Quote:
Originally Posted by Davidius  Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig I'm pretty sure that's from Robbins...and I'm pretty sure it's fallacious.
If Van Til really said the Trinity was one Divine Person as opposed to one Divine Essence, it would undermine his Trinitarian solution to the one and the many. | Why? Because it's from Robbins it's automatically fallacious? He may be a hothead, but I think Van Til's cult status is amazing, and that his followers are as adamant about defending his views, no matter what, as the Clarkians seem to be. Nevertheless, here's a defense of Van Til's position at the Triablogue. Note that Van Til clearly talks about the Trinity as one divine person with three subsistences. The Clarkians call it heresy and the Van Tillians find a way to explain it. Who's right? You decide! |
I agree Davidius. Having a problem with this lecture because it was given by Robbins doesn't make the arguments of the lecture wrong. It is "argumentum ad hominem" (argument to the man) if I'm not mistaken. The fact is that Van Til did say that the Trinity was one Person and yet three Persons at the same time. (In defiance of the law of non-contradition) Also, Van Til did believe that God created logic and was therefore not subject to it. Clark believed that logic, instead of being a creation of God, was actually an attribute of God. What is logic but truth?
Numbers 23:19 (Young's Literal Translation)
19God [is] not a man -- and lieth, And a son of man -- and repenteth! Hath He said -- and doth He not do [it]? And spoken -- and doth He not confirm it?
It truly is amazing that a man like Van Til (as well as many others) can reach what my brother Davidius called "cult status" and we dare not question him no matter how fallacious his arguments are.