The following is an article written by James Anderson defending Cornelius Van Til's assertion that God is both one Person and three Persons from the charge of modalism. (The author on the article is not identified but I got the link from Anderson's response to Gary Crampton here: Response to Gary Crampton). You can judge for yourself whether or not Anderson is successful in that endeavor. The introduction reads:
To read the response click here: Triablogue: Van Til's Serious Trinitarian Theology
Addendum: I posted the following comment over at Triablogue regarding Clark's theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Since Triablogue is moderated I do not know if my comment will be posted or not. Here's my comment:
The argument that Clark's view is social trinitarianism may be somewhat accurate. However, when Clark's view is attacked as "eschewing of nominalism" this criticism misses the point. What point is that? Anyone reading Clark's Christian Philosophy, (Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004), can see that Clark rejects ALL secular philosophies as absolute failures and that therefore the ONLY approach that is legitimate is divine revelation. In other words, reason is only relevant as interpreted via the presupposed divine revelation of Holy Scripture. Since Holy Scripture reveals God not as "one Person" but as a Tri-Personal being, it follows that Clark's view is not open to Tritheism. Scripture is not open to that charge and thus only by exalting reason above revelation could Clark's view be charged with tritheism. The same argument could be made for Clark's view of the incarnation, by the way. Simply because Christ has two wills and that the incarnation entails two persons perfectly united in the incarnation does not make Clark's view Nestorian nor does it make Clark irrational. Scripture is the final authority, not rationalism.
Van Til's appeal to analogy is simply a modified form of Barthianism where the Word of God is rendered ineffable and inaccessible except by direct existential encounter. Such a view is essentially man centered and from below. Clark's demolition of Kierkegaard and Kant essentially deconstructs both Barthianism and, by implication, Van Til's distinction between univocal and analogical interpretation of Scripture. Either Scripture is God's Word OR is it not.
Charlie J. Ray
Now, I entirely agreed with Steve that the heresy of modalism is quite at odds with Van Til’s trademark emphasis on the equal ultimacy of the One and the Many in the ontological Trinity. But I also suggested that Van Til’s remarks about the uni-personality of God, rather than contradicting this point, were in fact motivated by it.
To read the response click here: Triablogue: Van Til's Serious Trinitarian Theology
Addendum: I posted the following comment over at Triablogue regarding Clark's theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation. Since Triablogue is moderated I do not know if my comment will be posted or not. Here's my comment:
The argument that Clark's view is social trinitarianism may be somewhat accurate. However, when Clark's view is attacked as "eschewing of nominalism" this criticism misses the point. What point is that? Anyone reading Clark's Christian Philosophy, (Unicoi: Trinity Foundation, 2004), can see that Clark rejects ALL secular philosophies as absolute failures and that therefore the ONLY approach that is legitimate is divine revelation. In other words, reason is only relevant as interpreted via the presupposed divine revelation of Holy Scripture. Since Holy Scripture reveals God not as "one Person" but as a Tri-Personal being, it follows that Clark's view is not open to Tritheism. Scripture is not open to that charge and thus only by exalting reason above revelation could Clark's view be charged with tritheism. The same argument could be made for Clark's view of the incarnation, by the way. Simply because Christ has two wills and that the incarnation entails two persons perfectly united in the incarnation does not make Clark's view Nestorian nor does it make Clark irrational. Scripture is the final authority, not rationalism.
Van Til's appeal to analogy is simply a modified form of Barthianism where the Word of God is rendered ineffable and inaccessible except by direct existential encounter. Such a view is essentially man centered and from below. Clark's demolition of Kierkegaard and Kant essentially deconstructs both Barthianism and, by implication, Van Til's distinction between univocal and analogical interpretation of Scripture. Either Scripture is God's Word OR is it not.
Charlie J. Ray
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment