Scholasticism

[Warren]

Is Calvinism inclined to Scholasticism? Do the Reformed schools "own" the doctrines? I'm not sure I understand yet what Scholasticism is. I basically know its St. Thomas' and Occam's school, and its invested in the higher schools of logic, borrowing from Plato.

Sorry in advance, if my question isn't very clear. I'm not a scholar!

 

[Philip]

So you're asking a couple of questions here.

First of all, yes, the reformed understanding of predestination is well within the range of views advocated by scholastic thinkers in the middle ages. For example, Thomas Aquinas' view is remarkably close to Calvin's (though 16th century Thomists abandoned it).

As a result, in the 17th century in particular there was a wide appropriation of scholastic thought and categories known as Protestant scholasticism.

 

[Justified]

It's also important to mention that, more than anything else, scholasticism is a method. In particular it was the method of the schools in the middle ages not only for theology, but also philosophy, medicine, the arts, etc.

 

[Justified]

I'll post it later, but there is a good audio conversation between Richard Muller and R. Scott Clark about the very question you're asking.

 

[Warren]

Thank you both, brothers.

Evan, I'm intrigued and look forward to the post!

 

[Justified]

Matthew, I believe that this is the audio to which I was referring: https://www.wscal.edu/resource-center/reformed-scholasticism.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Matthew,

The older view of scholasticism is that it was an unhealthy movement in the medieval church in which Christianity was corrupted by pagan (mostly Aristotelian) philosophy, which was rejected by the Reformers but which returned under Calvin's successors, the Reformed scholastics. This is the view advocated by Charles Augustus Briggs in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Briggs, of course, was a liberal on Scripture (and the subject of a heresy trial in the Presbyterian Church) who wanted to set the Reformers, whom he claimed to represent, against the orthodox scholastics. The latter, it is argued were "rationalist" and corrupted particularly by Aristotle.

Modern scholarship, since 1978, has largely rejected this caricature. To begin with "scholastic" means "academic." Scholastic theology is "academic theology." For those who think of Christianity as a mystical or existential encounter with Christ, then "academic theology" or scholastic theology is an oxymoron. If, however, one starts with Scripture and seeks to understand its truth both historically, in the history of redemption, and systematically or topically, as the church has always done, then it is almost impossible to avoid "scholastic" theology unless we are going to forbid Christian scholars from studying, teaching, and defending the faith.

Hereis a resource post on this from the HB.

The 16th and 17th-century Reformed scholastics were typically both pastors and scholars, who made use of the academic tools at their disposal to study, teach, and defend the faith against various increasingly sophisticated challenges in the late 16th century and through the 17th century. They did so intentionally and intelligently.

Were they "Aristotelian"? Yes and no. They were not Aristotelian in the way that Briggs alleged. They did use Aristotelian categories and vocabulary, which they inherited from the medieval church but we should not mistake that for substantial Aristotelian influence.

The leading scholar in this field since 1978 has been Richard Muller. Here is a relatively complete bibliography. Here is an introduction that Carl Trueman and I published in the late 90s, Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment. You might also take a look at Willem van Asselt's introduction published by RHB, which I use in my classes now--though several of the essays in PSER still hold up (esp., Bagchi, Steinmetz, Trueman, Muller, among others).

I'm editing a series with Reformation Heritage Books in which we are translating and publishing some of these texts. Most recently we published Cocceius Summa (in English) on covenant theology. We've also published Ames and Olevianus in the series. We have Heidegger and Rollock and others forthcoming. RHB has also published Beza on the supper. The Synopsis of Pure Theology is now available through Brill in English and there are other Beza texts (e.g.,his confession and his Summa Totius, as well as Junius On True Theology, Perkins works, Wollebius, and others coming into English translation or back into print. Here is the syllabus for my course on Reformed scholasticism. There is plenty of source material available now to disprove the old caricature of Reformed orthodoxy and Reformed scholasticism from the sources. Read them for yourself and you will find them, I trust, as I have, generally warm, thoughtful, careful with Scripture, orthodox and biblical.

Here's a resource post from the HB.

 

[Warren]

Thanks Evan and Dr Clark. (I listen to your podcast from time to time.)

So you're saying this Aristotlean language was the norm in Church history, but just because the Reformers spoke the language doesn't imply they were Aristotlean?

I ask all this to guard myself, because the existentialists and mystics have been convincing. They've convinced Evangelical conservatives, myself included, to believe the "God wants a relationship, not religion" mantra, which undermines scripture when you think about it.

Religion: re ligere, is our bond and covenantal relationship with God.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Warren,

Check out the resources listed.

Yes, it's not the case that using Aristotelian language, as adapted by Christians long before the Reformation, as used by the Reformers themselves, means that one's theology has been compromised.

The attempt to use only biblical terms is known as biblicism. It is a failed project. Historically it has led to, e.g., Socinianism. At Nicea, the Arians tried it but it question before the Council was what Scripture means.

Thus, the fellow whom I know best, Olevianus, spoke of the substance of the covenant of grace, as distinct from its accidents. We use this distinction regularly to distinguish between the elements of worship and its circumstances. Those are Aristotelian categories but one would be hard pressed to show that Olevianus (or Calvin, or Beza, or any of the rest of our theologians) were essentially Aristotelian in their theology.