Van til and the Trinity

[faithandfreedom]

An impersonal essence? So God is one part three persons and one part impersonal essence? I don't think that's what you mean but that's where Van Til was concerned.

No that’s not what I mean. I mean that God’s essence expresses the fact that it is not impersonal by the very fact that each of the three persons are fully God and relate to each other through the mutual indwelling. This was already affirmed by the Church catholic prior to VT producing his novel formula.

How does that do service to the biblical language? Also going back again to what I think is the underlying issue, how does one person (in one biblical sense) and three persons ( in a different biblical sense) contradict the creeds?

The one person, three person formula is problematic because it involves either:
A) Heresy - if the term person is taken in its historically defined sense.
B) Confusion - if we use the word person in two different senses.

Van Til clearly affirmed an Orthodox view in light of the qualifications that he made around his use of the “one person, three person” formula, but his teaching of the “one person, three persons” formula has undoubtedly led to some of his students being confused on what is one of the most important doctrines of the Church. I would guess with a high degree of certainty that VTs teaching has led to some of those that he taught unwittingly developing a heretical view of the Trinity.

Your apparent insistence that we must only speak about God's oneness in relation to his essence because that's all the creeds allow.

To speak of God’s essence in the plural is to affirm Tritheism.


I will probably never convince you of my position but thank you for going back and forth with me on this. You have really helped me to develop my thinking. I appreciate that.

Be assured that I have the utmost respect for you and nothing that I have said was meant to be aimed at you but only at the teaching of VT that we have been discussing.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Yes. Exactly.

I will one day meet R.C. in heaven and thank him that it was his book, Faith Alone, that converted me. It doesn't mean that I don't see some of the things he was imprecise about, but I have that luxury in light of the good work he did. I still listen to Renewing Your Mind every day and get much benefit from it, and find him (and others) profoundly insightful in many ways.

I think you are 100% correct that we can still learn things from those with whom we disagree. For example, one can learn things from studying someone like Barth, even though we might strongly disagree him on a number of points.

It's easy to pick apart someone because we became laser focused on an important historical definition and lose sight that they may nto have had the time, resources, or focus to revisit certain things.

Van Til was a professor in one of the most influential seminaries in the Reformed world. His teaching has influenced hundreds, if not thousands of ministers and theological students. With such a high calling comes a great deal of responsibility. The more I have been challenged on this tread, the more convinced I have become of the importance of his Trinitarian formula. I understand your sentiment and your desire to be charitable. However, as I have previously mentioned, VT was aware of the issues surrounding his formula but he did not amend the formula or retract it. To suggest that he may not have had time, resources or focus to do this seems a bit of a stretch, since his job was to teach theology.

I don't think it can be stressed too much, that we need to weigh theologians teaching in light of the entire two thousand years of Church history. Invariably, when we lose our tether to historic teaching, we tend towards biblicism and this invariably leads to erroneous doctrine being developed. When incorrect teaching on the Trinity takes place in a seminary context, it influences entire denominations. The downfall of many a denomination has begun in the seminaries and universities. For these reasons VT's teaching on the Trinity needs to be rejected in Reformed circles.
[Edit following helpful post below: I simply mean the formula “one person, three persons” should be completely rejected.“]

I think Oliver Crisp's comments on the importance of historical theology are applicable here. It is my firm conviction that we would benefit greatly if we reflected more on the teachings of the fathers, this is where we lose out compared to some other Church traditions.

1. Scripture is the norma normans, the principium theologiae. It is the final arbiter of matters theological for Christians as the particular place in which God reveals himself to his people. This is the first-order authority in all matters of Christian doctrine.
2. Catholic creeds, as defined by and ecumenical council of the Church, constitute a first tier of norma normata, which have second-order authority in matters touching Christian doctrine. Such norms derive their authority from Scripture to which they bear witness.
3. Confessional and conciliar statements of particular ecclesial bodies are a second tier of norma normata, which have third-order authority in matters touching Christian doctrine. They also derive their authority from Scripture to the extent that they faithfully reflect the teaching of Scripture.
4. The particular doctrines espoused by theologians including those individuals accorded the title Doctor of the Church which are not reiterations of matters that are de fide, or entailed by something de fide, constitute theologoumena, or theological opinions, which are not binding upon the Church, but which may be offered up for legitimate discussion within the Church. [Oliver Crisp, god incarnate, (New York: T&T Clark International, 2009), 17.]

 

[Sam Jer]

I think you are 100% correct that we can still learn things from those with whom we disagree. For example, one can learn things from studying someone like Barth, even though we might strongly disagree him on a number of points.


Van Til was a professor in one of the most influential seminaries in the Reformed world. His teaching has influenced hundreds, if not thousands of ministers and theological students. With such a high calling comes a great deal of responsibility. The more I have been challenged on this tread, the more convinced I have become of the importance of his Trinitarian formula. I understand your sentiment and your desire to be charitable. However, as I have previously mentioned, VT was aware of the issues surrounding his formula but he did not amend the formula or retract it. To suggest that he may not have had time, resources or focus to do this seems a bit of a stretch, since his job was to teach theology.

I don't think it can be stressed too much, that we need to weigh theologians teaching in light of the entire two thousand years of Church history. Invariably, when we lose our tether to historic teaching, we tend towards biblicism and this invariably leads to erroneous doctrine being developed. When incorrect teaching on the Trinity takes place in a seminary context, it influences entire denominations. The downfall of many a denomination has begun in the seminaries and universities. For these reasons VT's teaching on the Trinity needs to be rejected in Reformed circles.

I think Oliver Crisp's comments on the importance of historical theology are applicable here. It is my firm conviction that we would benefit greatly if we reflected more on the teachings of the fathers, this is where we lose out compared to some other Church traditions.

I am not very familiar with Van Til and don't have much skin in the game, but could you clarify what you mean by reject?
Not used? I think if any significant number of people followed his formula we'd hear about it on the thread by now. Or do you mean rejected as a heretic and his books placed in the same pile as Arminius, Erasmus, Origen and Nestorius? Because these two meanings of rejected are very diffrent...

 

[faithandfreedom]

I am not very familiar with Van Til and don't have much skin in the game, but could you clarify what you mean by reject?
Not used? I think if any significant number of people followed his formula we'd hear about it on the thread by now. Or do you mean rejected as a heretic and his books placed in the same pile as Arminius, Erasmus, Origen and Nestorius? Because these two meanings of rejected are very diffrent...

Thanks for calling me to account on this, rereading my post, I can see that it is ambiguous.

I simply mean the formula “one person, three persons” should be completely rejected.

Thanks again for seeking clarification as it will be helpful to anyone else who reads my post. I’ll edit it now.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't know what an impersonal essence is or a personal essence. I know a person is a relation of origin. Person is a relational term (Paternity, Filiation, Spiration). That should determine the discussion, not speculations about whether the essence is personal or impersonal or absolute personality.

Some of the Greek Fathers would define the person as essence with its hypostatic (personal) characteristic (relation).
[automerge]1760469230[/automerge]

I think if any significant number of people followed his formula we'd hear about it on the thread by now.

He's largely followed in the OPC, which is a small denomination. Evangelicals who call themselves presup mainly use his negative critique against secular worldviews. Few if any read him on his theology.

 

[jwright82]

Cornelius Van Til and the Identity of the OPC

Machen and Van Til On December 4, 1936, about six months after the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, J. Oliver Buswell wrote to J. ...

opc.org

This might be a good article on the historical situation around Van Til. I'll respond to the response I got a little later. Please be patient.

 

[Sam Jer]

He's largely followed in the OPC, which is a small denomination. Evangelicals who call themselves presup mainly use his negative critique against secular worldviews. Few if any read him on his theology.

His specific formula on the divine essence being a person is followed by the OPC? Or are we talking past eachother?

 

[faithandfreedom]

I don't know what an impersonal essence is or a personal essence. I know a person is a relation of origin. Person is a relational term (Paternity, Filiation, Spiration). That should determine the discussion, not speculations about whether the essence is personal or impersonal or absolute personality.

Some of the Greek Fathers would define the person as essence with its hypostatic (personal) characteristic (relation).

Thank you. These comments are very helpful and I think you are correct.
[automerge]1760470243[/automerge]

Cornelius Van Til and the Identity of the OPC

Machen and Van Til On December 4, 1936, about six months after the formation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, J. Oliver Buswell wrote to J. ...

opc.org

This might be a good article on the historical situation around Van Til. I'll respond to the response I got a little later. Please be patient.

Thanks. I would like to do more research on Van Til to get my head around his wider teaching.
[automerge]1760470471[/automerge]

He's largely followed in the OPC, which is a small denomination. Evangelicals who call themselves presup mainly use his negative critique against secular worldviews. Few if any read him on his theology.

Interestingly, I mentioned VT to a colleague of mine who is an RC. He instantly knew who I was talking about and was familiar with his apologetic approach.

Also, a couple in my Church who have come from a broadly Evangelical background have also begun to read VT recently, although I am not sure what exactly they have read.

 

[RamistThomist]

His specific formula on the divine essence being a person is followed by the OPC? Or are we talking past eachother?

I can't speak to specific presbyteries in the OPC. I haven't been in the OPC since 2012. That's why I always challenge hard-line Van Tillians if they would be okay with a candidate saying God was One Person and Three Person during an ordination exam. But I repeat my earlier comment: his fallacy saved his orthodoxy.

 

[jwright82]

No that’s not what I mean. I mean that God’s essence expresses the fact that it is not impersonal by the very fact that each of the three persons are fully God and relate to each other through the mutual indwelling. This was already affirmed by the Church catholic prior to VT producing his novel formula.

Thank you for responding. I believe his intentions were to combat philosophical systems that did this not Orthodoxy. He's not saying this is a problem with Orthodoxy that we need to change but certain thinkers that dove off that direction. But you also seem to be affirming "absolute personality" here quite nicely.

The one person, three person formula is problematic because it involves either:
A) Heresy - if the term person is taken in its historically defined sense.
B) Confusion - if we use the word person in two different senses.

I don't think anyone has argued that it's not confusing, only that it's not heresy. That doesn't excuse it but Tipton did write a book defending it (and gave "over ten hours of lectures on"). I don't have the book so I can't say but if it's the bases for the lectures than he's on to something.

Van Til clearly affirmed an Orthodox view in light of the qualifications that he made around his use of the “one person, three person” formula, but his teaching of the “one person, three persons” formula has undoubtedly led to some of his students being confused on what is one of the most important doctrines of the Church. I would guess with a high degree of certainty that VTs teaching has led to some of those that he taught unwittingly developing a heretical view of the Trinity.

Who do you have in mind? Who's teaching heresy because of Van Til? Do you think that, perhaps, you see a bigger problem than actually exists? Since I don't know who these people are, I can't comment on that.

To speak of God’s essence in the plural is to affirm Tritheism.

Again I don't know who you're talking about? Who talks about God's essence in the plural?

I will probably never convince you of my position but thank you for going back and forth with me on this. You have really helped me to develop my thinking. I appreciate that.

Be assured that I have the utmost respect for you and nothing that I have said was meant to be aimed at you but only at the teaching of VT that we have been discussing.

As do I my friend. I've enjoyed it. One other question, what do you hope coming out of this? The sort of "brass tacks" of it? That we reject him for heresy of the greatest kind? Or settle with we should abandon this and move on, using the rest of him?
I just don't know what exactly your point is?
[automerge]1760473243[/automerge]

I don't know what an impersonal essence is or a personal essence. I know a person is a relation of origin. Person is a relational term (Paternity, Filiation, Spiration). That should determine the discussion, not speculations about whether the essence is personal or impersonal or absolute personality.

Some of the Greek Fathers would define the person as essence with its hypostatic (personal) characteristic (relation).
[automerge]1760469230[/automerge]

I think that he's reacting to philosophical or clearly polluted thinkers for some philosophical reason.

He's largely followed in the OPC, which is a small denomination. Evangelicals who call themselves presup mainly use his negative critique against secular worldviews. Few if any read him on his theology.

Outside of his denomination and school I think you could be correct.

 

[MW]

The one person, three person formula is problematic because it involves either:
A) Heresy - if the term person is taken in its historically defined sense.
B) Confusion - if we use the word person in two different senses.

I think we have established it is not heresy in this case. We are looking at it on the level of confusion.

 

[jwright82]

His specific formula on the divine essence being a person is followed by the OPC? Or are we talking past eachother?

Um, I don't think so. I'm sure it's not a point of Orthodoxy though. Like taking Van Til's side in the Clark/Van Til controversy, I know for a fact that's not the case. But the denomination being broadly Vantillian in outlook is probably more of an unspecified truth because of his history with it.
WTS is very forward and clear about their promotion of his views but thankfully they have never to my knowledge made it a requirement of graduation. I mean I'm sure all the tests in apologetics are from that perspective, so you have to know it to pass the test.
They seem to seek to develop it as well, it's not a "static view" by any means. William Edgar was until his retirement the head of the department and he was critical in some respects. Oliphant seems to be a true believer of the highest order but he also just retired.
So I guess we'll see where the "new kids on the block" (yes I'm old enough to remember that band, my stepsister loved them and I think I saw a cartoon they made) take things.
[automerge]1760474261[/automerge]

I think we have established it is not heresy in this case. We are looking at it on the level of confusion.

Completely agree.
[automerge]1760474623[/automerge]

Westminster Media - Beneath the Surface of Theological Controversy

Newly uncovered details about an old theological controversy with Cornelius Van Til remind us to check our motives for theological criticism.

wm.wts.edu

Another great historical essay on Van Til.

 

[faithandfreedom]

I think we have established it is not heresy in this case. We are looking at it on the level of confusion.

I agree with you that we’ve established that VT managed to avoid heresy but that is very different from saying that the phrase “one person, three persons” is not heresy.

Taken at face value it is certainly a heretical phrase and as has been said previously, it requires lengthy explanations/qualifications by eminent theologians such as Dr Tipton to explain away the problems.

This encapsulates the main concern that has motivated my lengthy posts. I believe we need to recognise the danger that this phrase poses. VT is guilty of formulating a confusing phrase but there is no doubt that there will be amateur theologians out there who have read his work and been influenced to adopt a heretical view of God.

 

[faithandfreedom]

But you also seem to be affirming "absolute personality" here quite nicely.

That’s a cheap shot…well played

Who do you have in mind? Who's teaching heresy because of Van Til? Do you think that, perhaps, you see a bigger problem than actually exists? Since I don't know who these people are, I can't comment on that.

I think it is widely recognised that some of Van Til’s most prominent followers have gone astray on the doctrine of God. I am not saying that Van Til is directly responsible for this, but it may be that they followed his lead in terms of modifying Orthodox language.

As do I my friend. I've enjoyed it. One other question, what do you hope coming out of this? The sort of "brass tacks" of it?

I doubt anything significant will come from it. The ramblings of some insignificant Puritan Board newbie who hails from across the pond are unlikely to carry much weight. The best I can hope for is that next time I visit the Sunshine State you don’t sneak up on me and hit me across the face with a copy of Van Til’s Systematic Theology

That we reject him for heresy of the greatest kind?

No.

Or settle with we should abandon this and move on, using the rest of him?

Yes, although I don’t have a firm view on the rest of his teaching as I haven’t done enough reading.

I just don't know what exactly your point is.

See response to Rev Winzer

 

[MW]

Taken at face value it is certainly a heretical phrase and as has been said previously, it requires lengthy explanations/qualifications by eminent theologians such as Dr Tipton to explain away the problems.

This encapsulates the main concern that has motivated my lengthy posts. I believe we need to recognise the danger that this phrase poses. VT is guilty of formulating a confusing phrase but there is no doubt that there will be amateur theologians out there who have read his work and been influenced to adopt a heretical view of God.

Yes, but your "danger" comes in connection with your "face value." This thread has discussed a number of dynamics to show that we have to go beyond the face of the words. Van Til had a philosophical context he was speaking to. That doesn't give him a pass mark, but it gives some degree of liberty to explore certain ideas. But I agree, it doesn't pass the sniff test. Something is off. And that will be the immediate response of your everyday Joe who doesn't care for the philosophical discussion. Christian philosophers should take note of this and give more thought to the naive understanding of the average person.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Yes, but your "danger" comes in connection with your "face value." This thread has discussed a number of dynamics to show that we have to go beyond the face of the words.

That is my point. It is unreasonable to expect people to take them other than at face value. That is very much where the danger lies.

Christian philosophers should take note of this and give more thought to the naive understanding of the average person.

I wholeheartedly agree. I think that is a wise comment.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

That is my point. It is unreasonable to expect people to take them other than at face value. That is very much where the danger lies.

I don't mean to minimize how unwise it was to write in such a manner, but it likewise strains the sniff test to imagine that Van Til is the source of a stampede of people adopting that language. The only people who ever read that language are usually connected to the controversial status of the language. If anything, my biggest problem is getting people to understand and apply the language of our Standards that clearly teach Nicene and Chalcedonian ideas. I've had to correct scores of licentiates and candidates on their misapprehensions in my many years of credentialing men, and I've never once run into someone whose error stemmed from what is a relatively obscure writing except among those who bring it up mainly in online fora for people who like to discuss the fine points of theology.

 

[jwright82]

That’s a cheap shot…well played

I think it is widely recognised that some of Van Til’s most prominent followers have gone astray on the doctrine of God. I am not saying that Van Til is directly responsible for this, but it may be that they followed his lead in terms of modifying Orthodox language.

I doubt anything significant will come from it. The ramblings of some insignificant Puritan Board newbie who hails from across the pond are unlikely to carry much weight. The best I can hope for is that next time I visit the Sunshine State you don’t sneak up on me and hit me across the face with a copy of Van Til’s Systematic Theology

No.

Yes, although I don’t have a firm view on the rest of his teaching as I haven’t done enough reading.

See response to Rev Winzer

I'm at work I'll respond later. Nice response though.

 

[MW]

That is my point. It is unreasonable to expect people to take them other than at face value. That is very much where the danger lies.

Well, I take them at more than face value. There is a philosophical discussion that lies behind our formulae. Anyone dealing with the history of doctrine knows this. Are we all bound to become naive and suppose the formulae have dropped out of heaven? I don't think so. At the very least the naive reader of Scripture is faced with the phenomenon of God speaking personally to us as well as a whole range of anthropomorphisms and pathisms. God speaks after the manner of men. We have to grapple with that. It is just here that philosophical discussion provides us categories to think through these things. So for me it is the confusion of categories that creates the problem in Van Til's discussion. He introduces paradox into our system of thought at the very point where traditional theology has given us clearcut categories. I am happy to leave it there. No need to press it further.

 

[jwright82]

That’s a cheap shot…well played

Not a cheap shot at all, just a recognition.

I think it is widely recognised that some of Van Til’s most prominent followers have gone astray on the doctrine of God. I am not saying that Van Til is directly responsible for this, but it may be that they followed his lead in terms of modifying Orthodox language.

That remains to be proven. Most Vantillian's don't do that. You have a thesis now back it up.

I doubt anything significant will come from it. The ramblings of some insignificant Puritan Board newbie who hails from across the pond are unlikely to carry much weight. The best I can hope for is that next time I visit the Sunshine State you don’t sneak up on me and hit me across the face with a copy of Van Til’s Systematic Theology

No sir, but we'd love to have you. Maybe I can introduce you to some Florida man people, I see they are quite popular online. And if I'm being honest I've actually hung out with people who did some of that stuff. Long time back.
My brother, may he rest in peace, used to wrestle Alligators and poisonous snakes.

No.

Good, that's reassuring.

Yes, although I don’t have a firm view on the rest of his teaching as I haven’t done enough reading.

See response to Rev Winzer

Ok. But for the record I've never actually used his formulation of the Trinity in actual conversations. I don't see it as having that much practical value. I can walk the average person through a transcendental argument, minus the fancy words, just fine.

 

[faithandfreedom]

but it likewise strains the sniff test to imagine that Van Til is the source of a stampede of people adopting that language.

I’m not saying a stampede of people have adopted his language. What I am saying is that his language has influenced many mens understanding of the Trinity.

The only people who ever read that language are usually connected to the controversial status of the language.

I read his language and was concerned with it. i had no prior connection to its controversial status. I am sure other people having read it for the first time don’t see a problem with it and unwittingly become confused.

If anything, my biggest problem is getting people to understand and apply the language of our Standards that clearly teach Nicene and Chalcedonian ideas. I've had to correct scores of licentiates and candidates on their misapprehensions in my many years of credentialing men,

I am very heartened to hear that you are calling men to wrestle with the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity. God bless you and your work in this regard.

and I've never once run into someone whose error stemmed from what is a relatively obscure writing except among those who bring it up mainly in online fora for people who like to discuss the fine points of theology.

That may be the case but it does not follow that VT’s teaching has not influenced people outside of your sphere. Furthermore, the influence of this kind of teaching is often more subtle. People rarely know exactly where their incorrect theological ideas stem from.

 

[RamistThomist]

That remains to be proven. Most Vantillian's don't do that. You have a thesis now back it up.

Most don't, but some big names have: Oliphint, Frame, etc. And most of the EFS guys are nominally Van Tillian. Though to be fair, Van Til himself opposed subordinationism.

 

[jwright82]

Most don't, but some big names have: Oliphint, Frame, etc. And most of the EFS guys are nominally Van Tillian. Though to be fair, Van Til himself opposed subordinationism.

Well first off, is the concern of this thread the doctrine of God or the Trinity? I realize that both are "Theology Proper", but I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around the idea of "Van Til has a confusing formulation of the Trinity, so a handful of his devotees may have developed a bad doctrine of God's simplicity".
If this was a criminal case it would be so circumstantial it would be thrown out. Plus logically it makes no sense. And what does subordinationism have to do with it? I thought that was motivated by the gender debate?
You see now it appears we're grasping at straws to lay blame, if someone has to go through all that trouble than they're probably just wrong.
I get the idea that "Van Til monkeyed with the doctrine of God's Trinity in a confusing way, so a handful of his devotees felt obliged to monkey around with other stuff".
That may be true in theory but to imply blame on a dead guy is stretching it in my opinion. Should we blame Abraham Kuyper for all the benefits and mischief his devotees have gotten up to? Dooyeweerd's philosophy is indebted to him but what in Kuyper's thinking justifies his wacky views on scripture (which I regard as being fundamentally wrong)?
Is Calvin College Kuyper's fault (or the Seminary for that matter)? I understand that to honestly make the case that Van Til's to blame would be a monumental task but based on what I read on the internet those people have a tenuous argument at best.

 

[jwright82]

I’m not saying a stampede of people have adopted his language. What I am saying is that his language has influenced many mens understanding of the Trinity.

Who? I don't know who this nebulous unamed group of people are? I don't worry immediately about hypothetical monsters around the corner or in the closet but the named one standing in front of me.

I read his language and was concerned with it. i had no prior connection to its controversial status. I am sure other people having read it for the first time don’t see a problem with it and unwittingly become confused.

This is a lot of speculation of other people's thoughts. How do you know these things? In my opinion it's better to stick with "people could be confused by this language". That's fair and then going out and finding how much to see where you're at.

I am very heartened to hear that you are calling men to wrestle with the Orthodox understanding of the Trinity. God bless you and your work in this regard.

I agree. God bless you in your devotion to the church Rich.

That may be the case but it does not follow that VT’s teaching has not influenced people outside of your sphere. Furthermore, the influence of this kind of teaching is often more subtle. People rarely know exactly where their incorrect theological ideas stem from.

Well now the "conspiracy" is getting larger and more abstract. I'm not personally attacking you, I hope you realize that, but it seems your nebulous unamed web is now getting larger. Yet no names have been offered.
Your whole line of reasoning here is too abstract to be of any practical value. Again no insults are intended here but it reminds me of "chicken little".

 

[Ploutos]

Well first off, is the concern of this thread the doctrine of God or the Trinity? I realize that both are "Theology Proper", but I'm finding it hard to wrap my head around the idea of "Van Til has a confusing formulation of the Trinity, so a handful of his devotees may have developed a bad doctrine of God's simplicity".
If this was a criminal case it would be so circumstantial it would be thrown out. Plus logically it makes no sense. And what does subordinationism have to do with it? I thought that was motivated by the gender debate?
You see now it appears we're grasping at straws to lay blame, if someone has to go through all that trouble than they're probably just wrong.
I get the idea that "Van Til monkeyed with the doctrine of God's Trinity in a confusing way, so a handful of his devotees felt obliged to monkey around with other stuff".
That may be true in theory but to imply blame on a dead guy is stretching it in my opinion. Should we blame Abraham Kuyper for all the benefits and mischief his devotees have gotten up to? Dooyeweerd's philosophy is indebted to him but what in Kuyper's thinking justifies his wacky views on scripture (which I regard as being fundamentally wrong)?
Is Calvin College Kuyper's fault (or the Seminary for that matter)? I understand that to honestly make the case that Van Til's to blame would be a monumental task but based on what I read on the internet those people have a tenuous argument at best.

It's not unprecedented to attribute some blame to a person when successors extrapolate various aspects of his thought to the logical end.

Augustine has been blamed for 1000 years of flawed church teaching on sexuality.

Jonathan Edwards has been blamed for New England's departure from orthodoxy.

Darwin has been blamed for the Holocaust.

Aristotle - and the medieval appropriation of his thought - has been blamed for misogyny in the church.

These examples have varying degrees of credibility in my mind, but they all serve to illustrate a point. Our ideas can have consequences far beyond what we imagine.

In each of these cases, and also with Van Til, I don't know make them personally culpable for every heterodox turn made on the foundation of their thought. I do believe it can be worth asking in what ways their thought might have opened certain doors or paved the way for later departures.

 

[jwright82]

It's not unprecedented to attribute some blame to a person when successors extrapolate various aspects of his thought to the logical end.

Augustine has been blamed for 1000 years of flawed church teaching on sexuality.

Jonathan Edwards has been blamed for New England's departure from orthodoxy.

Darwin has been blamed for the Holocaust.

Aristotle - and the medieval appropriation of his thought - has been blamed for misogyny in the church.

These examples have varying degrees of credibility in my mind, but they all serve to illustrate a point. Our ideas can have consequences far beyond what we imagine.

In each of these cases, and also with Van Til, I don't know make them personally culpable for every heterodox turn made on the foundation of their thought. I do believe it can be worth asking in what ways their thought might have opened certain doors or paved the way for later departures.

I agree but that's a different question. It's a lot harder to answer as well. Yet I still don't know who these hypothetical anti-Trinity people are running around out there. I mean if I check under every bed in my house for the Boogeyman and he's not there, I'm not going to check the neighbor's house because he could be there.

 

[Ploutos]

Christianity and Van Tillianism | Tabletalk

Many theologians believe that in spite of his good intentions, Van Til’s system of thought manifests a number of serious flaws. This article will deal with what I believe to be some of the most serious problems in Van Til’s thought.

tabletalkmagazine.com

This much-criticized article from several years ago details some of the questionable stances that have followed among Van Til's proteges.

I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting the article. I have my own opinion and too little time to flesh it out. But it offers one answer to the question of who is straying on the foundation of Van Til's thought.

 

[jwright82]

Christianity and Van Tillianism | Tabletalk

Many theologians believe that in spite of his good intentions, Van Til’s system of thought manifests a number of serious flaws. This article will deal with what I believe to be some of the most serious problems in Van Til’s thought.

tabletalkmagazine.com

This much-criticized article from several years ago details some of the questionable stances that have followed among Van Til's proteges.

I'm neither endorsing nor rejecting the article. I have my own opinion and too little time to flesh it out. But it offers one answer to the question of who is straying on the foundation of Van Til's thought.

Ok, I know Frame, Oliphant, and White possibly have on simplicity but again this very undefined use of "some" leaves me scratching my head. And nothing about drifting theologically about the Trinity. That's what this threads about.
I like Dr. Mathison's article but just because some theologians drifted because of a "rejection of Classical Realism" in Post-Enlightenment theology is very complex argument to make.
It almost looks to me like the argument is as follows:
1. Historically tampering with the doctrine of God leads to heresy for some but not all, for whatever reason and extant.
2. Some Vantillian's have drifted on God's simplicity because Van Til tampered with the doctrine of God.
3. Van Til's formulation of the Trinity is confusing and tampering.
4. Therefore people will drift on the doctrine of God's Trinity.
I don't think this is a valid argument to say the least. If I'm incorrect than please reformulate it in a better way. No one has yet drifted on the Trinity and saying Tipton and Frame for defending it is ridiculous.
But the general feeling of some in this thread is that a group has but we have not been introduced to them as of yet.

 

[Ploutos]

Ok, I know Frame, Oliphant, and White possibly have on simplicity but again this very undefined use of "some" leaves me scratching my head. And nothing about drifting theologically about the Trinity. That's what this threads about.
I like Dr. Mathison's article but just because some theologians drifted because of a "rejection of Classical Realism" in Post-Enlightenment theology is very complex argument to make.
It almost looks to me like the argument is as follows:
1. Historically tampering with the doctrine of God leads to heresy for some but not all, for whatever reason and extant.
2. Some Vantillian's have drifted on God's simplicity because Van Til tampered with the doctrine of God.
3. Van Til's formulation of the Trinity is confusing and tampering.
4. Therefore people will drift on the doctrine of God's Trinity.
I don't think this is a valid argument to say the least. If I'm incorrect than please reformulate it in a better way. No one has yet drifted on the Trinity and saying Tipton and Frame for defending it is ridiculous.
But the general feeling of some in this thread is that a group has but we have not been introduced to them as of yet.

Like I said, I don't have the bandwidth to address everything that Keith Mathison says in that article, nor am I equipped to wade into the deep end of these Van Tillian debates. But if you are wondering who is saying that who is unorthodox in what way because of which aspect of Van Til's theological system... Well, that is one article that provides one answer to that question. I'm not saying that it's the right answer or that you have to like it or even that I necessarily agree with all or part of the article.

 

[jwright82]

Like I said, I don't have the bandwidth to address everything that Keith Mathison says in that article, nor am I equipped to wade into the deep end of these Van Tillian debates. But if you are wondering who is saying that who is unorthodox in what way because of which aspect of Van Til's theological system... Well, that is one article that provides one answer to that question. I'm not saying that it's the right answer or that you have to like it or even that I necessarily agree with all or part of the article.

My apologies my friend. I missed that. Thank you for providing it in the spirit of helping out. I do appreciate it.