This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
how the trinitarian approach provides a genuine alternative to scholastic philosophy. The latter is the tradition of the medieval schoolmen that, it is argued, arises from the synthesis of biblical revelation (mediated by the Christian tradition) with Greek thought. As will be seen, the chief charge of reformational philosophy against scholastic philosophy is that is not consistent with a thorough understanding of the sovereignty of God, since there is a tendency in scholasticism to hold that reason can be exercised by the intellect independently, or at some remove, from the affirmation of God’s sovereignty over the world. I will outline the trinitarian vision, as we find it in the thought of Kuyper and Van Til. This worldview allows us to conceive of God as at once faithful in his dealing with the world, and yet not dependent on the world for his existence. I shall show how Kuyper and Van Til perceive the need to base one’s understanding of the world on one’s belief in God as Trinity. Although ‘scholasticism’ refers in the first instance to the philosophy developed by the medieval schoolmen, the term is used by all four thinkers in one’s study to denote the influence from earliest times of Greek thought upon Christian thinkers as they attempted to present a coherent and intellectually credible Christian account of God and the world. However, in so doing, it is argued variously by all four thinkers that Christian thought was seriously compromised in the categories it used to analyse and describe both God and the world.1 As we have seen, the reformational polemic (not least that of Dooyeweerd and Vollenhoven) against scholasticism is deep-seated and sustained. The chief charge is that by setting up reason as an independent factor over or against God it is not consistent with a full understanding of his sovereignty From a reformational perspective, scholasticism attempts to understand the world (as ‘nature’) on the basis of reason, and then adds to this prior view, the insights and conceptions provided specifically by revelation (‘grace’). I shall show why this approach is rejected by reformational thought; by considering the grounds for the rejection of scholasticism by reformational thought I will prepare the way for my examination of a thoroughly trinitarian basis for Christian philosophy. From a reformational perspective, reason as human beings is utterly tainted by the effects of one’s sinfulness and therefore any capacity within us to function as reasoning beings either independently, or even semi-independently of one’s basic orientation as human beings is impossible. Moreover, it is not simply that we do not have the capacity to function as religiously neutral reasoning beings. The very notion of an eternal law of reason is also deeply suspect in this regard, since to posit anything eternal apart from God compromises God’s sovereignty as the Creator of all things. Associated with the ideal of eternity projected onto God himself, there is also the notion of an eternity or aevum between God and the universe, through which God reveals himself to humanity, and in which humanity participates through the progressive appropriation of eternity. In terms of this scholastic ideal, temporality is seen as a deficit. In the discussion below, I shall suggest that scholasticism attempts to delineate the
‘Short Survey of the History of Philosophy (56b)’: 69. sed contra: ‘Deus esse trinum et unum est articulus fidei’. free from matter and truly universal. Consolation of Philosophy. 112.. the True. trans. Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals: 116 who quotes De Trinitate. Here we see the influence. 142 quoted in Shults. 60-61].7 The divine nature is both the principle of all things. Boethius famously defined a person as a ‘rational substance’. ‘Norm en natuurwet (51h)’ /5. 5 Vollenhoven. Reforming the Doctrine: 45-46. which unifies and resolves the diversity so discovered culminating in the contemplation of sheer Being as the obiectum communissimum and the ens universale.3 God as the supreme person is thus the perfection of intellect. The first scholastic way of approaching an understanding of God is the ‘intellectualist’ approach. and the corpus articuli].131 who quotes Milbank. and that of intellectus (which pertains to the unchanging world of pure contemplation) comes into play. This proceeds from the idea of God as a supreme mind that gives the universe its character. 1. the Being from which all being derives. 480.5 The interpretation of Thomas is a vexed question. only on a fully trinitarian basis can justice be done both to God’s aseity and to his loving engagement with the world. Reforming the Doctrine of God: 42. and in the process of redemption. Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals: 124-125 Here the distinction between ratio (that which pertains to the world of sense experience.9 Through the eternal law (lex 2 Shults. the latter being a heightened form of the former [Davies et al. Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals: 122 Aertsen quotes from In Boeth. n. 4 Boethius. subject to a variety of different views. 3 Boethius. Paul Janz notes that according to Milbank. For Thomas. Q. God is a ‘highest intelligible’. Reforming the Doctrine: 42. that is to say pure reason. Shults points out that Boethius was influenced heavily by Neoplatonic and Stoic influences transmitted especially through Augustine [Shults. 525). Shults. De trin. The being of the world is suspended from God’s Being. one’s mind are drawn to participate in the mind of God. Boethius holds in theology we need to proceed according to the mode of the intellect as study of the substance of God which is ‘without matter and motion’. The Doctrine of the Analogy of Being According to Thomas Aquinas 7 Smith. together with the other transcendentals of the One.c. Aertsen. and the being of the world. 8 Aertsen. God cannot act except in accordance with his substance. the Trinity is in this second category. who played a critical role in shaping the scholastic tradition. we can have ‘participation in the mind of God’ according to a certain kind of cognitive ‘illumination’ through reason and revelation.4. 6 Here one might mention the debate between the Cajetanist interpretation seeing the analogy in proportional terms and those who see it as an ‘analogy of relation’ or an ‘analogy of intrinsic attribution’.2 The intellectualist approach is evident in Boethius (c. 9 Aertsen. The intellectualist approach came to characterise the thinking especially of Thomas Aquinas. This supplements what can be known by natural reason [Aertsen. De persona et duabus naturis 3 (Patrologia Latina 64:1343) quoted in Shults.6 Nevertheless it can be suggested that through the analogia entis. Montagnes. Vollenhoven sees the influence of Alexander and Galen who equated the divine Logos with the universal intellect found in the final conception of Aristotle (Metaphysics) [Vollenhoven. as opposed to the mode of learning in mathematics. Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals: 120. 2001). concerned with bodies with matter. defined either in terms of God’s intellect (‘intellectualism’) or his will (‘voluntarism’). and Beauty [Aertsen.relationship between God and the world. pp. Gunton. concerned with bodies with matter and motion. Joel Relihan (Indianpolis: Hackett. Medieval Philosophy and the . Thomas argues for a certain continuity between the Being of God. not least about the nature of analogy itself. or as Boethius puts it: ‘understanding alone is the property of the divine’.4 Moreover. Reforming the Doctrine: 45]. and the mode of reason in the natural sciences. I shall argue that neither alternative is satisfactory. c. Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology: 156-166. However. Reforming the Doctrine: 42. albeit in different ways of the philosophical thinking of both Plato and Aristotle. The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Survey: 99-102. ‘The Theological Critique of Philosophy’: 24]. as well as that which subsists in itself and can only be made known by divine revelation. Transformation Theology: Church in the World: 110. 2.8 However. the Good.
aeterna). 10 Dooyeweerd. As Roy Clouser points out. not a matter of convention. to identify God as the supreme perfection not only presupposes an independent measure of the God’s perfections. Here God is seen primarily as the one who exercises sheer will. ‘De wetsbeschouwing in Brunner’s boek Das Gebot und die Ordnungen’: 356-357. 360361.12 The alternative to the intellectualist approach is the voluntarist approach. 13 Shults. 15 Dooyeweerd. which can be known by human mind as a reflection of divine reason. Shults. A History of Islamic Philosophy: 56-204.17 Both the intellectualist and Transcendentals: 130-158 et seq]. unlike Ockham. 13. Reforming the Doctrine: 146. ‘Brunner’: 358-361.11 In sum. the intellectualist view sees God as the epitome of eternal universals.15 The voluntarist view of God stresses the discontinuity between God and the world and unlike the intellectualist view. 380-381]. William emphasized the absolute power of God (potentia absoluta) unconstrained by the divine ordering of the world (potentia ordinata).). ‘De staatkundige tegenstelling tusschen Christelijk-Historische en Antirevolutionaire partij. 1300-1349) that it came to prominence in scholastic thinking. and is reflected in the lex naturalis. he replaces a cultural-formatively qualified conception with a physically qualified one). However. Reforming the Doctrine: 43. Philosophy as the Discipline of Disciplines: ms. and things are as they are simply because God so decrees. Ata’ (700-748).182-185 (compare Dooyeweerd.185-188 (compare W. Dooyeweerd. ‘Roomsch-katholiek en Anti-revolutionaire Staatkunde’ in Advizen en Studies: 9-10. In its place he seems to prefer to refer to God’s ‘unconditional being’[Clouser. ‘Short Survey (56b)’: 69. De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee). Roy Clouser in effect puts forward what is called here the ‘voluntarist’ position.16 However. although for Scotus. 16 As an alternative to the AAA (mentioned above) position.but still requires there to be unconditional and infinite properties which God is required to possess. It might also be noted that an intellectualist scholasticism can also be discerned in the Mu’tazulite tradition following Wasil b.C. 12 Roy Clouser in his trenchant exposition of the reformational position identifies the ‘AAA’ (Augustine. The notion of divine simplicity as developed by Anselm and Thomas Aquinas is designed to get around the problem that the perfections might be thought of existing independently of God and so compromise God’s aseity. A New Critique of Theoretical Thought: 1. See Ross and Bates. rejects any attempt to deduce the character of God from the character of the world.:1.W. A History of Islamic Philosophy: 228-261. N. Gunton.935) and which is now dominant in Sunni Islam [Fakry. God is entirely unknowable and arbitrary. 302-346]. III ’ in Dooyeweerd Archive: 63-64. The foundations for William of Ockham’s position were laid by John Duns Scotus. A unitarian understanding involves seeing the relationship between God and the world in bi-polar terms: God is represented by a single point of action of intellect or will. Shults. 14 Vollenhoven. this only succeeds in replacing a personal description of God with an impersonal one (in Dooyeweerdian terms. Triune Creator: 117-125. Reforming the Doctrine: 66-87. 11 Dooyeweerd. Strauss. Dooyeweerd.d. but this only reduces any discussion of God to complete unintelligibility since all the properties of God are identified with one another and with God himself [Clouser.10 The lex aeterna springs directly from the mind of God. The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Beliefs in Theories: 202-219]. Dooyeweerd. Voluntarist scholasticism can seen in the tradition which followed Abu’l-Hasan al-Ash’ari (873. Myth: 361. n. 17 A trinitarian conception of creation (or redemption) is not bi-polar but triune: each person is seen as . Clouser qualifies this voluntarist approach with the caution that that the term ‘will’ itself is an anthropomorphic term which should not be identified with the ‘originating unknowable being of God’. Reforming the Doctrine: 44-47.318].13 but it was chiefly through first Duns Scotus (1265/66-1308)14 and William of Ockham (c. ‘Duns Scotus on Natural Theology’. necessity and contingency are both bi-polar relationships. the attributes of both divine and created being are real per se. this view can be identified in both Epicurean and Stoic philosophy. and there where God works in his actions in the world through secondary causes. Anselm and Aquinas) with what is called here the ‘intellectualist’ position. and those Islamic theologians influenced by both Aristotle and the neo-Platonists [Fakry. all things are ordered. See also Shults. From a voluntarist point of view.
Common grace and the gospel: 35-40]. of God. Dooyeweerd. by building his thinking on a trinitarian foundation. redemption and in the bringing of all things to their final glory. or. as Van Til argues. a posteriori. 20 Shults. since for Van Til. Scholasticism leaves us with the question: ‘How is it possible both to understand God as free and transcendent and as knowable and not arbitrary’? F.are valid and genuine ones. 21 See Van Til. From the voluntarist perspective. without reducing God to the world. A powerful statement of the trinitarian approach can be found in Kuyper’s writings and lectures.:1.20 However the concerns which scholasticism addresses safeguarding God’s justice and truth on the one hand (as in the intellectualist view). or is seen as entirely arbitrary. those attributes that he chooses to assume. In particular it allows us to understand the world as subject to God’s law. The claim about the pluralistic nature of created reality cannot come from the mere consideration of ‘brute facts’. the world is not related to God as an entity over against God. as it God were an entity within the causal structure of the world. A trinitarian approach can affirm both God’s involvement in the world and his transcendence of it. is only analogically related to the being of the world). be it of conjunction or disjunction. which can only be founded on the prior belief to the unity and diversity of the Trinity [Van Til. it presents itself to us on its own terms not by virtue of its dependence on something else. in a way consistent with their relations to to one another Conversely. 96-100. discontinuity (as in the voluntarist view). This rests implicitly on a pre-theoretical vision. the voluntarist view denies this. At root. these do not exist since all experience is subject to one’s interpretation. duly capitalized. Reforming the Doctrine: 41-65. either as intrinsic. the scholastic problematic arises from attempting illegitimately to apply the categories of necessity and contingency to God.C. 18 Paul Janz ponts out that disjunction is no less a mechanism that brings entitities into comparative relation than conjunction [Davies et al. and is not always consistent in the way he develops his systematic thinking. all being is ‘univocal’: that is. N.21 However. a priori. or his sovereign aseity on the other hand (as in the voluntarist view) . or seeing God as entirely detached from it.19 God takes on. Van Til rejects the rationalistic realism of Kuyper’s understanding of the law forms. as is shown by the absurdity of the problem which then posed: God is seen either as subject to the laws which govern creation. . either as a single intellect (as in the intellectualist view) or as a single will (as in the voluntarist view). Vollenhoven and Van Til all uncover in Kuyper a pronounced tendency to intellectualism. LeRon Shults has pointed out the difficulty that arises from the conception of God as a single subject. more specifically. Scholasticism. he draws on a wellimmediately and distinctively engaged with the world in creation.18 While the intellectualist view holds that the being of the world is linked with that of God (even if the ‘Being’. But this is a category mistake. contingent. See Dooyeweerd. Common grace and the gospel: 34-44. but is the result of the joint action by the three Persons in its creation and redemption. with a strong stress on the primacy of logically defined universals over the individual and material. a presupposition.. Kuyper lays the basis for moving beyond the scholastic dilemma and for a radically new start. 93.509. Radical Orthodoxy: 88-89. necessary.the voluntarist views see the relationship between God and the world in correlative terms. It tries to address the problem of explaining the relationship between God and the world. having first created those attributes similarly by sheer fiat. presents us with a certain problematic. sheerly by an act of will. Transformation Theology: 106-107]. a presupposing about the equal ultimacy of unity and diversity. In doing so. 19 Smith. whether in its intellectualist or voluntarist forms. Kuyper is not himself entirely free from scholastic influences. continuity (as in the intellectualist view): or as extrinsic. without implying thereby that God himself is subject to that law.
22 For Kuyper. Warfield. De Gemeene Gratie: 2. Klempa. Crucially. just as the Persons of the Trinity are in mutual interrelation. Thomas Manton (1620-1677). that any 22 In what follows. 507-9. Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661). 86 ‘De Gemeene Gratie en de Zone Gods’. 89.23 Van Til develops Kuyper’s insights. In the Trinity. although Calvin’s major focus is on the unfolding of that covenant in history [Lillback. Edwards. The Eternal Covenant: How the Trinity Reshapes Covenant Theology 17-28. However. Francis Turretin (1623-1687).. especially p. A note of dissent is sounded by Karl Barth on the grounds that the Trinity is the doctrine of ‘three modes of being in one God’. and that restricting the covenant purely to the relationship between God and humanity begs the question about whether it is appropriate to see the covenant purely in divine-human terms. ordered and related: the male and female interpersonal relation in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics’]. John Koch ‘Cocceius’ (1603-1669). To be near unto God. It is only through Christ. Bratt. pp. Herman Wits ‘Witsius (1636-1708). but Peter Lillback argues not only for the centrality of the covenant in the Calvin’s theology as God’s ‘self-binding’. 80-90. ‘Directed. Kuyper and Van Til are drawing on a substantial tradition within Reformed theology. David Dickson (1583-1662). pp. Ch. and illuminated by the Holy Spirit that relations a possible. 83. Kuyper points out that the work of creation and redemption both find their highest unity in Christ. Abraham Kuyper: a centennial reader: 182-187. pp. Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources: 376-394. Smith. Hodge (1823-1886). . pp. even in Barth. Church Dogmatics: I/1 359-368] is insufficiently trinitarian. Jonathan Edwards (17031758).4. so it is possible..e. unity and diversity are equally ultimate. John Gill (1697-1771). Ch. Johannes Cloppenburg (1592-1652). 642-649. 3. and expresses their mutual. The Binding of God: Calvin's Role in the Development of Covenant Theology: 212-214]. Ch.347-9. All things hold together. he participates in the work of both. §5. Nevertheless. Lillback cautiously suggests that the covenant is located in the first instance in the relationship between the Persons. the Persons of the Trinity bind themselves in a covenant for the existence and well being of the world. Kuyper.for who is to say that the entity to which we are now related now is the same as that to which I was related a moment ago).68. that unique location and character distinct from all others). and indeed knowable. and the covenant purely between God and humanity [Barth. Church Dogmatics: IV/1. free and loving interdependence. B. Thomas Ridgeley (1667-1734). With respect to Calvin. there is a considerable debate about the role the covenant plays in his theology. and indeed certain. E voto Dordraceno: toelichting op den Heidelbergschen catechismus: 1. their subjection to a universal hermeneutic) and their particularity (i. Charles Hodge (1797-1878).47. Caspar Olevianus (1536-1587). Warfield (1851-1921) [Heppe. or whether it can be seen as a working out of the intra-Triune relationships. As for Van Til. the Persons of the Trinity are related to one another. not least in marriage as a reflection of the inter-Personal covenant [See Stephenson. ed. He holds that relationality is only possible and intelligible in the light of the unity and diversity of the Trinity. ‘The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity’: 166]. not as a foreign element but as a full co-director of the ‘Eternal Counsel of Peace’ (‘eeuwigen Vrederaad’) and as mediator of both creation and redemption.56. Thomas Brooks (1608-1680). Moreover the relation itself cannot (pace Kuyper) be understood purely in universal terms (according to which change is impossible) or in purely particular ones (according to which nothing can truly be related to anything else . 23 Kuyper. there are resources for seeing the intra-Triune basis for God’s action towards the world. Dictaten: 3 Locus de Foedere. Barth’s demurrer can itself be challenged on the ground that his characterisation of the Persons as ‘modes of being’ [Barth. not least in his creation of humanity. 417-9.9. pp 202-209 Kuyper. Golding. Kuyper. pp. 54-66. Ch. Peter van Mastricht (1630-1706). ‘An Introduction to Systematic Theology (1949D)’: Ch. Ch. Franciscus Buurman (1632-1679). The notion of the covenant between the Persons was developed in the theology of. Archibald A.developed trinitarian and covenantal trinitarian tradition within Reformed theology. 289-91. ‘The Concept of the Covenant in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Continental and British Reformed Theology’: 104]. John Flavel (1628-1691).e. and argues that the Trinity is the sole basis for understanding the unity and plurality of the world. and there is constancy in their governance of the world that comes out of their compact with one another.24 Any attempt to define the subject and object in relation to one another involves the relation and definition of both recognizing the equal ultimacy for their intelligibility (i. The covenant is the belief of the three Persons. As the Eternal Son. pp. 24 Van Til. Thomas Boston (1676-1732). The History of Redemption: 18. Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition: 138-142. among others. 346-347. and Benjamin B. Johannes Heidegger (1633-1698). William Ames ‘Amsius’ (1576-1633).
This last is a presuppostional belief made on the basis of Scriptural revelation. 26 As Van Til puts it: The immanent relations within the three Persons of the holy trinity are the foundation of the relations that the triune God sustains to the world. 29 Frame.25 The Persons of the Trinity are bound solely by their mutual relationships.1 in Van Til. the laws of creation. The world. It is. He exists prior to. God does not need to create the world in order to express his diversity. God is neither subject to reason. and outwardly (‘economically’) in the covenant arising from these relations. and apart from. nor free from reason. the covenant asserts the principle of personality at the heart of the universe.) 1997. it is necessary for one’s true understanding of God’s relationship to the world. 25 26 Van Til. as in the intellectualist schema. The commitment of the Persons to one another provides the settled basis for God’s dealings with the world. 27 The Theology of James Daane (1959). Cornelius. or anything outside their mutual love and commitment to one another. in other words using figures of speech derived from creation ( ‘father’. and the understanding and living out of relationships. God as Trinity has in God’s own constitution the ultimate principles of unity and diversity. and indeed for one’s understanding of the world itself. ‘wind’ or ‘breath’). The trinitarian position offers a radical alternative: God’s relationship with the world is not that of one entity to another. Van Til argues. Van Til. God as Trinity is unity in diversity.relationship in the created order can properly be understood and spoken of. ‘Christianity and Barthianism (1962 H)’10. and their delineation in terms of subject-subject or subject object. ‘The triune personal God: trinitarian theology in the thought of Cornelius Van Til’ (Ph D. is where we see expressed the free and sovereign relationships of the Persons one with another. of course.27 Lane Tipton characterises Van Til’s position as setting out the ‘representational principle’: inwardly (‘immanently’) in the relations of love between the three Persons. The original Adamic consciousness showed a full congruence between the covenantal relationship with God and the world. Nevertheless. ‘Son’ and ‘Holy Spirit’. Philadelphia. according to which the world is created and redeemed. The order of the world is not correlative to God.28 For Van Til. as in the voluntarist schema. Rather. Cornelius Van Til: an analysis of his thought: 59-60. not something that can be extrapolated from one’s experience of the world. Therefore. The Works of Cornelius Van Til. Ch 3. 2004): 114-142. it is this triune being that lies at the foundation of creation and redemption. argues Van Til. there are no eternal universals which exist alongside God or to which God is subject: He does not need to refer to any principles beyond himself. 2: ‘The Reformation View of Christ’ where he draws on Bavinck. ‘Systematic Theology’: Ch. (New York: Labels Army Co. rather. . not by universals. That the Christian faith describes God as ‘Father’. does not mean that these relationships come into being after the act of creation. creation in the mutual and complete relationships between the eternal Persons. 28 Tipton.29 This trinitarian approach is different from an intellectualist perspective where God is subject to an eternal order of reason and from the voluntarist alternative where God acts purely arbitrarily. But since God himself has told us that he is triune in his being. these created forms of expression are the means by which God authoritatively tells us how we are to speak of him. B. Westminster Theological Seminary. 3. and places humanity in a person-to-person relationship with God. as well as showing us God’s aseity. ‘son’. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. true that we know nothing about the immanent relations within the Persons of the trinity except through the revelation of this trinity through Christ in the Scriptures.
appropriately (social). trinitarian basic religious belief is 30 The being (ontology) of the Trinity consists in the relations of the Persons – the Persons are mutually dependent (pace Subordinationism) and eternally distinct (pace Monarchian Modalism). But this is to ignore the importance for Calvin of ‘union with Christ’ and the role of the Holy Spirit in the work of election [See Shults. The world is not an extension of God. In this. self-contained community of love. Of course we can only know God through creation. Trinitarian belief holds that it is that truth which is the key to the universe.From a trinitarian perspective. but God reveals finally and authoritatively how we are to speak of him. The love between the three Persons of the Trinity and their joint love for the world is revealed as the basis for one’s belief in the original goodness of the world. which is then expressed in the sovereign engagement of all three Persons jointly in the world. So we see God’s complete identification with the world . But the characterisation of the relations of the Trinity as loving involves all the modalities: the Persons proclaim divine status (pistical or faith modality). not out of necessity.31 The constitution of the world is not arbitrary or ad hoc. the notion of a discontinuity between the sovereignty of God and the order of the world is also rejected: the order of the world is determined sovereignty by the Persons acting together. since he does not depend on the world in any way. 32 In terms of Dooyeweerdian/Vollenhovian modal analysis. not by abstract fiat of an essentially unitary deity. Accordingly. but through his relationship with the Father is not reducible to it. Jesus is identifiable as entirely human.and yet his transcendence of it. but a divine. they give glory (aesthetic). This is not to say that the Triune Persons are bound by laws. it is consistent with the covenant settled eternally between the three Persons. The Son is fully incarnate yet he does the Father’s transcendent will. The Son is known in the world. God is not in the first instance Creator. but in Christ. whose fully human personality is at the same time the personality of God. Reforming the Doctrineand Gaffin. they deal justly (juridical). We know God directly and immediately. the triune being is not dependent on creation or redemption.32 In this way. But God is genuinely engaged in the world through the universal action of the Holy Spirit and the embodiment of the Son. although he reveals himself to us sovereignty and definitively in the language of the created order. effectively (economical). because we know Jesus. 31 Calvin’s own theology is often seen in these terms. and only so.or the world an extension of him. empowered by the unsurpassable liveliness of the Holy Spirit. ‘Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections’]. the Kuyper-Van Til doctrine of the Trinity explains how God can be engaged with the world and yet not an extension of the world . It has voluntarist elements and was indeed presented as such by the voluntarist scholasticism of many of his followers. In broad terms. and holds out to us the hope of redemption. yet is defined by his relationships with Father and Holy Spirit The key trinitarian insight is that only the inner-triune relations bind the Persons. with respect to one another. The order of the world is the expression of the free covenantal love of the Persons of the Trinity for one another. Through the Spirit he has a transforming life that breaks through any apparently insuperable constraints. and the world is created freely. not by anything external to God. only that in their self-revelation.30 There are no categories of being to which God needs to conform. God is not to subject to the order of the world. from a trinitarian perspective. truly (analytical). Thus. they set out a rich basis for the life of the world expressed in each of the modalities. even as creator. The Persons are fully self-contained in their relations with one another. but is revealed economically through creation and redemption. In terms of this understanding. etc. can the scholastic dilemma be resolved. the character of the world the character of God but is neither necessary to nor contingent to the being of God.. . love is ethically qualified. we have God’s definitive revelation of himself as triune. At the same time.
the doctrine of the Trinity sets out for us why God is.d. the dichotomy in Thomas’ thought between grace and nature (or between revelation and reason) does not allow him to work this out fully in terms of one’s overall understanding or the world. i. 179. Faith.22. Reason. the love of the Persons for one another.56 he only quotes the first half of Calvin’s dictum ‘Deus solus legibus solutus est’. W. ‘Historia Philosophiae (II Geschiedenis der wijsbegeerte na Christus. Dooyeweerd’s decription of God’s will for creation locates it in love at the heart of who God is. Although both derive from the Reformed tradition. Introduction to Philosophy: §13. almacht. Part A. W.C. Dooyeweerd sees the potestas absoluta as rooted in the Greek matter principle whereby the divinity is seen as a lawless fluidum operating through blind Anagke. each saw the implications of the trinitarian account for a philosophy deeply rooted in the self-revelation and actions of God as creator and redeemer. that which agrees with the whole fully salvific being of God. III’: 64-65. However. This trinitarian account provides a genuine alternative to scholasticism in both its intellectualist or voluntarist forms.W.13. also Dooyeweerd. since the mutual love of the Father. ‘C. ‘Second Letter to the Curators’ in Dooyeweerd Archives: 9]. as John Calvin puts it. God is ‘non exlex’. The Creativity of God: World. but in God’s holy Creatorly will. See Aquinas.C. unknowable deity on the other.W). and that. God can only be known by reason in the world at large as single subject. Calvin’s dictum decisively breaks with the antithesis between metaphysical realism and nominalism (the epistemological counterpart of the distinction that has already been made between intellectualism and voluntarism). Davies. He also quotes this to the Curators of the Free University during his interrogation [Dooyeweerd. justice.P.3 where he argues that the knowledge of the divine Persons is necessary for right thinking about God as creator of the world. Dooyeweerd. N. N. Reason: 31-36] 34 Calvin. not out of submission to any external or impersonal law or principle. Divergentierapport I. 34 As Dooyeweerd says. Calvin.1. die met het geheel volsalig wezen Gods. but it is clear that he means both elements.fully consistent with the concern of reformational philosophy to find a genuine alternative to scholasticism. since to say that God produced all things by the Word by the procession of love excludes the possibility that he produced things by necessity. Wijsheid. Vollenhoven. Chapter 6.: 1.W. beauty and holiness’ (‘Nòch in een vergoddelike ‘rede’. section 16. or an impersonal.e.186-187 (compare W. omnipotence. ‘Kuyper’s wetenschapsleer’: 216 but he does not develop the tinitarian insight implicit in it. gerechtigheid. since from his perspective. in de overbrekelijke eenheid en volheid van Zijn liefde. nor in a depostic nominalistic ‘potestas absoluta’ does the law find its Origin in the pluriform revelation in the temporal ordinances. not a metaphysical principle on the one hand.56-7 and Dooyeweerd. Deel I: De wijsbegeerte uit den tijd der patres)’: 22. Summa Theologica. This account of God as Trinity is central to the thought of Kuyper and Van Til. Dooyeweerd quotes Calvin’s dictum in Dooyeweerd. Het Calvinisme en de reformatie van de wijsbegeerte (33a): 25.: 1. See also Dooyeweerd.e neither is is autonomous [Turner. However. in the unbroken unity and fullness of His love. schooheid en heiligheid te zamen stemt’) [Dooyeweerd. ‘Kuyper’s wetenschapsleer’: 216].:1. Institutes of the Christian Religion: 3. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God: 10. Despite the somewhat hierarchicalising elements here.32. both intellectus and ration are graced. 35 Dooyeweerd mentions the divergence between the intellectualism of Thomas Aquinas and the notion of the potestas Dei absoluta of William of Occam which the latter ranked above the potestas Dei ordinata.-H. in haar pluriforme openbaring in the tijdelijke ordening.33 More specifically. en A-R. moreover. As Dooyeweerd puts it: ‘not in a divinized reason’. In Dooyeweerd.: 1. Son and Spirit gives the universe both stability and settled character. haar Oorsprong.23. ‘Brunner’: 370]. i. .93. since it is quoted in full in Dooyeweerd. Vollenhoven. It is also consonant with the broad themes of reformational philosophy:36 the irreducible plurality of the world and of society under the rule 33 This is not to say that there is not a reaching out to what is characterised as a genuinely trinitarian approach during the medieval period. Eerste stuk: Toeneemende synthese. 75-76. 36 As identified in Chapter 1. p. Dooyeweerd. ‘Calvinism and Natural Law’: 16-17. nòch in een despostische nomilatische ‘potestas absoluta’ vindt de wet.35 God is ‘legibus solutus’ because laws result from the mutual compact of the three Persons acting out of freedom and love. 15. See also Vollenhoven. maar in Gods heiligen Schepperswil. whereas in Thomas the rational form principle was absolutised [R&S 2.C. N. and the Existence of God: 80-88. Eucharist.d. Denys Turner argues that distinction between ‘intellectus’ and ‘ratio’ (inherited from Augustine) points towards an understanding of God as at once transcendent of the world and yet engaged with it. Dooyeweerd.: 1.93. both ‘legibus solutus’ and equally ‘non exlex’.d.1.
Such a conception is not in discussion here. the integrity of the individual subject before God. See ST: 46. Drawing on a notion of eternal creation from Thomas Aquinas [Clouser.]. n. or alternatively the operation of sheer chance.16. the point would still apply. which John Calvin quotes with approval in several places. p. Epistle 607. Series 2.1. Revelation. p. 42. which stresses the equal ultimacy of the Triune unity and diversity: ‘I cannot think of the One without immediately being surrounded by the radiance of the Three. Clouser’s position thus finally resolves itself into one which gives primacy the divine unity over the diversity of the Persons. 161.6. nor can I discern the Three without at once being carried back to the One. Commentary on the Gospel according to John: 1. God is understood in terms. since the Persons are already fully defined and have their being with respect to one another. God’s Triune nature and one’s relationship to him is the precondition for one’s apprehension and fundamental trust in creator and redeemer.17. p. 40.38 37 This excludes the conception of creation and redemption as impersonal processes. Clouser concludes from this that these relations of ‘Father’.13. From the covenantal trinitarian perspective developed by Kuyper and Van Til. Myth:201. rather than about the engagement of a personal creator and redeemer. From a trinitarian perspective.13. 220. When I think of the Three I think of him as a whole’ [Gregory Nazianzen. but addresses us at the core of one’s being. Vol 7. and. God’s relationship with the world is not a necessary one. Note that this is a hypothetical question posed by Thomas]. that these are statements of the ‘relationship’ – of the relation of God to humanity and of the relation of the divine hypostases to one another. Consistent belief in God as Trinity avoids the false dilemma which scholasticism poses of having to see God in either primarily intellectualist or voluntarist terms. 206..1. For example. 1. n. Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism: 212. 33. which sees God as subject to eternal universals. 361. One’s relation to God as Trinity cannot be defined in purely theoretical terms. self-contained relations of love between the Persons that we can satisfactorily speak about God’s relation to the world as creator or redeemer. Both intellectualist and voluntarist views see the relationships between God and the world in correlative terms. 235.. Redemption. 42]. ‘Son’ and ‘Spirit’ ‘generated by Divine being and therefore [eternally created]’ [Clouser. 364. n. subordinate to one’s understanding of God as creator. it is not a contingent one. first of all. Or. or vice versa. n. 712. Clouser appeals to the Gregory of Nyssa via the exposition of Jaroslav Pelikan [Pelikan. In that case. This can be contrasted with the statement of Gregory of Nazianzus. the voluntarist horn which sees God as an agency in purely contingent relationship with the world. NPNF. of the prior and self-contained relations of the Persons to one another. we would talk of impersonal determinism. John Calvin Institutes 1.of Christ. the intellectualist horn. 38 Myth. since it is not an arbitrary fact that the world is as it is. 5.41. it flows from the settled belief of the Persons for one another. 124.37 Some reformational thinkers have tended to focus on God’s action as creator and redeemer and have tended to play down the need to set this fully within the trinitarian context. Central to the reformational vision is the creation and redemption of the world. Calvin. 231 ff. Roy Clouser argues in his Myth of Religious Neutrality that the Trinity is properly a secondary belief. but even if it were. . It also allows us to see God’s relationship with the world in terms which avoid the two horns of the scholastic dilemma: on the one hand. rather than the ousia of God. On the other hand. Myth: 364. n. and Response: Calvin's Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship: 42-3. In I have described how Kuyper and Van Til provide a framework of trinitarian thinking and how a trinitarian basic religious belief provides the basis for an integrated understanding of the world without sacrificing unity to diversity. and the purposiveness of the world through the work of the Spirit. It is only on the basis of this prior recognition of God as the eternal. Creation and redemption cannot be thought of in isolation from one’s conception of the creator and redeemer. See Butin.
d.44 or else it compromises Jesus’ divinity (holding alternatively that in it is only the human Jesus who dies and is resurrected). In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheist Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World but also notes the ambiguity in the use of the term ‘panentheism’ 40 Shults.T. 41 Gunton.3. 44 This recalls Tertullian’s jibe against Praxeas that he ‘crucified the Father’ [‘Against Praxeas’. Clouser sees the universals willed eternally by God rather than ideas in God’s mind [see ST: 1. 361. Shults.39 The latter conception of creation lays itself open to the sort of critique which Feuerbach makes of belief in God: the created order is seen in essentially impersonal terms. a unitarian approach (that is. Myth: 201. since it involves the detachment of the logical subject-object relation from the temporal meaning-coherence of reality [Dooyeweerd.4]. as the sheer implementation of a divine fiat.C. Books For The Ages Albany. Myth. paradoxically. in re (instantiated in individual things) or post rem (existing in one’s mind).41 Similarly. or at least somehow in God’s intellect.41]. It also tends to see history as the playing out of what has already been decided from eternity. Unlike Thomas. the idea of God’s eternal act of creation undercuts the idea of God’s involvement in time and lays the foundations for deism. by default. ironically. Triune Creator: 134-145. 216. Roberts and J. Only on a trinitarian basis can a proper account be made of the incarnation and the full significance of Jesus’ redemptive act. 1997): 1082. However. ‘Realisme en nominalisme (38v)’: 74.317-318. it undercuts the sole eternity of God.: 2. ed. or God is entirely separate from the world. The NicenoConstantinopolitan Creed (325 and 381) affirms that it is the eternal Son of God (not the 39 Vollenhoven.0. . Shults refers to Clayton and Peacocke. 42 Shults. or what Clouser calls ‘created3’). W. Donaldson (The Ages Digital Library Collections. Clouser’s own italics]. The former conception. the source of its own meaning and the measure of all value. to resort to Thomas Aquinas [Clouser. the principium individuationis is located in the matter side of the form-matter schema). The incarnation is thus seen either as the extension of God’s being into the world. following the later Aristotle. since there are eternals alongside God. rather than as Trinity) will tend to see salvation either as participation in God’s being. 42 or God taking on properties of the created order and making them his own. any approach with starts off from the conception of God as a single subject. Reforming the Doctrine: 56. and the autonomous individual itself becomes. See Aquinas. Dooyeweerd himself is highly critical of the notion of universals being accorded a hypostasized existence be it ‘ante rem’ (from beforehand). [ST 15.However.. albeit embodied in individuals. Myth: 230-231.386-387]. N. Vol.40 Only if we conceive of creation in trinitarian terms can we adequately take into account both God’s transcendence of the world and his engagement with it. 16 & 17. who states that ‘God anthropomorphized himself’ [Clouser. (often called ‘panentheism’ to distinguish it from ‘pantheism’ – an outright identification of the world with God) tends to accord divine status to elements of the world and compromises God’s aseity. including as a timeless universal. On one hand.:2.15] However.43 But such a view either compromises either God’s transcendence (holding in some way that it is the Father who is crucified in an act of cosmic selfimmolation).W. A. nn. On the other. or as the interplay of pre-determined elements [Gunton. and God assumed to himself the whole person of Jesus becoming the divine side of Jesus just as Jesus is the human side of God [Clouser. Myth: 217]. 43 This is the position which is taken by Roy Clouser. Ch 1 in The Ante-Nicene Fathers. OR USA Version 2. Reforming the Doctrine: 132. ed. alternatively. Colin Gunton has pointed out the difficulties that there are with the Augustinian-Thomist notion of the timeless universals. Clouser. To sustain his position regarding God’s creation of timeless universals. albeit created by him. It cannot address the reality of the incarnation. one is forced to conceive of God either in continuity or discontinuity with the world: either the world is an extension of God’s being. Triune Creator: 79-102]. Thomas’s position is a realist one but in re since for him the universal forms only become operative once they are individuated by matter (for Thomas. Reforming the Doctrine.: 1.46. or. if one’s conception of the creator is a unitarian one. But Clouser is not consistent. 3. or the divine self-sacrifice at the heart of the Christian gospel. Clouser needs. Dooyeweerd. and states variously that God created Jesus (using all his three senses of the ‘created’. S. Thomas’s ‘moderate realism’ still involves eternal universals as Ideas. the ‘second person of the Trinity’ became incarnated in the human Jesus.
97-132.13. this affirms that God’s self-revelation is explicitly or implicitly the basis for one’s understanding of the world. Institutes: 1. while making possible his assumption of full humanity. that of ‘potential infinity’ is derived from a conception of numerical succession. death. 243. Son and Holy Spirit does not mean that these relationships come into being after the act of creation. God does not speak to us in anything other than a creation-bound way. Rather. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being. Torrance. Torrance. Shults describes how scholasticism attempts to present a notion of infinity exclusive of the created order. 51 As R.51 45 Schaff. 47 Calvin.: ms. Reforming the Doctrine: 107]. it needs to be understood in terms of the created order. but in the sense of presenting us with a limiting idea. it presents us with the way we are to speak of him to the exclusion of all other identifications of deity.W.Father or the Spirit) who is incarnate. we are always ‘thinking God’s thoughts after him’[Van Til. the conclusions drawn from that affirmation are very different. amongst others. insofar as we can know anything of him at all. 5] 49 Van Til.50 It is meaningless for us to speak of a divine reality ‘beyond’ God’s Triune self-revelation: the Trinity is God-in-himself not in the sense of giving us secret knowledge of God ‘beyond’ the language of creation. Jenson trenchantly puts it: ‘Is God the void? Or the principle of concretion? Or the distinct Creator in whose occasional action the ancestors’ wisdom was founded? Or the Father of Jesus? Or who? Or what?’ Jenson. However infinity is understood. Different forms of infinity could similarly be articulated appropriate to each of the other modalities. D. LeRon Shults points out. the biblical picture of God speaks rather of God who ‘fills the earth itself’. With the Grain of the Universe: The Church's Witness and Natural Theology:141-171. while ‘actual infinity’. 252255]. P. ‘Hoofdlijnen der logica (48f)’: 82-83. the doctrine of the Trinity presents us with an ‘as if’ in one’s discussion of God: it is not an attempt to speak of God as a metaphysical object beyond one’s senses. ‘A Survey of Christian Epistemology (1969 F)’: Ch. As a limiting idea. Reforming the Doctrine: 22-40. Strauss. he cites Calvin. The Creeds of Christendom With a History and Critical Notes: 2:57-65. ‘Christianity and Barthianism (1962 H)’10. However. and his incarnation. see Hauerwas. resurrection and ascension47 In revealing himself to us. Dooyeweerd clearly indicates that it is to the Triune God of scripture.For Van Til. Christian Doctrine: 1-72. that we are called to place one’s ultimate religious belief. as Christians.48 As Van Til points out. not as something distinct from it. While this is reminiscent of the position of Karl Barth. However. for a re-reading of Barth in this respect. Instead of setting the revelation of God against God’s selfrevelation in the world.46 By his mention of Son and Spirit. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek. Rather. that we know God as Father.49 The fact that he is revealed in created terms does not compromise God’s transcendence.F.D.12.D. 2: ‘The Reformation View of Christ’ where he draws on Bavinck. Strauss points out that in terms of (Dooyeweerdian/Vollenhovian) modal analysis. ‘The Christian Doctrine of God’: 31. we are to speak of God. divine infinity should not be contrasted ‘extensively’ as marking out a boundary between God and creation but should properly be understood ‘intensively’ as comprehending creation within the all-surpassing liveliness of God’s action. as holding to such an ‘intensive’ understanding of God’s infinity [Shults.45 The eternal distinction of the Son from the Father and the Spirit combined with his full and equal status as God with the Father and the Spirit is critical here. The incarnate Son’s unbroken relationship with the Father and the Spirit assures us of his continuing transcendence. 48 Vollenhoven. such as that articulated by Nicholas of Cusa (1401-1464). is derived from a conception of spatial simultaneity [Strauss. When we speak of God as Trinity we are responding to God’s self-revelation supremely and definitively in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. whose infinity is not set against creation but revealed in it. ‘Is it possible to do Theology without Philosophical Presuppositions?’. 50 Shults. but he uses that language sovereignty and definitively to tell us how we are to speak of him. these created forms of expression are the means by which God authoritatively reveals his own nature and constitution to us.M. In particular. As F.. 46 . Three Persons: 108-109. if. not to an unknown deity.
and his engagement with it. formative action. This applies to the doctrine of the Trinity (which involves the use of terms such as unity/threeness. or indeed than any other characterisation of God. Son and Spirit leaves us with an inadequate account of creation and redemption. but it applies equally to the doctrine of creation (with the use of terms describing succession. safeguarding both his transcendence of the world. . communion. simultaneity. mutuality etc). It does. Talk about God as Trinity is no more or less creation-bound than talk about any other doctrine of God. beauty etc) and redemption (with terms indicating liberation.To begin with God’s role as creator and redeemer before taking into account his revealed identity as Father. we can only speak of God in created terms. however. be it in positive or negative terms. This is not to gloss over the fact that as creatures. forensic acquittal. provide us with a rich and fruitful way of understanding God’s relationship with the world. begetting. loving sacrifice etc).
B. Ltd. Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (London: James Clarke and Co. Karl. Presbyterian & Reformed. Redemption. 1997): 3-70. Oliver. ——. Philip Walker Revelation. tr. ‘De wetsbeschouwing in Brunner’s boek Das Gebot und die Ordnungen’. ‘Roomsch-katholiek en Anti-revolutionaire Staatkunde’ in Advizen en Studies (The Hague: Kuyperstigting. 1800-heden. Virginia: AGES Software 1998). Edinburgh: T & T Clark. Bromiley and T. 1995). Master Christian Library Version 6. .. 1911 edn. 2004). 1935). ——.F. 1937). Abraham Kuyper: a centennial reader (Grand Rapids. ——. 2004).. Oliver. The John Calvin Collection (Ages Software. Summa Theologica (English Dominican. and Response: Calvin's Trinitarian Understanding of the Divine-Human Relationship (New York: Oxford University Press. The History of Redemption (1774 edn. Brill. 1970). Transformation Theology: Church in the World (London / New York: T & T Clark. Social. Reason (Cambridge Studies in Christian Doctrine.0.Bibliography Aertsen. P. James D.). Clouser. ‘Calvinism and Natural Law’ in Essays in Legal. Edwards. Davies. Jan A. A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (4 vols. Clayton. Bratt. ——. n.W. 1996). The Myth of Religious Neutrality: An Essay on the Hidden Role of Religious Beliefs in Theories (2nd edn. Ford Lewis Battles. Torrance. 1923). from De Aeterna Praedestinatione). Herman. 4 (1939): 193-232. R. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 1923). Paris. tr. Institutes of the Christian Religion (2 vols. ——. 2007). A History of Islamic Philosophy (New York/London: Columbia University Press. et al. 2005). Eerdmans/ Paternoster Press. Roy A. ——. A.R. Barth. 1997). ed. Grand Rapids. vol.. Edwin Mellen Press. Michigan/Carlisle: W. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek (Kampen: 1918). 1998). Dooyeweerd. ed.. Commentary on the Gospel according to John. 9 (1935): 334-374. Bavinck. Jonathan. and Arthur Peacocke.. Philip. Church Dogmatics (Second edn. 1969. ‘Kuyper’s wetenschapsleer’. Fakry.. John... ——. G. ‘Second Letter to the Curators’ in Dooyeweerd Archives (Amsterdam: Free University of Amsterdam. 1960). Davies. ——. Michigan: Associated Publishers and Authors. ——. Albany. Majid. In Whom We Live and Move and Have Our Being: Panentheist Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. The Creativity of God: World. 1961. Thomas. Medieval Philosophy and the Transcendentals (Leiden: E.J. ‘De staatkundige tegenstelling tusschen Christelijk-Historische en Antirevolutionaire partij.J. Butin. Aquinas. III ’ in Dooyeweerd Archive (Amsterdam: Historische Doumentatiecentrum voor het Nederlandse Protestantism. Calvin. 1998). and Political Philosophy (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen.d. Library of Christian Classics. Eucharist. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press. De Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee (Amsterdam: H. 1975 -).S. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richard B. ‘The Theological Critique of Philosophy’ in Radical Orthodoxy (London: Routledge. Donner. Grand Rapids. Michigan: Baker Books. The Eternal Covenant: How the Trinity Reshapes Covenant Theology (Moscow. . 1993). Leiden: D. ed. Eerdmans Publ. Montagnes. 2004). 1925). Geanies House. Michigan: Wm B. 2007). Jenson. Bernard. Hauerwas. 1999): 21-37. Gunton.Frame. Peter A. Geoffrey Wainwright (London: S. G. Scottish Journal of Theology 61. 1902. Stanley. The Triune Creator: A Historical and Systematic Survey (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. William. ‘Directed. Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications.. Idaho: Canon Press 2003). The Doctrine of the Analogy of Being According to Thomas Aquinas (revised edn. ed. Kok. Pub. Milbank.: 2005). and Todd Bates.. Andrews in 2001.T. E voto Dordraceno: toelichting op den Heidelbergschen catechismus (4 vols. ‘The Christian Doctrine of God’ in Keeping the Faith: Essays to Mark the Centenary of Lux Mundi. Grand Rapids. Smith. ordered and related: the male and female interpersonal relation in Karl Barth's Church Dogmatics’. De Gemeene Gratie (3 vols. 2003): 193-237. Pelikan. To be near unto God (tr. Lillback.. 2004). Klempa. 2006): 271-189. Reforming the Doctrine of God (Grand Rapids.K. Eerdmans Publishing Company... Ross. 1995). Lisa P.: P. The Creeds of Christendom With a History and Critical Notes (3 vols.. 1904). Michigan: Baker Books.T. Jaroslav. Donald K. 1950. ——. 1989): 25-53. U. James K.&R. James F. Shults. 2001).. Michigan: William B..H. Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition (Mentor. Smith. ed. Introducing Radical Orthodoxy: Mapping a Post-secular Theology (Grand Rapids.. Robert W. John. John M. ——. ‘Union with Christ: Some Biblical and Theological Reflections’ in Always Reforming: Explorations in Systematic Theology. ed. With the Grain of the Universe: The Church's Witness and Natural Theology (The Gifford Lectures delivered at the University of St. LeRon. Gaffin. Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources (tr. A. Marquette University Press. Heinrich.B. 2001). Schaff. McGowan (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press. Michigan: Baker Academic. from Reformierte Dogmatik). 1978. Kampen: J. 4 (2008): 435-449. 1984. Cornelius Van Til: an analysis of his thought (Phillipsburg. John Hendrik de De Vries. 1903. Michigan/ Cambridge. Heppe. Ralph Allan. F. Grand Rapids. Grand Rapids.PC.. Co. A. 1998). Philip. ‘The Concept of the Covenant in Sixteenth and Seventeenth-Century Continental and British Reformed Theology’ in Major Themes in the Reformed Tradition. Peter. Michigan: Brazos Press.J. Marquette Studies in Philosophy. Stephenson. 1992). N. 2004).. Colin.. 1904). The Binding of God: Calvin's Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Paternoster/Baker Academic. Thomas Williams (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomson. McKim (Grand Rapids. Kuyper.K. Golding. ‘Duns Scotus on Natural Theology’ in The Cambridge Companion to Duns Scotus. Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Philadelphia. Het Calvinisme en de reformatie van de wijsbegeerte (33a) (Amsterdam: Paris. Faith. ‘Historia Philosophiae (II . 3 (1938): 65-83.. Denys. ‘An Introduction to Systematic Theology (1949D)’. ‘The triune personal God: trinitarian theology in the thought of Cornelius Van Til’ (Ph D. ‘Hoofdlijnen der logica (48f)’. ‘Short Survey of the History of Philosophy (56b)’ in D.F. 1992): 55-64.A. Lane G. 2005): 21-88. Philosophy as the Discipline of Disciplines (forthcoming). 1997). . Bril (Amsterdam:: Buijten & Schpperheijn. Three Persons (Edinburgh & New York: T & T Clark. The Works of Cornelius Van Til. vol. Westminster Theological Seminary. ——. 1997). Vollenhoven. ed. The Problem-Historical Method and the History of Philosophy. 1988): 133-172. P. ——. A.Geschiedenis der wijsbegeerte na Christus. ——. 2001).A. 13 (1948): 59-118. ‘Realisme en nominalisme (38v)’. Warfield. Tol and K. ‘Is it possible to do Theology without Philosophical Presuppositions?’ Acta Theologica 22 (2002): 146-164. ——. 150-165. Torrance. and the Existence of God (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ——. Eerste stuk: Toeneemende synthese. Sigward (Labels Army Company. ——. ——. Van Til. Iowa: Dordt College Press. vol..J: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company.R. ed. 1895-1987. N. 1974).M. Tipton. 1933). Eric H. ed. Introduction to Philosophy (Sioux Centre. Scotland/Carlisle. Turner. Eric H. ‘Norm en natuurwet (51h)’ in Vollenhoven als wijsgeer: Inleidingen en teksten. Thomas F.Th. 1895-1987. Sigward (Labels Army Company. Common grace and the gospel (Nutley. 1997). D. ed. Sigward (Labels Army Company.. Vollenhoven. vol. 2004). ‘Christianity and Barthianism (1962 H)’. Reason. ed. The Works of Cornelius Van Til. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being. The Works of Cornelius Van Til. K. ——. Pennsylvania: Banner of Truth Trust.Strauss. ‘The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity’ in Biblical Doctrines (Edinburgh. P. ——. Bril (Amstelveen: De Zaak Haes. Eric H. 2004). 1895-1987.. Deel I: De wijsbegeerte uit den tijd der patres)’ (1941).R. ‘A Survey of Christian Epistemology (1969 F)’. from The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. H. 2005). ——. Benjamin B.