Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen  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! |
Brother, thanks. I will check your link. This statement by VanTil is heresy, no matter how you slice it. Many people are quick to defend him, but if he is heretical on the trinity that affects everything. I still am a Clarkian because I find him to be much easier to follow then VanTil. I am always amazed at how people pride themselves in being followers of VanTil when they cannot even articulate his position. |
I think a useful distinction to make when using terminology is that one may be a Presuppositionalist and embrace Van Tillian epistemology - as I do - and so, in that sense, be Van Tillian; but not endorse everything the man said. As a postmillennialist, I am definitely not "Van Tillian" on eschatology.
I must confess that I find the almost cult-like following of both Dr. Van Til and Gordon Clark to be somewhat disturbing. Both men had their good and bad points. Indeed, I once heard Brian Schwertley say that Gordon Clark's book on the Virgin Birth (I think it was that one) - which was published posthumously - actually taught Nestorianism.