RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
This is Peter Kreeft’s abridged commentary on Blaise Pascal’s Pensees. How shall one evaluate this? Pascal stands or falls on his own, so the majority of this review will focus on Kreeft’s project. To borrow Chalcedonian categories, Kreeft is 100% brilliant and 100% naive.
Scope
Kreeft suggests that Pascal is the first post-medieval apologist, and there is something to that observation. The medieval synthesis is irreparably destroyed. Modern man has moved from place to space. It is Pascal’s genius to see that. As such, the arguments are not so much arguments for God’s existence et al, but arguments for faith within the Christian system. With Pascal apologetics takes on a keen psychological turn.
Throughout we get a number of incisive comments on the mind-body problem, universals, and tips for good writing. Kreeft includes Pascal’s perceptive (and quite modern) comments on the Jews. Of course, Pascal’s Wager is legendary and Kreeft does a good job with it. Space forbids a full review, unfortunately.
Structure
This book is a psychological prolegomena to theology.
My problem with the book’s format is sometimes I forget if I am reading Kreeft or Pascal (Pascal’s text is in bold-print) and sometimes Pascal’s comments get lost in Kreeft’s explanations.
Evaluation
[A]
Kreeft is the master of the well-turned phrase. And when you juxtapose him with Pascal, himself a pithy wordsmith, the effect is something else.
However, while Kreeft is a master communicator, he is not a master at historical theology. I do not fault him because he holds to Roman catholicism. His problem is playing fast and loose with issues that are painfully complex. It’s not simply sloppy scholarship. It’s historically irresponsible (since souls are on the line).
[C]
Kreeft writes, “Contrary to Calvinism, Catholicism teaches that our first nature remains good beneath our sin nature” (Kreeft 161). But Confessional Protestantism does not teach that our human nature is one blob of sin. It is good. The sin is in the accidens and relatio (schizein; Formula of Concord, I:24-25).
[D]
I understand that as a Roman apologist Kreeft holds to Purgatory. That is his prerogative. What is troubling is the pithy way he tries to prove it while ignoring close to 1,000 years of strike and counter-strike against purgatorial arguments (see Mark of Ephesus in Eastern Orthodoxy). Kreeft writes, “That is why we need Purgatory: to become the kind of creature that would not wither and die when we meet God...Do you really think you are ready to stand in that light? If you do, then you are proud and not ready” (254).
[~D]
Here is a thought: what if when God sees me he sees Jesus? Is Jesus good enough? Jesus + 0, right? I realize this isn’t a full-orbed defense of Christ’s active obedience, but it is a sufficient rebuttal to Kreeft’s arguments for Purgatory.
[E]
How are the post-Vatican II liturgies working out for you?
Scope
Kreeft suggests that Pascal is the first post-medieval apologist, and there is something to that observation. The medieval synthesis is irreparably destroyed. Modern man has moved from place to space. It is Pascal’s genius to see that. As such, the arguments are not so much arguments for God’s existence et al, but arguments for faith within the Christian system. With Pascal apologetics takes on a keen psychological turn.
Throughout we get a number of incisive comments on the mind-body problem, universals, and tips for good writing. Kreeft includes Pascal’s perceptive (and quite modern) comments on the Jews. Of course, Pascal’s Wager is legendary and Kreeft does a good job with it. Space forbids a full review, unfortunately.
Structure
This book is a psychological prolegomena to theology.
My problem with the book’s format is sometimes I forget if I am reading Kreeft or Pascal (Pascal’s text is in bold-print) and sometimes Pascal’s comments get lost in Kreeft’s explanations.
Evaluation
[A]
Kreeft is the master of the well-turned phrase. And when you juxtapose him with Pascal, himself a pithy wordsmith, the effect is something else.
However, while Kreeft is a master communicator, he is not a master at historical theology. I do not fault him because he holds to Roman catholicism. His problem is playing fast and loose with issues that are painfully complex. It’s not simply sloppy scholarship. It’s historically irresponsible (since souls are on the line).
[C]
Kreeft writes, “Contrary to Calvinism, Catholicism teaches that our first nature remains good beneath our sin nature” (Kreeft 161). But Confessional Protestantism does not teach that our human nature is one blob of sin. It is good. The sin is in the accidens and relatio (schizein; Formula of Concord, I:24-25).
[D]
I understand that as a Roman apologist Kreeft holds to Purgatory. That is his prerogative. What is troubling is the pithy way he tries to prove it while ignoring close to 1,000 years of strike and counter-strike against purgatorial arguments (see Mark of Ephesus in Eastern Orthodoxy). Kreeft writes, “That is why we need Purgatory: to become the kind of creature that would not wither and die when we meet God...Do you really think you are ready to stand in that light? If you do, then you are proud and not ready” (254).
[~D]
Here is a thought: what if when God sees me he sees Jesus? Is Jesus good enough? Jesus + 0, right? I realize this isn’t a full-orbed defense of Christ’s active obedience, but it is a sufficient rebuttal to Kreeft’s arguments for Purgatory.
[E]
How are the post-Vatican II liturgies working out for you?
