Emphasizing the necessity of starting with the fact of revelation rather than the abstract possibility, Barth charges that “consciously or unconsciously, the Neo-Protestant tradition, in which Lessing, Kant, and Schleiermacher sought access to Christ along a road that could not lead to . . . . Continue Reading »
Matthew Levering has a couple of brilliant pages on Aquinas’s discussion of how Christ’s sacrificial obedience to the Father restores justice in the world ( Christ’s Fulfillment of Torah and Temple ). First, Thomas emphasizes the uniqueness of Israel’s law, which don’t . . . . Continue Reading »
Sanders’s work on Jesus is flawed by an odd adherence to conclusions the premises of which he rejects. In Jesus and Judaism he concludes that Jesus expected some kind of cataclysmic intervention by God in the future, yet also insists that he is suspending judgment about the form of . . . . Continue Reading »
In a lecture on incarnation and kenosis, Princeton’s Bruce McCormack asks John of Damascus how he can say that every act of the God-Man is “100% human and 100% divine.” Won’t the omnipotent divine act overwhelm the human act? That’s an odd question, I think. For, given . . . . Continue Reading »
Barth insists that the center of the New Testament is Jesus, and that without Him there is nothing to be said. The list found in 1 Corinthians 1:30 - wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, redemption - “become a meaningless statement in spite of the high content of its predicates” . . . . Continue Reading »
Not according to Barth ( CD 1.2) Anselm does not move from the possibility of incarnation to its reality, but instead throughout his argument assumes the reality he’s attempting to understand: “his method cannot be called rationalistic, because of all the decisive elements by which he . . . . Continue Reading »
CK Barrett argues in his John commentary that the anarthrous theos of John 1:1 (emphasized by Arians everywhere and at all times) shows that “the Word is God, but is not the only being of whom this is true; if ho theos had been written it would have been implied that no divine being existed . . . . Continue Reading »
“The Word was God,” says John. Where’d he get that? Genesis 15:1 is the first place where Scripture uses the phrase “word of Yahweh” ( dabar-YHWH ), and already here the use of the phrase hints that the dabar is a person. The word of Yahweh “came” to Abram . . . . Continue Reading »
Khaled Anatolios notes that Origen argued that “if God is eternally alighty, there must always be a creation over which God is sovereign.” Athanasius feels the force of the argument, but “transposes this line of reasoning to argue that if God is Creator, he must be eternally in . . . . Continue Reading »
Athanasius opposed to extrinicism in every form. Most obviously, he opposes the Arian effort to make the Son external to the Father and to the being of God. But that intrinsicism unfolds in an intrinsicist, christologically grounded soteriology. Why couldn’t God have sent a creature to save . . . . Continue Reading »
Subscribe
Latest Issue
Support First Things
