Johannes Cocceius, a father of biblical theology, would seem to have little in common with Cartesian rationalism. But most of the Cocceians in the latter part of the 17th century were Cartesians. Ernest Bizer (in an article entitled “Reformed Orthodoxy and Cartesianism”) suggests that there was an affinity between the two:
“Descartes had claimed the knowledge of the universe for philosophy, but by that very claim had removed revelation from the sphere of reason and had bound knowledge of revelation all the more strictly to Scripture. It was therefore natural that the Cartesians now also adopted the new ‘scriptural’ theology of Cocceius and sought to adhere, within the inner theological domain, as much as possible to the terminology of the Bible. The development which can be observed among the late medieval Nominalists is here repeated: the more profane philosophy becomes, the more biblicistic theology becomes.”
Another example: The “terms of peace” that theology came to, especially in Barth, in the wake of Kant.
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles
Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…
The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…
Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.