Three threads in Puritan thought

[Eoghan]

I am coming to the end of 25 lectures on Puritan theology and have had a few surprises along the way.

1. The Ramist influence - a methodolody of breaking things down to gain understanding (ever wonder why thwere are so many point, sub-points and sub-sub-points?)

2. Syllogism - Raising a major premise and then a minor premise then arriving at a logical conclusion.

3. Casuistry - the application of scripture to conscience

Feel free to tidy up/refine these definitions.

The second causes me a little concern as it does seem to place some faith in human reasoning. I am aware of the major differences between the Reformed and Catholic view is whether the human mind is fallen or not in it's capacity to think and reason. Syllogism does require the identification of two premises and their correct understanding.

[Prufrock]

Eoghan, a few comments:

1.) There was certainly a large impact of Ramus' thought on several important English theologians: William Perkins and William Ames, in particular; and we do see the tendency towards neat bifurcations in much English Puritan thought. But at the same time, we should be cautious of seeing a Ramist influence every time we see neat two-fold divisions in an English divine. The fact that you noted the widespread use of Aristotelian syllogism is a testimony to the fact that Ramism was not adopted fully into English thought. Ramist logic tended to find favor chiefly with those who employed an analytic method of theology, with a chief eye toward the "final cause," whereas a more eclectic Aristotelian logic was generally employed by those who viewed theology in terms of a synthetic method, with an eye more toward the first, efficient cause. In the end, more theologians favored a more synthetic approach to school-theology, and consequently Ramist logic didn't quite carry the day.

2.) What's wrong with syllogisms? Reformed theology requires the validity of human reason, as it fills the role of an instrument (not a foundation) to theology. It is important to note that, in theological matters, while the major premise may be taken from nature, the minor always comes from scripture.

3.) There definitely was a small "fascination" if you will with "Cases of Conscience," though this was not strictly an English Puritan phenomenon.

[jwithnell]

Just out of curiosity, do you see much difference between the English and the American Puritans in the regards you mention?

And if I may make a broad observation (I haven't studied the points you raise), when I read the Puritans, the Ramist and syllogistic structures seem more a restraint than a means to flaunt human structure and reasoning. In other words, it seems that the writer (or speaker) is constrained to expound what is in front of him, and not make assumptions, conjecture, or emotive pronouncements.

[baron]

This Ramist Influnce is new to me never heard of it before. Have only read Perkins on The Art of Prophesying. But if it means breaking things down have you ever read William Gouge Commentary on Hebrews? Is this a example of Ramist Influence? He has more sections and points than any one else I have read.

Also I reading Psalm 119 by Thomas Manton he seems to make a lot of points.

I was curious how they could get so much out of one verse. Most of the time I get lost and have to retrace my reading. I'm used to three points and then close. (Sermons).