asked to judge it’s fidelity, or it’s authority or it’s right to lay claim to our lives. The gospel of Christ demands repentance from the current autonomous mindset of arrogant, fallen, sinful men. The idea that we must utilize an apologetic method or subscribe to theological beliefs that somehow do not offend the intellects of sworn enemies of God is quite simply a clear and obvious contradiction to the teachings of Scripture. While theological paradox is warmly embraced as unavoidable in Christian theism, obvious contradictions to divine revelation must be vigorously opposed and rejected due to the fact that they are nothing more than expressions of human autonomy.

---

^[1] John C. Whitcomb, “Contemporary Apologetics and the Christian Faith,” Bibliotheca Sacra: A Quarterly Published by Dallas Theological Seminary (Dallas, TX: Dallas Theological Seminary, 1955–1995).

[2] Rousas John Rushdoony, By What Standard? An Analysis of the Philosophy of Cornelius van Til, repr. ed. (Vallecito, Calif.: Ross House Books, 1995), 1.

[3] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 138.

[4] Ibid., 10.

[5] See Bosserman, section 5.3, “Epistemic Justification in Christ.” 119.

[6] Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed., ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Pub., 2003), 128.

[7] James Porter Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 2.

^[8] New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update (LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), 1 Co 2:1–5.

A Christian Understanding of Paradox

Before one explores the differences between a Christian understanding of paradox and the non-Christian understanding of it, it is better if one takes a look at what a paradox is according to the limitations of temporal human logic. Then, and only then will we be in a position to make this important distinction. A ‘paradox’ thus amounts to a set of claims which taken in conjunction appear to be logically inconsistent.[1] Note that Anderson has not defined a paradox as actual logical inconsistency but only the appearance of such. Later, Anderson admits, “As the debate stands today, no writer from the first to the twenty-first century has offered an explication of the doctrine of the Trinity that is both clearly orthodox and free from apparent contradiction. It seems that the careful theologian inevitably faces a dilemma: that of embracing either paradox or heterodoxy.”[2] It seems clear enough that the proponent of Christian theism needs to understand the nature of paradox and it’s relationship to the Christian worldview. This is not to say that theological paradox is beyond vindication. It is one thing to recognize and embrace the appearance of contradiction from an almost fideistic perspective and another to acknowledge its place in a system like Christian theism.

The elephant in the room is the abstract reasoning of the unbeliever. The Christian reasons differently, or let us say the Christian ought to reason differently. The issue in autonomous human philosophy is the infamous one-many problem. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity actually dissolves the one-many problem by challenging the view that reality ought to be interpreted using abstract principles. Bosserman states it eloquently, “Stated another way, the Trinity solves the one-many problem by being free from it himself, and then enabling believers to reason concretely on the basis of a systematic interpretation of reality so that they are effectively freed from it as well.”[3] 

When the Christian apologist encounters accusations of contradiction, unless he addresses the fallacy of abstract reasoning, he probably deserves the criticism he receives. But the Christian apologist can, should, and must do better. If we are to faithfully publish and defend Christian truth, we must do so in a way that is reflective of and consistent with the system in which it operates. God makes no apologies for being the self-contained ontological Trinity from whom all reality flows. If we really believe what we say we believe, we must be prepared to defend the consequences of those convictions in a way that is consistent with divine revelation rather than pretending that unbelieving, abstract, autonomous reason can produce something that does not lead to absurdity.

Since modern conceptions of syllogism and logic depend on the Aristotelian framework of categories, we must undertake a fundamental reform of logic as well as of metaphysical categories.[4] Failure to recognize what should be an obvious fact for the Christian apologist and theology can be devastating to Christian thought. As a result, Christian theism becomes a sort of admixture of Plato, Aristotle, and Christ. What is worse is these ideas make their way into Christian theology and practical thinking and living within the Christian community. Moreover, the consequences of a failure on the part of apologists to recognize this important aspect in Christian reasoning can result in unnecessary criticisms and even worse, embarrassing encounters with opponents of the Christian faith. Christian theism begins with a fundamental distinction between the Creator and the creature.

By contrast, non-Christian philosophy pretends that there is only one universal level of being.[5] From the very beginning the principles involved in human reason are antithetical to those that control Christian logic. The way in which Christians reason about reality, like everything else about us, must be reformed, reshaped by the work and power of the Holy Spirit within. If it were true that the effects of sin have touched every other aspect of human existence, why would we think that logic alone remains unscathed? But that is precisely what philosophers, apologists, and even the majority of theologians believe. Only in a consistently reformed system of thought do we find the sort of expressions of Christianity revealed in Scripture coming into their own in theological systematics and in apologetic methodology.

The Christian system of thought is by definition distinct, and as a matter of fact, antithetical to the non-Christian system of thought. If Paul does not teach this in 1 Corinthians 1-2, he does not teach anything in those chapters. All that the believer needs, in order to be logically consistent in treating an apparent contradiction as an exciting impetus to greater discovery, is personal assurance from God that his revelation-based knowledge is true and sufficient, even though finite.[6] Given the claims of Christian theism as a whole, how could a dissimilar course be possible? The basic foundation of Christian theism is in fact paradoxical. An infinite Creator has created a finite being out of dirt, which was created out of nothing. It matters not how you explain this event; for the natural man, it sounds foolish within the bounds of fallen, finite logic. For the Christian, as Bosserman says above, it is an exciting impetus to greater discoveries about the world in which we live.

On this position, logical reasoning is best defined as a procedure of “implication” where the believer (a) looks through the lens of the biblical worldview upon created facts, events, qualities, etc.; (b) discerns how they are illuminated by the Christian system, and in turn constitute new contributions to it; and (c) develops a fuller portrait of the biblical worldview.[7] Contrast this with the non-believer who presupposes the laws of logic and human reason essentially in a vacuum. Logic becomes little more than a mere convention of human language, or so it is claimed or at least that is the essential conclusion whether it is admitted or not. Rather than being guided by the transcendent, self-contained ontological Triune God of Scripture, the non-Christian places all his faith in the mere accident of the human mind, which is in essence the unavoidable, the product of chance. Far too many of us unwittingly subscribe to the doctrine of John Locke, who said, “nothing that is contrary to, and inconsistent with, the clear and self-evident dictates of reason, has a right to be urged or assented to as a matter of faith, wherein reason hath nothing to do.”[8] In Locke’s system, human reason is the final bar for judging all things to include what is and is not divine revelation. Man is the final measure and ultimate reference point for human predication. Far too often, Christian apologists inadvertently expose this as one of their own deep convictions without realizing just how antithetical it is to Christian theology and how devastating it can be to a consistent and biblically faithful defense of the gospel.

The Christian then fully embraces this understanding of paradox recognizing that Scripture enthusiastically affirms that such is the case. Finite human reason, created logic, must be reformed because like everything else, it has been woefully affected by sin. We must humbly reason analogically, thinking God’s thoughts after Him while recognizing that His thoughts are higher than our thoughts and because this truth has been clearly revealed in Scripture, we can have confidence that paradoxes, rather than threatening Christian truth, are a natural outcome of it.  

---

[1] James Anderson, Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status, Paternoster Theological Monographs (Eugene, Or.: Wipf & Stock, 2007), 5-6.

[2] Ibid. 59.

[3] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 85.

[4] Vern S. Poythress, Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway, 2013), 669.

[5] Ibid, 670.

[6] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 89.

[7] B.A. Bosserman, The Trinity and the Vindication of Christian Paradox: an Interpretation and Refinement of the Theological Apologetic of Cornelius van Til (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2014), 89-90.

[8] Baruch A. Brody, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Religion: An Analytic Approach, 2nd ed. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, ©1992), 17.