Van Til: Modifying Modalism

On the first installment, I introduced a brief consideration of what Van Til meant by saying the entire Godhead is one person (Introduction to Systematic Theology, pg 229). I explained that the "person" was not referring to the collection of three persons, rather, it was a description of the "substance" of God...that is what "Godhead" refers to: substance, or essence.

Some may want to argue that in referring to the essence as a "person" CVT was using "person" in a different sense than the persons of the Trinity...that in no way pertains to my criticism. While the observation is correct, it's immaterial. Why? The problem isn't simply that CVT used paradoxical language (paradox is a reality when it comes to man's reason, especially with God). In discussing "essence" and "person" with reference to the Trinity, there is a long history of confusion which will not be discussed here (I'm definitely not versed in that enough to be terribly informative). The problem in CVT is that he posits the unity of God and threeness as unity by essence apart from hypostasis...the essence gives rise to the persons, i.e. "diversity". For CVT, God's unity is essence on the one hand and threeness is hypostases on the other. The diagram I composed previously should be helpful in understanding the relationship.

On his view, the essence gives rise to persons, which leaves little (i.e. no) necessary interrelatedness between the persons...the meaningfulness of the Fatherhood of God, His Son's eternal status as Son, and the Spirit of Power goes out the window. This monad is a far cry from what St. Athanasius promoted while Christendom was going Arian. What CVT philosophized as being the answer to the problem of the one and the many boils down to a modalistic oneness [1].

As stated previously, I don't believe CVT was a thorough-going modalist [2] and he certainly would repudiate modalism...but he was not immune from error when discussing his "solution" to the problem of the one and the many. Others have observed that the statement in question is, in fact, unorthodox...those who are sympathetic to CVT (and I would be in the camp of being sympathetic) see that comment as an isolated misstep. Unfortunately, it was not isolated. It is most certain that CVT's statements are simply missteps and not the sort of error which bespeaks an obstinate heresy. Below I will share where these consistent missteps are evident. Here's another quote from him, this time from The Defense of the Faith:

The three persons of the trinity are co-substantial; not one is derived in his substance from either or both of the others. Yet there are three distinct persons in this unity; the diversity and the identity are equally underived. (pg. 12)

As noted already, CVT is trying to walk a fine line whereby he avoids subordinationism, but he errs here in another direction: He asserts that no person of the Trinity is derived in his substance from either or both of the others. This is where an orthodox Christian might wonder: "what does the Bible mean by saying the Son is begotten?", or "what do we mean by saying the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son?" Biblical Trinitarianism asserts the mysterious relationship within the Trinity where the Son is begotten, not made, and the Spirit proceeds...that is to say, there is a point of origin (not of time, but a location). The Father is the fount of divinity. The Son is fully and eternally, and necessarily God as is the Spirit, but they receive, so to speak, their deity from the Father. 

Why is this important? For a number of reasons, but I'll go into only one on this post: If the three persons are underived from each other, as CVT states, then they receive it somewhere else...namely, the essence which CVT referred to as a "person". As you can see from this diagram, the relationship of deity centers on the essence and no relationship between the three persons is established...nothing meaningful, at least. 

On the one hand, CVT tried to steer clear of subordinationism...but in making the persons non-derivative altogether (a break from orthodox Trinitarianism, btw), he ended up destroying their necessity. He centers consciousness and personality within the essence before he begins discussion of the persons of the Trinity. The conscious (and personal!) essence gives rise to these persons...but in what sense are the three necessary ontologically? Here's the answer: in no sense are they necessary as phrased by CVT.
 

Perhaps I'm being unfair? Let's take a look at another quote from Van Til...this is from the very chapter in Introduction to Systematic Theology (hereinafter IST) where he states the Godhead is one person:

So then, though we cannot tell why the Godhead should exist tri-personally, we can understand something of the fact, after we are told that God exists as a triune being, that the unity and the plurality of this world has back of it a God in whom unity and the plurality are equally ultimate. (IST, pg 229)

There is a sense in which we cannot tell why God exists tri-personally. We are dependent on God and cannot fit Him into our minds...but there is a sense in which we should be able to apprehend this truth. That CVT should puzzle over this from a Biblical perspective is itself puzzling. Why wouldn’t God exist as Three? Is God eternally Father? Yes. Is God the Father of the Lord Jesus? Yes. If Father then He is eternally so. Since He is Father eternally, He must be Father in relation eternally. The names and titles of God ought to be at least informative of our understanding of the Trinity. For many believers, including CVT, the reality of this threeness is puzzling even with the knowledge of God being Father because of a preoccupation with numerical profundities divorced from hypostasis.

Further, It is troubling that CVT finds a primary validation of unity and diversity simply by looking at non-personal aspects of the created order…by these things “we can understand something of the fact” of God being triune. I don’t think CVT is wrong, but to use that as a main validation point in an introduction to Christian systematic theology seems wrongheaded.

Again, this isn’t isolated. Read CVT and his popularizers. Such discussion of the Trinity comes down to being demonstrated by the existence of unity and particularizations in the world...the Trinity is a mathematical profundity. The name of God we are given in Scripture, and at baptism, seems to have little consequence to CVT when on his quest to "proving" Christian theism transcendentally.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit...the name of God is revelatory and speaks of God as He is. Why abstract the persons as CVT has done? This relegates the persons to manifestations...not subordinated to another of the manifestations, but not exactly necessary either. If not necessary, then the door is left open to sexual anarchy…and not surprisingly, that is what we have today. Look at churches that remove masculine pronouns when referring to God, or worse, selecting feminine ones. For these “churches”, such language is equally valid because the sexual identity of God is meaningless…and so is sexual identity with us, consequently. That’s why sodomy, and transgendered monstrosities are just as valid as a man marrying a wife. Still others don’t opt for a modalistic view of God, they opt for social trinitarianism…like CVT, for the tritheists the persons are also equally underived…if any were derived that would imply subordination, and egalitarianism is the name of the game…therefore: social trinitarianism. The name Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mere conventions…therefore, sexual anarchy.

The battle for the sexual order God established is limited, primarily, to discussion of exegesis of particular passages...and that is good when you have a shared assumption about Who God is. We don't have this luxury any more. For many, language is so conditioned by culture that discussion of God is always relegated to analogy. Yet the fatherhood among men is actually derived from God. It is something He shares with us, not something we transpose onto Him. When we speak of the Fatherhood of God, we are most closely describing Who He is...but not primarily in relation to us, but in relation to His Son. That is who His Son came to reveal, after all: His Father.

[1] Modalism posits that God is one and manifests himself in different modes. Modalism typically speaks of God manifesting himself as Father, then as the Son, then as the Spirit. God is not tri-personal, or eternally three, rather, he is one and manifests himself one way at one time, then another at another time.

[2] No modalist would accept Van Til's quotes above as is, but that's only because a modalist doesn't believe God concurrently modes himself as three. Only one at a time, please (says the "old school" modalist). Tri-modalism is simply a different species of the same error: God manifests himself in different modes, he just happens to do it concurrently. This is a far cry from Trinitarianism and is an innovative subset of modalism.