tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1353740989016534276..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Doctrine and evidenceRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77935302844117579322017-12-02T07:20:49.142-05:002017-12-02T07:20:49.142-05:00Nice call-out to Cunningham's "missing&qu...Nice call-out to Cunningham's "missing" lectures (the one book of his not published by Banner of Truth, Reformation Heritage, etc.). I've been reading this recently as well. Very good!<br /><br />I wonder if taking Cunningham's cue and tracing it back, as Tim McGrew does in his lectures on the Deistical controversy, may help many Van Tillians to better understand what so-called "classical" apologetics was doing. Might take some of the bite off of their criticisms?<br /><br />I'm also intrigued by Cunnigham's hint that the origins of Kant and the post-Kantian idealists where actually just paying back the early-19th Anglo-Americans in kind, i.e., that much of that imported German Neology was in fact informed by 17th century English Socinians/Deists and the their sometimes ham-handed handling by otherwise orthodox theologians (his 18th lecture among others). This same thesis has been repeated in the 21st century by a German historian/theologian, to the effect that we should not blame Kant for being Kant, because he was really being a 17th Century British Deist of some kind (haven't read the book yet; forget the title).Pip Brandyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17357170631734500942noreply@blogger.com