Each is responsible for all, Dostoevsky says. He didn’t mean that no one was responsible. He meant that responsibility spreads far. In his intriguing Rosenstock-Huessy-inspired Power, Love, and Evil , Wayne Cristaudo illustrates Dostoevsky’s point with a review of the family history of . . . . Continue Reading »
John Nolland points out in his commentary on Matthew that the combination “evil and adulterous” is found in the LXX of Hosea 3:1, applied to Gomer. He suggests that by using this phrase, Jesus is echoing Hosea, and implicitly comparing the Jews to the generation of the exile. This makes . . . . Continue Reading »
I don’t want to over-dramatize, but I had a taste of the Bush police state this weekend. I crossed the line, and felt the force of the federal government bearing down on me. I tasted totalitarianism. I was dragged into The Castle, playing the role of K. The TSA tried to take my Trader . . . . Continue Reading »
Jesus rebukes the scribes and Pharisees for seeking signs, but He promises to give a sign, the sign of Jonah. Two observations: First: Signs are given; signs are gifts. Second, the first time we hear of “giving signs” in the Bible is Deuteronomy 13, which describes Israel’s proper . . . . Continue Reading »
Jesus condemns the scribes and Pharisees as an “evil and adulterous generation” for demanding a sign. Israel is being conceived, clearly, as a faithless bride; and she is a faithless bride because, in the face of countless signs of Yahweh’s favor to Israel in Jesus, she is still . . . . Continue Reading »
The Reformed Orthodox were entirely correct to discern a fundamental threat and challenge in the spread of Cartesianism, especially as regards the relation of philosophy and theology. But it’s hard to read about their responses without sadness. “Whatever reason brings out of its . . . . Continue Reading »
On the one hand: Method is a discipleship - a “following after.” And the Cartesian methodus is in conflict with the “following after” demanded of a Christian disciple. Here, Descartes offers a different way, a different truth and life. The Christian “method” of . . . . Continue Reading »
Bizer again, on Melchior Leydekker’s summary of the Cartesian critique of Reformed orthodoxy: “The Cartesians reproach the orthodox to the effect that their theology is not scriptural, that they have re-introduced Catholic scholasticism into the Church; that they hinder every advance in . . . . Continue Reading »
At several points, Bizer notes that the Reformed orthodox critics of Cartesian philosophy and its application to theology formulated their arguments to buttress their opposition to Lutheran ideas of the real presence. Peter van Mastricht “resists the proposition that God could do something . . . . Continue Reading »
Reformed Orthodoxy failed to stop the spread of Cartesian philosophy, despite vigorous efforts. Why? Bizer suggests that the orthodox critique often adopted much of what it criticized. In Martin Schoock’s notorious response to Descartes, “there is no word . . . about the fact that the . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
