What do you think?
Rate this book
Paradox and Truth: Rethinking Van Til on the Trinity
More than 1,500 years after the foundational church councils, the doctrine of the Trinity is still as central and as puzzling to theologians as ever. Reformed theology has seen increasing calls for the Trinity to live at the center of Christian confession, prompting the need for a fuller biblical and practical understanding of the subject. In recent Reformed thought, Cornelius Van Til and Cornelius Plantinga, Jr. have proposed important trinitarian theologies. Ralph Smith assesses these views and, filling out a Van Tilian perspective with Kuyper's lesser-known covenantal view, he provides a refreshing biblical, historical, and applicable perspective on this key Christian reality.
- GenresTheologyPhilosophy
144 pages, Paperback
First published June 3, 2003
3 people are currently reading
43 people want to read
About the author
Ralph Allan Smith
8 books10 followersRalph Allan Smith (M.Div. Grace Theological Seminary, 1978). Pastor of Mitaka Evangelical Church since 1981; Director of Covenant Worldview Institute since 1988. Ralph and Sylvia married in 1976 and have been serving the Lord in Tokyo, Japan, since 1981.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
November 20, 2011
Smith's goal is to compare and contrast the recent arguments of “social Trinitarian” Cornelius Plantinga with the unique approach of Cornelius Van Til. Supposedly, traditional Trinitarianism is stagnant and the insights of these two can revive it.
The introduction is somewhat humorous because Smith (rightly) bemoans the fact that Evangelicals have ignored the Trinity for essentially of their history, and if you take away the doctrine of the Trinity for Evangelicals, nothing will change in their day-to-day lives. At this point Smith begins reviewing Plantinga's now-famous essay “The Threeness/Oneness Problem of the Trinity” along with a very brief survey of recent Evangelical developments of Trinitarianism. Smith wonders why none of these writers (Plantinga, Stanley Grenz, James Sire) discuss the work of Cornelius Van Til or even John Calvin. What Smith does not realize is nobody outside a microscopic subset of the Reformed world (which itself is already microscopic) has even heard of Van Til or let alone even cares.
(NOTE: I am simply--no pun intended--following Smith's reading of Plantinga and not inserting my own understanding of the issue). Smith's first chapter deals with Plantinga's essay on the Trinity. Plantinga, following many recent moves in theology, suggests the West is fundamentally “modalist,” or something similar. Smith then reviews Plantinga's charge by examining Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Karl Barth. In short: Augustine, due to his strong neo-Platonism and view of divine simplicity, said each person is synonymous with the divine essence. The conclusion is not hard to draw: if each person is identical with the divine essence, and the divine essence is absolutely simple and admitting of no distinctions, then each person is identical with the other. Ergo, modalism (24-26). Thomas Aquinas essentially hardens Augustine's position. Each person is identical with the whole divine essence, yet we distinguish them by “relations of opposition,” with each person identical with his “relation.” Plantinga remarks, “If the Father, Son, and Spirit are taken as mere names for the divine essence...then this is modalism. If the statement means the Father, Son, and Spirit are taken as names of Persons, then the statement reduces persons to essences, which are abstract. Each person would be a set of properties and the three sets of properties are identical. The persons themselves would disappear” (27).
In some ways chapter two is the heart of the book: what did Van Til really mean about the trinity? Many of his critics, and not a few of his followers, have charged him with being innovative about the Trinity, with some saying he denies Nicea. As is always the case in intra-Reformed polemics, there is more heat than light and nobody knows what anyone is talking about.
will go ahead and say that Van Til was not innovative on the Trinity, but rather restated the exact same thing Augustine said in close to the same language.i Remember, Augustine said that each of the persons was identical to the essence: the essence is identical to the attribute, and the attribute is identical to the person; ergo, the person is identical to the essence (Plantinga, quoted by Smith, 25). Van Til draws the Augustinian conclusion: the Trinity is one Person. Of course, Van Til realizes that the Trinity is also three persons, so he says that, too. Did Van Til contradict himself? I don't think he did.
The Covenant as the Missing Link
Smith suggests that covenant theology provides the missing link in Reformed Trinitarianism (73). He rightly suspects that Augustinian Triadology is at an impasse, and while he appreciates Van Til's reworking of the Trinity, he notes it is still inadequate. He takes his definition of covenant from Jim Jordan (!!!!!!) as a “personal structural bond which joins the three persons of God in a life-giving community” (73). In one sense Reformed theology has always followed this principle in its doctrine of the Pactum Salutis, but Smith, following Abraham Kuyper, takes it even further.
Smith notes that traditional Reformed theology “proposes something Van Til objects to” (84), the idea that the essence of God is an impersonal substratum. Without fully acknowledging the problem his definition of divine simplicity entails, Smith, in order to speak meaningfully about the attributes of God in a way that doesn't simply reduce each to the other (and thereby make any talk of the attributes irrelevant, which is apparently the case), suggests that the “covenant” allows these words to really come into their expressive nature (85).
Following this framework, Smith goes on suggest that attributes like “love,” even the idea of “love,” make sense only in the context of “covenant,” a suggestion, which if flawed in the sense of placing an analogical limit on the Trinity, is fundamentally correct: love's definition must come from the Bible, not from cheap, American culture.
Criticism and Conclusion
This book is both useful and frustrating. Smith has done an able job surveying and simply (no pun intended) explaining many difficulties in modern Trinitarianism. His discussion of Augustine's revision of divine simplicity is remarkably helpful and succinct. The book's section on covenant has many helpful insights that detach “justification” from its forensic setting within Reformed theology (or better, to show that the forensic category is itself relational and covenantal). Smith utilizes humor where appropriate (the footnote response to Norman Geisler's (and evangelicalism in general) neutered view of God and Politics is almost worth the price of the book!).
The introduction is somewhat humorous because Smith (rightly) bemoans the fact that Evangelicals have ignored the Trinity for essentially of their history, and if you take away the doctrine of the Trinity for Evangelicals, nothing will change in their day-to-day lives. At this point Smith begins reviewing Plantinga's now-famous essay “The Threeness/Oneness Problem of the Trinity” along with a very brief survey of recent Evangelical developments of Trinitarianism. Smith wonders why none of these writers (Plantinga, Stanley Grenz, James Sire) discuss the work of Cornelius Van Til or even John Calvin. What Smith does not realize is nobody outside a microscopic subset of the Reformed world (which itself is already microscopic) has even heard of Van Til or let alone even cares.
(NOTE: I am simply--no pun intended--following Smith's reading of Plantinga and not inserting my own understanding of the issue). Smith's first chapter deals with Plantinga's essay on the Trinity. Plantinga, following many recent moves in theology, suggests the West is fundamentally “modalist,” or something similar. Smith then reviews Plantinga's charge by examining Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Karl Barth. In short: Augustine, due to his strong neo-Platonism and view of divine simplicity, said each person is synonymous with the divine essence. The conclusion is not hard to draw: if each person is identical with the divine essence, and the divine essence is absolutely simple and admitting of no distinctions, then each person is identical with the other. Ergo, modalism (24-26). Thomas Aquinas essentially hardens Augustine's position. Each person is identical with the whole divine essence, yet we distinguish them by “relations of opposition,” with each person identical with his “relation.” Plantinga remarks, “If the Father, Son, and Spirit are taken as mere names for the divine essence...then this is modalism. If the statement means the Father, Son, and Spirit are taken as names of Persons, then the statement reduces persons to essences, which are abstract. Each person would be a set of properties and the three sets of properties are identical. The persons themselves would disappear” (27).
In some ways chapter two is the heart of the book: what did Van Til really mean about the trinity? Many of his critics, and not a few of his followers, have charged him with being innovative about the Trinity, with some saying he denies Nicea. As is always the case in intra-Reformed polemics, there is more heat than light and nobody knows what anyone is talking about.
will go ahead and say that Van Til was not innovative on the Trinity, but rather restated the exact same thing Augustine said in close to the same language.i Remember, Augustine said that each of the persons was identical to the essence: the essence is identical to the attribute, and the attribute is identical to the person; ergo, the person is identical to the essence (Plantinga, quoted by Smith, 25). Van Til draws the Augustinian conclusion: the Trinity is one Person. Of course, Van Til realizes that the Trinity is also three persons, so he says that, too. Did Van Til contradict himself? I don't think he did.
The Covenant as the Missing Link
Smith suggests that covenant theology provides the missing link in Reformed Trinitarianism (73). He rightly suspects that Augustinian Triadology is at an impasse, and while he appreciates Van Til's reworking of the Trinity, he notes it is still inadequate. He takes his definition of covenant from Jim Jordan (!!!!!!) as a “personal structural bond which joins the three persons of God in a life-giving community” (73). In one sense Reformed theology has always followed this principle in its doctrine of the Pactum Salutis, but Smith, following Abraham Kuyper, takes it even further.
Smith notes that traditional Reformed theology “proposes something Van Til objects to” (84), the idea that the essence of God is an impersonal substratum. Without fully acknowledging the problem his definition of divine simplicity entails, Smith, in order to speak meaningfully about the attributes of God in a way that doesn't simply reduce each to the other (and thereby make any talk of the attributes irrelevant, which is apparently the case), suggests that the “covenant” allows these words to really come into their expressive nature (85).
Following this framework, Smith goes on suggest that attributes like “love,” even the idea of “love,” make sense only in the context of “covenant,” a suggestion, which if flawed in the sense of placing an analogical limit on the Trinity, is fundamentally correct: love's definition must come from the Bible, not from cheap, American culture.
Criticism and Conclusion
This book is both useful and frustrating. Smith has done an able job surveying and simply (no pun intended) explaining many difficulties in modern Trinitarianism. His discussion of Augustine's revision of divine simplicity is remarkably helpful and succinct. The book's section on covenant has many helpful insights that detach “justification” from its forensic setting within Reformed theology (or better, to show that the forensic category is itself relational and covenantal). Smith utilizes humor where appropriate (the footnote response to Norman Geisler's (and evangelicalism in general) neutered view of God and Politics is almost worth the price of the book!).
July 9, 2021
Essential reading to get a basic lay of the Trinitarian theology landscape, and particularly to see how Van Til's Trinitarian theology could interact with other contemporary theologians. There are some good overviews here of unitarian leaners as well as the social Trinity tendencies of Plantinga and others. Ralph Smith finally offers a covenantal correction (by way of addendum) to Van Til's approach, showing that covenant defines and shapes each attribute of God.
January 3, 2012
Good book. There were a few places where I was looking for more clarification, and I think that he pushes too hard against Aristotelian logic. (I think this happens with a strong Van Tillian antithesis in general.)However, I agree with Rev. Smith's thesis and think he does a good job of supporting it on the whole.
Full Review
Paradox and Truth: Rethinking Van Til On the Trinity by Ralph Smith
I have mixed feelings about this book. This book is academic and intended to have a specific and narrow aim. Ralph Smith reflects on the current state of views on the Trinity within the Reformed world. He specifically deals with current critiques of Augustine’s classic conception of the Trinity and with Cornelius Plantinga’s social-Trinity formulation. He asks why the Trinitarian teachings of Cornelius Van Til have not received wider acknowledgment among theologians, and goes on to show how Van Til places the Trinity at the center of Christian thought as an answer to the philosophical question of the one and the many.
According to Smith, the Trinity is often seen as a true and important doctrine of Christian belief, but ultimately of no practical relevance to the Christian life. He goes on to show that Van Til’s conception of the Trinity, influenced by Kuyper and Bavink, affects every aspect of life for a Christian and marks a distinct difference in practice from non-Trinitarian religions.
The only complaint I have about this book it Smith’s use and abuse of logic. Many people have criticized Van Til for teaching that the Trinity is ultimately a contradiction. While Smith does not believe this to be the case, he does think that a reliance on Aristotelian logic is detrimental to thinking about the Trinity. Van Til, rather than using language that avoids the appearance of contradiction, uses language that exaggerates the seeming problem. Smith states out that syllogistic logic relies on the idea of fixed categories and a perfect language. As we cannot have perfect knowledge of God, our categories cannot be fully known and any attempt to apply this sort of logic to God ultimately fails.
I disagree on this point. Whether one has any knowledge of absolute categories is irrelevant to whether the law of non-contradiction works. If I were to say: “I am mad and I am not mad,” then I could avoid a true contradiction if in the first use of mad I mean “angry” and in the second use I mean “insane”. No contradiction here. However, if I mean the exact same thing by the word “mad” each time, then what I have said must be untrue because it is a contradiction. There is a definite distinction between something that is illogical, i.e. contradictory, and something that is mysterious. However, I would never want to say that there is a true, unequivocal contradiction in the Godhead. This is why the doctrine of the Trinity is normally formulated as “One essence, three persons”. We don’t have an actual understanding of how this works, and in fact the people that think they understand it are usually the heretics. However this formulation does a good job of showing, though we cannot fully grasp this mysterious doctrine, it ultimately is resolved in the being of God and is not an absolute contradiction.
Now if Van Til says that God is one person and yet three persons, and then stipulating that these are not absolute Aristotelian categories but rather cannot be thought of apart from instantational and associational ideas, I am fine with that. We can say that the word “person” does not represent the same term with the exact same extension each time, because we are not dealing with absolute knowable categories. Let’s just not pretend that we have violated the law of non-contradiction somehow and that Aristotle is therefore invalid. We have simply added stipulations that prevent this formulation from being truly contradictory, and left the mystery intact.
Full Review
Paradox and Truth: Rethinking Van Til On the Trinity by Ralph Smith
I have mixed feelings about this book. This book is academic and intended to have a specific and narrow aim. Ralph Smith reflects on the current state of views on the Trinity within the Reformed world. He specifically deals with current critiques of Augustine’s classic conception of the Trinity and with Cornelius Plantinga’s social-Trinity formulation. He asks why the Trinitarian teachings of Cornelius Van Til have not received wider acknowledgment among theologians, and goes on to show how Van Til places the Trinity at the center of Christian thought as an answer to the philosophical question of the one and the many.
According to Smith, the Trinity is often seen as a true and important doctrine of Christian belief, but ultimately of no practical relevance to the Christian life. He goes on to show that Van Til’s conception of the Trinity, influenced by Kuyper and Bavink, affects every aspect of life for a Christian and marks a distinct difference in practice from non-Trinitarian religions.
The only complaint I have about this book it Smith’s use and abuse of logic. Many people have criticized Van Til for teaching that the Trinity is ultimately a contradiction. While Smith does not believe this to be the case, he does think that a reliance on Aristotelian logic is detrimental to thinking about the Trinity. Van Til, rather than using language that avoids the appearance of contradiction, uses language that exaggerates the seeming problem. Smith states out that syllogistic logic relies on the idea of fixed categories and a perfect language. As we cannot have perfect knowledge of God, our categories cannot be fully known and any attempt to apply this sort of logic to God ultimately fails.
I disagree on this point. Whether one has any knowledge of absolute categories is irrelevant to whether the law of non-contradiction works. If I were to say: “I am mad and I am not mad,” then I could avoid a true contradiction if in the first use of mad I mean “angry” and in the second use I mean “insane”. No contradiction here. However, if I mean the exact same thing by the word “mad” each time, then what I have said must be untrue because it is a contradiction. There is a definite distinction between something that is illogical, i.e. contradictory, and something that is mysterious. However, I would never want to say that there is a true, unequivocal contradiction in the Godhead. This is why the doctrine of the Trinity is normally formulated as “One essence, three persons”. We don’t have an actual understanding of how this works, and in fact the people that think they understand it are usually the heretics. However this formulation does a good job of showing, though we cannot fully grasp this mysterious doctrine, it ultimately is resolved in the being of God and is not an absolute contradiction.
Now if Van Til says that God is one person and yet three persons, and then stipulating that these are not absolute Aristotelian categories but rather cannot be thought of apart from instantational and associational ideas, I am fine with that. We can say that the word “person” does not represent the same term with the exact same extension each time, because we are not dealing with absolute knowable categories. Let’s just not pretend that we have violated the law of non-contradiction somehow and that Aristotle is therefore invalid. We have simply added stipulations that prevent this formulation from being truly contradictory, and left the mystery intact.
November 21, 2013
Ralph Smith doesn't understand how so many theologians have ignored Van Til's work on the Trinity. He examines Van Til's understanding of the Trinity, compares and contrasts it to Cornelius Plantiga's 'social Trinity' and then adds Kuyper's covenantal understanding of the Trinity to demonstrate how by combining the best of the three thinkers that the theology of the Trinity is fully Reformed and answers the philosophical problem of 'the one and the many.'
This is a great, short, yet challenging work on Trinitarian theology. Smith understands the significance of Van Til's work and seeks to advance it and force others to deal with Van Til when they would seemingly prefer to ignore him.
This is a great, short, yet challenging work on Trinitarian theology. Smith understands the significance of Van Til's work and seeks to advance it and force others to deal with Van Til when they would seemingly prefer to ignore him.
January 3, 2023
Author’s point: Van Til controlled his Trinitarian logical conclusions with the presupposition of transcendence when he should have chosen “covenant” as the guiding presupposition.
February 10, 2014
A deceiving little paperback, at just 142 pages this book is short and gives the illusion that it will be a quick read. Not so! It is a book for careful reading and contemplation. Ralph Smith asserts that the Trinity is "the central and distinguishing Christian affirmation about God without which Christianity as such cannot exist."
Smith begins by introducing the three basic ideas of the Trinity, three persons in one, one person with three names (modalism), three persons who are all in a family (tritheist). He then introduces Barth, Plantinga, Leonard Hodgson, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and of course, Van Til and gives us an understanding of each one's view on the Trinity.
Van Til believes that since God Himself is incomprehensible any statement of doctrine that claims to be the ultimate answer for the Trinity will appear contradictory to man. It is however, perfectly and completely rational for it is God's perfect knowledge of Himself. "It demands no sacrifice of intellect but it does demand the surrender of intellectual autonomy." And ultimately, the answer to the Trinity can only come as a gift from God.
The missing piece in Van Til's approach is the crucial understanding that the Trinity is eternally united in a covenant bond of love. Though the idea of a covenant among the persons of the Trinity has neither been included in Reformed confessions nor was ever universally held, failing to link the two leads to abstract thinking. "The covenant among the persons of the Trinity must be the starting point for our theological and intellectual endeavor."
"The harmony of the one and the many is relative to worship and obedience, prayer to God, and loving our neighbor in short everything." In fact, "The doctrine of the Trinity is the very beating heart of the Christian system of truth."
Ralph Smith does an excellent job of tackling a monumental doctrine fleshing it out so that the Trinity is living and not just a doctrine of thoughts.
Smith begins by introducing the three basic ideas of the Trinity, three persons in one, one person with three names (modalism), three persons who are all in a family (tritheist). He then introduces Barth, Plantinga, Leonard Hodgson, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and of course, Van Til and gives us an understanding of each one's view on the Trinity.
Van Til believes that since God Himself is incomprehensible any statement of doctrine that claims to be the ultimate answer for the Trinity will appear contradictory to man. It is however, perfectly and completely rational for it is God's perfect knowledge of Himself. "It demands no sacrifice of intellect but it does demand the surrender of intellectual autonomy." And ultimately, the answer to the Trinity can only come as a gift from God.
The missing piece in Van Til's approach is the crucial understanding that the Trinity is eternally united in a covenant bond of love. Though the idea of a covenant among the persons of the Trinity has neither been included in Reformed confessions nor was ever universally held, failing to link the two leads to abstract thinking. "The covenant among the persons of the Trinity must be the starting point for our theological and intellectual endeavor."
"The harmony of the one and the many is relative to worship and obedience, prayer to God, and loving our neighbor in short everything." In fact, "The doctrine of the Trinity is the very beating heart of the Christian system of truth."
Ralph Smith does an excellent job of tackling a monumental doctrine fleshing it out so that the Trinity is living and not just a doctrine of thoughts.
December 8, 2014
Smith is attempting a development upon Van Til's trinitarianism. It seemed to me often unhelpful and uncompelling. He does not maintain the equal ultimacy of the unity and diversity in the Godhead that you find in Van Til. He also doesn't seem to grasp the importance of perichoresis for Van Til (see Survey of Christian Epistemology). Smith follows a reading of Augustine that has been discredited (See Nicea and its Legacy). Smith's understanding of covenant within the trinity leads to more questions than answers. (What is the substance of the oath that is implicit in their covenantal relationship? Seeing that freedom to enter a covenant necessary to the idea of covenant, is the intratrintiarian covenant contingent or necessary? Are there legal sanctions in this covenant? How does this covenant idea relate to the classic Trinitarian categories (substance/person)? Smith basically ends with a social trinitarianism couched in covenantal language.
Aspects of this book were good. His actual chapter on Van Til's Trinitarian language, and its roots in Hodge and Bavinck were spot on. Smith's idea of the need for multiple analogies for the Trinity was helpful. Also his discussion on the personal characteristics of God's covenant relations (ad extra) was helpful, and this seemed to be a major influence in the early Federal Vision discussion.
Aspects of this book were good. His actual chapter on Van Til's Trinitarian language, and its roots in Hodge and Bavinck were spot on. Smith's idea of the need for multiple analogies for the Trinity was helpful. Also his discussion on the personal characteristics of God's covenant relations (ad extra) was helpful, and this seemed to be a major influence in the early Federal Vision discussion.
February 19, 2014
It's okay. Part of the problem, and this isn't just Ralph Smith, is that Van Til provided an interesting, though undeveloped, philosophical "solution" to the problem of the one and the many without interacting with Scripture nor explicitly orthodox formulations. I'm sure he affirmed the creedal statements, but that he never interacted with them as a launching pad underscores their relative unimportance for his project.
Smith seems to think the unity of the Trinity is based on covenant...this leads to social Trinitarianism. If their unity is "covenantal", then in what sense is the Father the father of the Son? Covenant is how God relates with man; not the Persons among the Trinity.
A "covenantal" notion of the relations of Father/Son/Holy Spirit relegates them to social constructs. The implication would seem to be the relation of Father as Begetter, and Son as Begotten, are unnecessary. Perhaps even merely anthropomorphic.
This has disastrous implications related to our understanding of God and our understanding of the order of creation. I fear that when men take Van Til's notion on this subject to heart, and develop it rather than reform it, we're inviting egalitarianism into our midst. Not to mention it's just sloppy.
Smith seems to think the unity of the Trinity is based on covenant...this leads to social Trinitarianism. If their unity is "covenantal", then in what sense is the Father the father of the Son? Covenant is how God relates with man; not the Persons among the Trinity.
A "covenantal" notion of the relations of Father/Son/Holy Spirit relegates them to social constructs. The implication would seem to be the relation of Father as Begetter, and Son as Begotten, are unnecessary. Perhaps even merely anthropomorphic.
This has disastrous implications related to our understanding of God and our understanding of the order of creation. I fear that when men take Van Til's notion on this subject to heart, and develop it rather than reform it, we're inviting egalitarianism into our midst. Not to mention it's just sloppy.
December 26, 2011
In this book, Ralph Allan Smith begins what I think is a good and necessary conversation on the role of the Trinity in Christian thinking and worldview. He considers the Trinity from the perspectives of Plantinga, Augustine, Kuyper, and Van Til.
There were times when I wasn't sure I was fully grasping the import of his thoughts due to a lack of familiarity with Plantinga and others. Smith, however, does try to alleve this by quoting or explaining well what their points were. I believe he does a fair job of presenting them accurately, rather than as straw men.
He takes corrective where it is due, but offers the balance needed to clearly see the Biblical view of the Trinity.
In the end, you can't help but agree that our systematic theologies are missing the necessity of the Trinity in their definitions and systematic constructs. I hope this book urges theologians toward that work.
There were times when I wasn't sure I was fully grasping the import of his thoughts due to a lack of familiarity with Plantinga and others. Smith, however, does try to alleve this by quoting or explaining well what their points were. I believe he does a fair job of presenting them accurately, rather than as straw men.
He takes corrective where it is due, but offers the balance needed to clearly see the Biblical view of the Trinity.
In the end, you can't help but agree that our systematic theologies are missing the necessity of the Trinity in their definitions and systematic constructs. I hope this book urges theologians toward that work.
July 11, 2009
On each side of the road there is always a ditch . In the Trinity debate these ditches are the heresies modalism and tritheism. Both attack the classic christian formula on logical grounds but ruin christianity in the process. Make God only One, and he ceases to be Love. Make God only three, and what you have is polytheism. As is usually the case, the orthodox position is straight down the middle. This is Van Tils position-we as creatures and sinful creatures at that, will never understand this one and three business perfectly. But it is because we cannot fully understand God, that his revelation to us becomes so important. We cannot reason our way to him on our own, so he must reveal himself to us. This kind of thinking should be the building blocks of christian epistemology.
February 27, 2012
This book is really great! He makes me hungry to read more Van Til and go back and read the Van Til that I read years ago to refresh my memory. He isn't really "rethinking" Van Til so much as standing on Van Til's shoulders to develop some really neat ideas about the nature of covenant in the light of trinitarian orthodoxy.
I only wish the book was longer. He could turn that last chapter into a whole book. Maybe this is just an introduction to a more in-depth study someone could do on this same topic.
I only wish the book was longer. He could turn that last chapter into a whole book. Maybe this is just an introduction to a more in-depth study someone could do on this same topic.
July 19, 2008
Smith uses Van Til for his own twisted end. He tries to establish a doctrine for a covenant between the members of the Godhead in their being, rather than simply accepting a covenant of redemption made between the members of the Godhead in eternity for the salvation of his people. He abandons an orthodox covenant theology in favor of a "Federal Vision" type. He is the brains behind the Trinitarian theology in the FV movement. I do not recommend this book to anyone, ever!
February 26, 2013
Smith accomplishes exactly what he sets out to do. He compares Plantinga's and Van Til's approaches to the Trinity, then fills in gaps in their thinking in the intra-Trinitarian covenantal elements. Pretty niche stuff but a helpful little read.
September 8, 2012
Excellent on Van Til, Platinga and Kuyper.
June 14, 2013
Clear writing, but he didn't really peak my interest in Van Til, Plantinga, or Kuyper. Maybe I'm not enough the systematic theologian though.
March 31, 2017
I had no idea what I was reading. Long time ago. if I still had it, I might want to give it another shot.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews