Second, at the end of his first point, Frame pointed out that Van Til does not deny the traditional view, he is only intending to add that when we speak of God as one in essence and three in person, we must not think of God's essence as an impersonal substratum of divinity. Van Til, then, is not replacing or denying the traditional view. This is just another way of saying that each person is fully God, possessing all the attributes of divinity. Frame explains God is not an abstraction. Nor is he a mere society of three gods, united by common abstract properties.
Abstractions are impersonal.
God is a concrete, personal reality. Our world is ruled by a person, not an abstract principle. This is a mystery for which there is no answer that can wholly satisfy our minds. What can be pointed out is that since Van Til is not rejecting, but merely qualifying the traditional formula, the oneness of God and the threeness of God are not to be thought of as identical, which would entail a simple contradiction. God is not, therefore, one person in precisely the same sense that He is three persons.