Atheist’s Question:

• Query: How can God be both universal and particular?
• Additional Point: How does God being both these things ground their presence in the world?

Jimmy Stephens’ Response:

The question demonstrates an immense ignorance about the problem of universals.

How can a man be a particular? After all, the word “man” is a universal. No matter what word I pick out to classify, a universal is always referenced or employed.

Yet, how can there be particular universals? Have I escaped referring to a particular thing by saying “universal?” Not unless the class is empty of referents and therefore vacuous.

The trouble is that all predication presupposes a system of universal and particular. Classification presupposes a world concept in which all particulars inhere in universals and universals exhaust in particulars without reduction. In other words, all things in human experience require particularity and universality, and must be reconciled without contradiction.

The reason why people take potshots at Van Til, followed by quickly devoting one’s face to the sand, is because there is no argument to be found from them. The hypocrisy is both telling and hilarious.

Understanding Van Til’s Perspective on Universals and Particulars:

The idea of a concrete universal is a complex concept that originated with the founder of absolute idealism, G. W. F. Hegel (1770–1831). Historian of philosophy Robert Stern defines a concrete universal as a property that all individuals have whereby they are “related with one another in a system of mutual interdependence.” Stated simply, a concrete universal is something that connects everything together and thereby gives everything meaning. The absolute idealists identified the Absolute—an all-inclusive mental subject—as their concrete universal.

Van Til was highly critical of absolute idealism. Van Til thought that the absolute idealists’ neglect of the Christian God and his revelation led them to a plethora of philosophical dilemmas for which “there is no answer . . . from a non-Christian point of view.” For example, absolute idealists posited the existence of both an Absolute and a world driven by chance, but they never sufficiently explained how these two can coexist. On the one hand, the world of chance seems like it should reduce the absoluteness of the Absolute. On the other hand, the Absolute seems like it should absorb the world of chance. Absolute idealism’s unifying element (the Absolute) appears to swallow its plural element (the world of chance), and vice versa.

In contrast to absolute idealism, Van Til held on the basis of Scripture that the triune God is the true concrete universal, in time and in eternity.

God as the Concrete Universal in Eternity:

By virtue of his triune ontology, i.e., via his nature as the self-existent God in three persons. Father, Son, and Spirit fully interpenetrate one another, and therefore share in the same divine essence. The one divine essence does not erode the distinctions between the three divine persons, and the distinctions between the three divine persons do not divide the one divine essence. Father, Son, and Spirit are “one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory” (Shorter Catechism, Q&A 6).

God as the Concrete Universal in Time:

By virtue of his triune economy, i.e., via his free eternal decree as worked out by his temporal acts of creation, providence, and redemption. When the triune God created, he gave each object a distinct nature and a covenantal relationship with himself and the rest of the world. God did not provide objects with these natures and relations in abstraction from his design for the rest of history. Rather, objects are created, preserved, and governed by the wise power of God in expectation of his final purpose for the world in Jesus Christ.

Van Til’s Reformed method of philosophy successfully identified a concrete universal that is able to connect everything together and thereby give everything meaning—namely, the triune God in his ontology and economy. Unlike in absolute idealism, there is an equal ultimacy between the unifying elements (the divine essence/covenantal eschatology) and the plural elements (the divine persons/individual created objects) in Van Til’s theory of reality.

Furthermore, Van Til thought that his Christian theory of reality implied a Christian theory of knowledge. Since God created and controls all things according to his triune counsel, we must submit all our thinking to him and his eschatological plan, as culminated in Jesus Christ. Thus, Van Til insisted that Christians must think concretely; we must always remain mindful of the triune God’s great plan of heavenly redemption.

It seems to me that Van Til’s trinitarian understanding of the concrete universal is a promising philosophical integration of Reformed theology. Even if his trinitarian formulations are idiosyncratic in the sense of being personal and unique in some limited respects, they are nonetheless worthy of deep consideration and admiration. Van Til’s interaction with absolute idealism’s search for a concrete universal is a wonderful example of how to address philosophical questions with Reformed theological answers.

For more details, you can refer to the original source from Reformed Forum: Van Til’s Concrete Universal.

Point Explained:

The question shows a lack of understanding of the problem of universals.

Analogy with “Man”:

• Example: The word “man” is a universal concept, yet each individual man is a particular instance.
• Universal Reference: Any classification involves referring to universals.

Particular Universals:

• Concept: Even the concept of “universal” itself must reference particular instances to be meaningful.
• Vacuous Classes: If a universal had no referents (particulars), it would be meaningless.

Predication and Classification:

• System Presupposition: All predication (statements about things) presupposes a system where universals and particulars coexist and interrelate.
• Reconciliation Requirement: Human experience necessitates that universals and particulars are reconciled without contradiction.

Further Suggestion: Concrete Universal

• Concept: The “concrete universal” refers to a philosophical idea where universals are fully realized in particular instances. This concept can help explain how God, as the ultimate universal, manifests in the particulars of creation.

Understanding Van Til’s Perspective on Universals and Particulars:

Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics revolves around the idea that God’s nature and revelation provide the basis for all human knowledge and understanding. Interpreting whether Van Til directly meant the specific concept of the “concrete universal” requires some nuanced understanding of his theology and philosophy.

Revelation and Epistemology:

Van Til believed that all human knowledge depends on God’s self-revelation. This revelation provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and coherence in our understanding of the world.

Triune God:

Van Til emphasized the importance of the Trinity. He argued that only a Trinitarian God could account for the one-and-many problem (the relationship between universals and particulars). The Triune nature of God, being both one and many, perfectly balances the unity and diversity found in creation.

Concrete Universal Concept:

While Van Til did not explicitly use the term “concrete universal,” his ideas align with the notion that God embodies the ultimate universal and is manifested in particulars through His creation and incarnation. The doctrine of the Trinity suggests that within God’s very being, there is a harmonious relationship between unity and diversity, which serves as the basis for all created reality.

Specific Points Relating to Van Til:

• God as Universal:
  • Van Til would agree that God represents the ultimate universal, embodying all perfections and attributes. This universality is not abstract but concrete, grounded in God’s existence and self-revelation.
• God as Particular:
  • In Christian theology, particularly within Van Til’s framework, God’s self-revelation through creation and the incarnation of Jesus Christ shows how the universal attributes of God are manifested in particular, concrete forms.

Quotes from Cornelius Van Til with Explanations

On the Concept of the Concrete Universal and Its Implications:

“The Absolute is the Universe inclusive of ‘God’ and man. ‘God’ is thus to be an element in this Concrete Universal; the element of unity or universality. Man is also to be an element, the element of diversity. The eye cannot say that it hath no need of hearing; ‘God’ cannot say that he hath no need of man, they are members of one organism.”

Explanation: Van Til critiques the absolute idealist perspective, which posits the Absolute as an all-encompassing reality that includes both God and man. In this view, God represents unity (universality) and man represents diversity. Van Til uses the analogy of body parts to illustrate this interconnectedness, emphasizing that both elements are necessary and interdependent within this system. He suggests that the idealist conception of the Absolute fails to adequately distinguish between Creator and creation, leading to a flawed understanding of their relationship.

On the Criticism of Absolute Idealism and the Necessity of a Concrete Universal:

“We may dislike ‘either-or’ alternatives, but here we must face one: your a priori is either in the timeless self-conscious God with the result that history realizes the purpose of God, or your a priori is to develop in a Universe inclusive of God, with the result that history is self-dependent.”

Explanation: Van Til presents a stark choice between two foundational presuppositions (a priori): either one begins with the self-existent, timeless, and self-conscious God, leading to a view of history as the realization of God’s purpose, or one adopts the view of a universe that includes God as just another part, resulting in a self-dependent history. Van Til argues for the necessity of beginning with the presupposition of the Christian God to make sense of history and reality, contrasting this with the self-defeating approach of absolute idealism.

On the Necessity of Unity in Diversity for Intelligibility:

“Pluralism destroys the possibility of knowledge. Such is Bosanquet’s contention. Such is also Theism’s contention. Both maintain that unity must be basic to difference.”

Explanation: Van Til aligns with the theistic view and the philosophical contention of Bernard Bosanquet that pluralism (the idea that reality consists of many independent parts) undermines the possibility of true knowledge. Both perspectives assert that a fundamental unity is essential to understand and make sense of differences. Van Til’s argument is that without a coherent unity, provided by the triune God, knowledge and intelligibility become impossible.

Critique of Pluralism

Pluralism and Fragmentation:

1. Definition: Pluralism posits that reality consists of many independent parts without any overarching unity.
2. Lack of Coherence: Van Til argues that if reality is fundamentally pluralistic, there can be no coherent or consistent framework to relate these independent parts. This fragmentation undermines the possibility of true knowledge because there is no unified basis to relate and understand these diverse elements.

Dependence on Unity for Knowledge:

1. Bosanquet’s Contention: Both Van Til and Bernard Bosanquet (a British idealist philosopher) agree that knowledge requires a fundamental unity. Without it, differences cannot be meaningfully related, making true knowledge impossible.
2. Theistic View: Theism, and specifically Christian theism, posits that this necessary unity is found in the nature of God, who is both one and many. This divine unity provides the foundation for intelligible experience and rational thought.

Van Til’s Specific Arguments

Analytic Knowledge:

1. God’s Self-Knowledge: Van Til asserts that God’s knowledge of Himself and creation is “analytic,” meaning it is self-contained and exhaustive. God’s knowledge is not dependent on anything outside Himself, ensuring a unified and coherent understanding of all reality.

Organic Unity of God’s Knowledge:

1. Bavinck’s Insight: Referencing Herman Bavinck, Van Til emphasizes that God’s knowledge is undivided, simple, and eternal. This means that God’s understanding is a single, comprehensive act that encompasses all things, providing a coherent basis for unity and diversity.

Rational Foundation:

1. Rationality Presupposes Unity: Van Til argues that rational thought presupposes a stable and unchanging foundation. If the basis of the universe were subject to change (as in pluralistic or non-theistic worldviews), rationality itself would be undermined.

Example Illustrating the Lack of Coherence in Pluralism

Pluralistic Reality in Language

1. Words as Independent Entities:
   • In a pluralistic reality, each word would be an independent, unrelated entity with no inherent connection to other words.
   • For instance, the word “apple” would exist entirely on its own without any relation to other words like “fruit,” “red,” or “tree.”
2. Lack of Categories:
   • In this scenario, there would be no categories or classifications to group similar things together. The word “apple” would not belong to the category of “fruits” because the concept of “fruit” would not exist as a unifying category.
   • Similarly, there would be no overarching grammar rules or structures to relate words to one another. Each sentence would be a random assortment of words without any syntactical or grammatical coherence.

Consequences of Pluralism in Language

1. Communication Breakdown:
   • Without categories or a coherent structure, communication would break down. If words are independent and unrelated, it would be impossible to form meaningful sentences or convey complex ideas.
   • For example, trying to communicate the idea “I ate a red apple” would be impossible because “I,” “ate,” “red,” and “apple” would have no inherent relationship or order.
2. Understanding and Knowledge:
   • Understanding and knowledge are based on the ability to relate particulars to a coherent whole. In a pluralistic reality, this would be impossible.
   • For instance, in science, understanding the behavior of a particular species of bird involves relating it to broader categories like “avian species,” “ecosystems,” and “food chains.” Without these unifying categories, each species would be an isolated fact, and comprehensive knowledge about birds or ecosystems would be impossible.

Van Til’s Argument

Van Til argues that such a pluralistic view of reality is incoherent because it lacks the necessary unity to relate and understand diverse elements. True knowledge requires a framework where particulars can be categorized and related to a coherent whole.

The Triune God’s Role

In contrast, Van Til posits that the Triune God provides the necessary unity for coherence:

• Unity and Diversity: The doctrine of the Trinity posits one God in three persons, perfectly balancing unity and diversity. This metaphysical foundation allows for a coherent understanding of reality.
• Categorization and Relation: Because God’s knowledge is comprehensive and self-contained, it provides the basis for categorizing and relating particulars in a coherent and meaningful way.

Conclusion

Without the unifying principle provided by the Triune God, reality would be a collection of unrelated particulars, leading to fragmentation and incoherence. This would undermine the possibility of true knowledge and understanding, as illustrated by the breakdown of communication and knowledge in a pluralistic view of language. Van Til’s argument emphasizes that only the Christian doctrine of the Trinity can provide the necessary unity for coherent thought and knowledge.

On the Absolute and the Ultimate Reality:

“The Absolute is defined as ‘the high-water mark of fluctuations in experience of which, in general, we are daily and normally aware,’ and Reality is said to be ‘essentially synthetic.'”

Explanation: Van Til critiques the idealist definition of the Absolute as the culmination of fluctuating experiences and the notion that reality is fundamentally synthetic (constructed from parts). He argues that this view is inadequate because it lacks a stable, unchanging foundation. In contrast, the Christian worldview posits a coherent, unchanging God as the basis for reality, providing a more satisfactory explanation for the unity and diversity we observe.

On the Necessity of Presupposing God for Rationality:

“The least bit of our rational experience presupposes the rationality of ‘the basis of the universe,’ and the rationality is gone if the ‘basis of the universe’ is subject to change. On this point Bosanquet and Theism agree.”

Explanation: Van Til underscores that rational thought and experience presuppose a rational foundation for the universe. If this foundation were subject to change, rationality would be undermined. Both Bosanquet (representing idealist philosophy) and theism agree on this point, but Van Til emphasizes that only the Christian God provides a truly unchanging and rational basis for the universe, contrasting this with the more unstable foundation offered by idealism.

On God’s Self-Knowledge and Knowledge of Creation:

“Van Til referred to both God’s self-knowledge and knowledge of creation as ‘analytic.'”

Explanation: Van Til uses the term “analytic” in a way that departs from its Kantian origin. In traditional Kantian philosophy, an analytic statement is one where the predicate is contained within the subject, making the statement true by definition rather than by empirical observation. Van Til applies this concept to God’s knowledge, suggesting that God’s understanding of Himself and His creation is entirely self-contained and self-sufficient, not reliant on external realities.

On God’s Exhaustive Self-Knowledge:

“God does not need to look beyond himself for additions to his knowledge.”

Explanation: This statement underscores the idea that God’s knowledge is comprehensive and inherent. Unlike humans, who acquire knowledge through experience and observation, God’s knowledge is complete and intrinsic, encompassing all possible and actual realities without needing input from outside Himself.

On the Unity of God’s Necessary and Free Knowledge:

“Both God’s necessary and God’s free knowledge are analytic because they have as their object ultimately only God himself—in the former, his nature, in the latter, his will—and therefore are only dependent on God and independent of anything outside of God.”

Explanation: Van Til differentiates between God’s necessary knowledge (knowledge of His own nature) and His free knowledge (knowledge of His will and creation). Both types of knowledge are considered “analytic” because they ultimately refer back to God Himself. This means that everything God knows is a reflection of His own being and will, highlighting His self-sufficiency and independence from creation.

On the Organic Connection in God’s Knowledge:

“The two distinct aspects of God’s knowledge are united in his self-sufficient, divine intellect so that, in the words of Bavinck, ‘the two are organically connected. … [God] knows all things in and of and by himself. For that reason his knowledge is undivided, simple, unchangeable, eternal. He knows all things instantaneously, simultaneously, from eternity; all things are eternally present to his mind’s eye.'”

Explanation: This quote from Herman Bavinck, referenced by Van Til, emphasizes the unity and simplicity of God’s knowledge. God’s knowledge is not fragmented or sequential; rather, it is a single, comprehensive act. God’s eternal perspective means that He knows everything simultaneously and perfectly, with all things being eternally present to His understanding.

Further Suggestion: Concrete Universal

Concept: The “concrete universal” refers to a philosophical idea where universals are fully realized in particular instances. This concept can help explain how God, as the ultimate universal, manifests in the particulars of creation.

Understanding Van Til’s Perspective on Universals and Particulars:

Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetics revolves around the idea that God’s nature and revelation provide the basis for all human knowledge and understanding. Interpreting whether Van Til directly meant the specific concept of the “concrete universal” requires some nuanced understanding of his theology and philosophy.

Revelation and Epistemology:

Van Til believed that all human knowledge depends on God’s self-revelation. This revelation provides the necessary preconditions for intelligibility and coherence in our understanding of the world.

Triune God:

Van Til emphasized the importance of the Trinity. He argued that only a Trinitarian God could account for the one-and-many problem (the relationship between universals and particulars). The Triune nature of God, being both one and many, perfectly balances the unity and diversity found in creation.

Concrete Universal Concept:

While Van Til did not explicitly use the term “concrete universal,” his ideas align with the notion that God embodies the ultimate universal and is manifested in particulars through His creation and incarnation. The doctrine of the Trinity suggests that within God’s very being, there is a harmonious relationship between unity and diversity, which serves as the basis for all created reality.

Specific Points Relating to Van Til:

God as Universal:

Van Til would agree that God represents the ultimate universal, embodying all perfections and attributes. This universality is not abstract but concrete, grounded in God’s existence and self-revelation.

God as Particular:

In Christian theology, particularly within Van Til’s framework, God’s self-revelation through creation and the incarnation of Jesus Christ shows how the universal attributes of God are manifested in particular, concrete forms.

Quotes from Cornelius Van Til with Explanations:

On the Concept of the Concrete Universal and Its Implications:

“The Absolute is the Universe inclusive of ‘God’ and man. ‘God’ is thus to be an element in this Concrete Universal; the element of unity or universality. Man is also to be an element, the element of diversity. The eye cannot say that it hath no need of hearing; ‘God’ cannot say that he hath no need of man, they are members of one organism.” (The Defense of the Faith, Kindle Locations 1725-1735).

Explanation: Van Til critiques the absolute idealist perspective, which posits the Absolute as an all-encompassing reality that includes both God and man. In this view, God represents unity (universality) and man represents diversity. Van Til uses the analogy of body parts to illustrate this interconnectedness, emphasizing that both elements are necessary and interdependent within this system. He suggests that the idealist conception of the Absolute fails to adequately distinguish between Creator and creation, leading to a flawed understanding of their relationship.

On the Criticism of Absolute Idealism and the Necessity of a Concrete Universal:

“We may dislike ‘either-or’ alternatives, but here we must face one: your a priori is either in the timeless self-conscious God with the result that history realizes the purpose of God, or your a priori is to develop in a Universe inclusive of God, with the result that history is self-dependent.” (The Defense of the Faith, Kindle Locations 1747-1769).

Explanation: Van Til presents a stark choice between two foundational presuppositions (a priori): either one begins with the self-existent, timeless, and self-conscious God, leading to a view of history as the realization of God’s purpose, or one adopts the view of a universe that includes God as just another part, resulting in a self-dependent history. Van Til argues for the necessity of beginning with the presupposition of the Christian God to make sense of history and reality, contrasting this with the self-defeating approach of absolute idealism.

On the Necessity of Unity in Diversity for Intelligibility:

“Pluralism destroys the possibility of knowledge. Such is Bosanquet’s contention. Such is also Theism’s contention. Both maintain that unity must be basic to difference.” (The Defense of the Faith, Kindle Locations 1769-1777).

Explanation: Van Til aligns with the theistic view and the philosophical contention of Bernard Bosanquet that pluralism (the idea that reality consists of many independent parts) undermines the possibility of true knowledge. Both perspectives assert that a fundamental unity is essential to understand and make sense of differences. Van Til’s argument is that without a coherent unity, provided by the triune God, knowledge and intelligibility become impossible.

Critique of Pluralism:

Pluralism and Fragmentation:

Definition: Pluralism posits that reality consists of many independent parts without any overarching unity.

Lack of Coherence: Van Til argues that if reality is fundamentally pluralistic, there can be no coherent or consistent framework to relate these independent parts. This fragmentation undermines the possibility of true knowledge because there is no unified basis to relate and understand these diverse elements.

Dependence on Unity for Knowledge:

Bosanquet’s Contention: Both Van Til and Bernard Bosanquet (a British idealist philosopher) agree that knowledge requires a fundamental unity. Without it, differences cannot be meaningfully related, making true knowledge impossible.

Theistic View: Theism, and specifically Christian theism, posits that this necessary unity is found in the nature of God, who is both one and many. This divine unity provides the foundation for intelligible experience and rational thought.

Van Til’s Specific Arguments:

Analytic Knowledge:

God’s Self-Knowledge: Van Til asserts that God’s knowledge of Himself and creation is “analytic,” meaning it is self-contained and exhaustive. God’s knowledge is not dependent on anything outside Himself, ensuring a unified and coherent understanding of all reality.

Organic Unity of God’s Knowledge:

Bavinck’s Insight: Referencing Herman Bavinck, Van Til emphasizes that God’s knowledge is undivided, simple, and eternal. This means that God’s understanding is a single, comprehensive act that encompasses all things, providing a coherent basis for unity and diversity.

Rational Foundation:

Rationality Presupposes Unity: Van Til argues that rational thought presupposes a stable and unchanging foundation. If the basis of the universe were subject to change (as in pluralistic or non-theistic worldviews), rationality itself would be undermined.

Example Illustrating the Lack of Coherence in Pluralism:

Pluralistic Reality in Language:

Words as Independent Entities:

In a pluralistic reality, each word would be an independent, unrelated entity with no inherent connection to other words.

For instance, the word “apple” would exist entirely on its own without any relation to other words like “fruit,” “red,” or “tree.”

Lack of Categories:

In this scenario, there would be no categories or classifications to group similar things together. The word “apple” would not belong to the category of “fruits” because the concept of “fruit” would not exist as a unifying category.

Similarly, there would be no overarching grammar rules or structures to relate words to one another. Each sentence would be a random assortment of words without any syntactical or grammatical coherence.

Consequences of Pluralism in Language:

Communication Breakdown:

Without categories or a coherent structure, communication would break down. If words are independent and unrelated, it would be impossible to form meaningful sentences or convey complex ideas.

For example, trying to communicate the idea “I ate a red apple” would be impossible because “I,” “ate,” “red,” and “apple” would have no inherent relationship or order.

Understanding and Knowledge:

Understanding and knowledge are based on the ability to relate particulars to a coherent whole. In a pluralistic reality, this would be impossible.

For instance, in science, understanding the behavior of a particular species of bird involves relating it to broader categories like “avian species,” “ecosystems,” and “food chains.” Without these unifying categories, each species would be an isolated fact, and comprehensive knowledge about birds or ecosystems would be impossible.

Van Til’s Argument

Van Til argues that such a pluralistic view of reality is incoherent because it lacks the necessary unity to relate and understand diverse elements. True knowledge requires a framework where particulars can be categorized and related to a coherent whole.

The Triune God’s Role

In contrast, Van Til posits that the Triune God provides the necessary unity for coherence:

Unity and Diversity: The doctrine of the Trinity posits one God in three persons, perfectly balancing unity and diversity. This metaphysical foundation allows for a coherent understanding of reality.

Categorization and Relation: Because God’s knowledge is comprehensive and self-contained, it provides the basis for categorizing and relating particulars in a coherent and meaningful way.

Conclusion

Without the unifying principle provided by the Triune God, reality would be a collection of unrelated particulars, leading to fragmentation and incoherence. This would undermine the possibility of true knowledge and understanding, as illustrated by the breakdown of communication and knowledge in a pluralistic view of language. Van Til’s argument emphasizes that only the Christian doctrine of the Trinity can provide the necessary unity for coherent thought and knowledge.

On the Absolute and the Ultimate Reality:

“The Absolute is defined as ‘the high-water mark of fluctuations in experience of which, in general, we are daily and normally aware,’ and Reality is said to be ‘essentially synthetic.'” (The Defense of the Faith, Kindle Locations 4083-4086).

Explanation: Van Til critiques the idealist definition of the Absolute as the culmination of fluctuating experiences and the notion that reality is fundamentally synthetic (constructed from parts). He argues that this view is inadequate because it lacks a stable, unchanging foundation. In contrast, the Christian worldview posits a coherent, unchanging God as the basis for reality, providing a more satisfactory explanation for the unity and diversity we observe.

On the Necessity of Presupposing God for Rationality:

“The least bit of our rational experience presupposes the rationality of ‘the basis of the universe,’ and the rationality is gone if the ‘basis of the universe’ is subject to change. On this point Bosanquet and Theism agree.” (The Defense of the Faith, Kindle Locations 4083-4086).

Explanation: Van Til underscores that rational thought and experience presuppose a rational foundation for the universe. If this foundation were subject to change, rationality would be undermined. Both Bosanquet (representing idealist philosophy) and theism agree on this point, but Van Til emphasizes that only the Christian God provides a truly unchanging and rational basis for the universe, contrasting this with the more unstable foundation offered by idealism.

On God’s Self-Knowledge and Knowledge of Creation:

“Van Til referred to both God’s self-knowledge and knowledge of creation as ‘analytic.'” (The Defense of the Faith, Kindle Locations 4083-4086).

Explanation: Van Til uses the term “analytic” in a way that departs from its Kantian origin. In traditional Kantian philosophy, an analytic statement is one where the predicate is contained within the subject, making the statement true by definition rather than by empirical observation. Van Til applies this concept to God’s knowledge, suggesting that God’s understanding of Himself and His creation is entirely self-contained and self-sufficient, not reliant on external realities.

On God’s Exhaustive Self-Knowledge:

“God does not need to look beyond himself for additions to his knowledge.” (The Defense of the Faith, Kindle Locations 4083-4086).

Explanation: This statement underscores the idea that God’s knowledge is comprehensive and inherent. Unlike humans, who acquire knowledge through experience and observation, God’s knowledge is complete and intrinsic, encompassing all possible and actual realities without needing input from outside Himself.

On the Unity of God’s Necessary and Free Knowledge:

“Both God’s necessary and God’s free knowledge are analytic because they have as their object ultimately only God himself—in the former, his nature, in the latter, his will—and therefore are only dependent on God and independent of anything outside of God.” (The Defense of the Faith, Kindle Locations 4083-4086).

Explanation: Van Til differentiates between God’s necessary knowledge (knowledge of His own nature) and His free knowledge (knowledge of His will and creation). Both types of knowledge are considered “analytic” because they ultimately refer back to God Himself. This means that everything God knows is a reflection of His own being and will, highlighting His self-sufficiency and independence from creation.

On the Organic Connection in God’s Knowledge:

“The two distinct aspects of God’s knowledge are united in his self-sufficient, divine intellect so that, in the words of Bavinck, ‘the two are organically connected. … [God] knows all things in and of and by himself. For that reason his knowledge is undivided, simple, unchangeable, eternal. He knows all things instantaneously, simultaneously, from eternity; all things are eternally present to his mind’s eye.'” (The Defense of the Faith, Kindle Locations 4083-4086).

Explanation: This quote from Herman Bavinck, referenced by Van Til, emphasizes the unity and simplicity of God’s knowledge. God’s knowledge is not fragmented or sequential; rather, it is a single, comprehensive act. God’s eternal perspective means that He knows everything simultaneously and perfectly, with all things being eternally present to His mind’s eye.

James Anderson provides valuable commentary on Van Til’s approach to the doctrine of the Trinity and the problem of universals, which can further illuminate Van Til’s position and clarify common misconceptions.

On the Critique of Modalism

1. Van Til’s Rejection of Sabellianism: Van Til unequivocally condemns Sabellianism (modalism) in his work Introduction to Systematic Theology. Anderson points out that if Van Til’s remarks on the uni-personality of God were interpreted as modalism, it would contradict his clear intentions. Van Til’s position is not a subtle endorsement of modalism but a commitment to the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.
2. Difference from Traditional Modalism: Traditional modalists deny the real ontological distinction between the persons of the Trinity, viewing the tri-personality as merely a façade. In contrast, Van Til affirms both the tri-personality and the uni-personality of God, not as a modalistic facade but as a means to uphold both the unity and diversity within the Godhead.
3. Van Til’s ‘Paradoxical’ Interpretation: Anderson notes that the streamlined logic of early modalists was grounded in their absolute commitment to divine unity. Van Til’s acceptance of apparent contradictions within Christian theology is not a lapse into irrationalism but a recognition of the profound mystery of the Trinity, which transcends human logic without being illogical.

Positive Reasons for Van Til’s Uni-personality of God

4. Scriptural Justification: Van Til finds justification in Scripture, which often uses singular personal terms when describing God. This basic revelational datum cannot be ignored by Trinitarian theorizers.
5. Philosophical Problem of the One and the Many: Van Til’s reasoning addresses the philosophical problem of the One and the Many by positing that the unity and multiplicity within the universe can only be satisfactorily resolved by a being for whom both unity and multiplicity are equally ultimate. Van Til’s Augustinian understanding of the Trinity affirms divine simplicity and the numerical identity of each divine person with the divine being.
6. Rejection of Ultimate Impersonalism: Anderson explains that Van Til rejects any form of ultimate impersonalism, as rationality and morality are inherently personal. Therefore, the ultimate unity in the Godhead must be a personal unity. This leads Van Til to assert that in some sense, God must be numerically one person, even as He is three persons.
7. Unity and Diversity in God: Van Til emphasizes that the unity and plurality of the world have their ultimate ground in the triune God, in whom unity and plurality are equally ultimate. This unity is not merely abstract but concretely manifested in God’s tri-personal being.

Addressing the Charge of Theological Irrationalism

8. Defense of Mystery: Anderson acknowledges that Van Til’s acceptance of ‘mystery’ and ‘apparent contradictions’ in theology might seem to invite charges of irrationalism. However, Van Til’s approach is to recognize the limitations of human reason in fully comprehending the divine, while maintaining that these mysteries are not truly contradictory but beyond our finite understanding.
9. Comparison with Clark’s Social Trinitarianism: Anderson contrasts Van Til’s nuanced Trinitarianism with Gordon Clark’s version of social trinitarianism, which risks falling into tritheism. Van Til’s approach, by affirming both the oneness and threeness of God, provides a more robust and coherent theological framework.

Why Impersonalism is Problematic

Impersonalism is the philosophical view that ultimate reality is non-personal or that personal aspects of reality are secondary or derived from impersonal principles. Van Til, and those following his line of reasoning, see this as fundamentally flawed for several reasons.

1. Rationality and Morality Require Personhood

• Rationality: Rationality involves the capacity for logical thought, understanding, and the pursuit of truth. These are inherently personal activities. An impersonal ultimate reality cannot account for the rational structures of the universe or the rational capacities of human beings. Without a personal foundation, rationality itself becomes inexplicable.
• Morality: Moral values and duties are grounded in personal relationships and obligations. They require a moral lawgiver who is personal, conscious, and capable of moral judgments. An impersonal source of morality would lack the intentionality and relationality needed to ground objective moral values and duties.

2. Impersonalism Undermines Coherent Experience

• Unity and Diversity: Human experience is characterized by a complex interplay of unity and diversity. We encounter a unified world composed of diverse entities. This balance is rooted in the nature of a tri-personal God, who is both one and many. An impersonal ultimate reality fails to provide a coherent explanation for this fundamental aspect of our experience.
• Knowledge and Understanding: Knowledge involves a knower and something known, implying a relationship between subject and object. An impersonal ultimate reality cannot account for the relational dynamics inherent in the act of knowing. If reality were ultimately impersonal, the relational structure necessary for knowledge would be undermined.

3. Van Til’s Argument Against Impersonalism

Van Til’s argument is rooted in his commitment to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which he sees as providing the only coherent foundation for reality. Here’s how he frames his critique of impersonalism:

• Ultimate Unity Must Be Personal: If ultimate reality is impersonal, it cannot provide the unity necessary for coherent experience and knowledge. Personal unity, as found in the triune God, ensures that unity and diversity are equally ultimate and coherent.
• Revelation and Interpretation: Van Til argues that God’s self-revelation is inherently personal. God reveals Himself as a person, and this revelation provides the framework within which we can interpret all of reality. Without this personal revelation, the facts of the world would be uninterpreted and meaningless.

4. Philosophical Consequences

• Brute Facts and Nihilism: An impersonal ultimate reality implies the existence of brute facts—facts without meaning or interpretation. This leads to a form of nihilism, where meaning, purpose, and value are ultimately groundless.
• Loss of Human Dignity: If humans are the product of impersonal forces, our personhood, dignity, and worth are diminished. Personalism, grounded in the nature of a personal God, affirms the inherent worth and dignity of human beings as made in the image of God.

5. Van Til’s Positive Case for Personalism

• Triune God as Foundation: Van Til posits that only the triune God provides the necessary foundation for both the unity and diversity of experience. The Trinity offers a model of personal relationship and unity that is reflected in the created order.
• Analogy of Being: The world reflects the nature of its Creator. Because God is personal, the world He created is intelligible and meaningful. This analogy of being allows us to understand the world in a way that reflects the relational and rational nature of God.