For the past ten years I’ve always been wary of the Trinity Foundation. If you peruse the older comments on Puritanboard (I wouldn’t do it sober), many of them often border on shrill hysteria (of course, that could simply be my projecting Sean Gerety onto all of the Clarkians). However, my (then) dislike of the Trinity F. usually focused on some of their responses to men I knew personally. However, I do like free stuff, especially quality mp3s.
As some are aware, I spent about four years sympathetically inquiring into Anchoretic Christianity (HT to Drake for that term). While finding most of its Triadology outstanding, I couldn’t go for other reasons. Notwithstanding, I still hold to their criticisms of Western Scholasticism. I like the essence-energies model, but I always had suspicions about it. <<<pause this line of thinking for a moment>>>
A solid critique of Van Til
While I appreciate Van Til the man and rejoice in his godly testimony, I’ve finally seen that his apologetic method is chaotic and incoherent. Getting past some of the more-heat-than-light in John Robbins’ critique of Van Til, it must be admitted, Doug Jones’ reply notwithstanding, that Robbins put his finger on the pressure point of Van Til’s system, and crippled it. If, as Van Til alleges, God’s knowledge and man’s knowledge do not coincide at any one point, and God knows everything, then man knows nothing.
Imagine my delight when I read how the essence/energies distinction is, as Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart admits (Illustrated History of Christianity), incoherent, yet at no time does this rejection of e/e entail the scholastic doctrine of absolute simplicity.
I’m currently listening to Dr Robbins’ lectures economics and am impressed how he incorporates an axiomatic understanding of Scripture into economics.