# Curious Historical Judgments



## py3ak (Aug 31, 2011)

From time to time, one finds one Reformed theologian of yesteryear commenting on a contemporary or predecessor, sometimes in unexpected ways, and in a manner that runs counter to the prevailing current of our own times. I'm always struck by these, and interested in finding out what informs such a judgment.

For instance, Auguste Lecerf claims that Burman is Scotist. Is that true? 
Berkhof claims that Burman gives a better treatment of federal theology than Witsius - and yet Witsius today is both reprinted and marketed, while Burman is a footnote.

I'm interested in the specifics of historical judgments like the example given above, (i.e., I really want to know if Burman was Scotist; and I have some other questions I'd like to post as well) but also in the broader question of historical judgments that appear unlikely in an era subsequent to their deliverance.


----------



## Wayne (Aug 31, 2011)

And everybody said, "Huh?"


----------



## Peairtach (Aug 31, 2011)

What is a Scotist? Is that one pertaining to the teaching of Duns Scotus? What did he teach?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 31, 2011)

Here is another example.

In our times, Gottschalk is often mentioned in Reformed circles as a faithful proponent of the truth of predestination (for instance, see here). And yet John Flavel says:


> When Gotteschalcus published his dangerous doctrine about predestination, the Lord drew forth Hincmarus to detect and confute that error, by evincing clearly, that God's predestination forces no man to sin.


(_Works_, v.3, p.435)

Which is it? Does Gottschalk stand firmly on the doctrines of sovereign grace, or is his doctrine of predestination dangerous? And more to the point of my inquiry, _what are the occasions, causes, rise and growth_ of this sort of reversal of historical judgment?


----------



## MW (Aug 31, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Which is it?


 
One (the commendation) is on the extent of the atonement while the other (the criticism) relates to the causality of sin. Both might consist together. We would have to open the institute for Gottschalkian studies to answer the intricacies of your question.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 31, 2011)

Other places call Gottschalk "thoroughly Augustinian", and it's been stated on this board that Gottschalk anticipated Calvin's teachings in regard to predestination. The _Reformed Reader_ post was simply one example of a positive mention to contrast with Flavel's view.
But if you can find funding I'll happily do the administrative work for the new institute!


----------



## MW (Aug 31, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Other places call Gottschalk "thoroughly Augustinian", and it's been stated on this board that Gottschalk anticipated Calvin's teachings in regard to predestination.


 
I've only read secondary material, and that material concurs with the assessment you have provided. If we were to start probing, however, and carefully examine the primary sources, we might find that there was not an altogether adequate presentation of the causality of sin, and that this called for correction. I can't say one way or the other, but, were that to be the case, it wouldn't be the only example of the kind. If there is one point of vulnerability in the Augustinian-Calvinian system, that is it.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 31, 2011)

Burman as a 17th c. Protestant Scholastic garnered respect, as your citation of Berrkhof suggests. In what sense does AL peg him as a Scotist? I would have to explore this (which I have not).

That aside, your question about historical judgment is an interesting and important one. How does Witsius come roaring back? Sometimes it's as a simple as finding a champion and a publisher--someone perhaps who thought that a particular figure dealt well with matters and has been neglected/underrated. This happens all the time.

For a striking example of such see Ken Stewart's treatment (In his recent _Ten Myths_ book)of the 19th century British revival of Calvin that began at the 300th anniversary of Calvin's ICR, producing the Beveridge edition. Richard Muller always points out how that Calvin in his time (and afterwards) was not as utterly dominant as he later became. My point is not that Calvin is not worthy of the attention that he has received in the last two hundred years but that Stewart illumines changing historical judgments.

As for Gottschalk, we know him largely through his opponents, and I've always had an unsettling feeling that he might have been taking Augustine in a direction that may have been rationalistic. I agree with M. Winzer's observation. I think from what we know of the historical record, it is hard to tell if Gottschalk was rightly representing and developing Augustine (a Calvin before Calvin!) or whether he was, anachronistically, a hyper-Calvinist. Certainly, he was wrongly treated and his opponents had theological errors. It remains, however, hard for me to figure out whether he himself embraced any errors on the opposite end of the spectrum from his opponents. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## py3ak (Aug 31, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> I've only read secondary material, and that material concurs with the assessment you have provided. If we were to start probing, however, and carefully examine the primary sources, we might find that there was not an altogether adequate presentation of the causality of sin, and that this called for correction. I can't say one way or the other, but, were that to be the case, it wouldn't be the only example of the kind. If there is one point of vulnerability in the Augustinian-Calvinian system, that is it.



Thanks, Mr. Winzer, that seems like a very probable supposition.

Professor Strange, the bit from Lecerf about Burman is just a paragraph, and though he does say a bit more about Scotism he doesn't proceed to define it: after some discussion with a learned friend it seems the most probable interpretation is that by Scotism Lecerf meant voluntarism (that is, a somewhat mistaken view of 17th century voluntarism). 

If anyone wants to look into Gottschalk, that is more possible than previously, though it looks like there is still work to be done in making his writings readily available.

The mechanism you suggest is quite clear in the case of _recovery from obscurity_; but what in the case of a reversal of opinion? E.g., it now appears to be the majority view that Nestorius is not a Nestorian, and yet he was cheerfully condemned for many years: indeed, in the same work previously cited Flavel speaks of Nestorius' tongue being eaten by worms!


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 31, 2011)

I think that the dynamic in terms of reversal of historical judgments and recovery from obscurity is not always that different. Often subsequent discoveries (and we've discovered a treasure trove of MSS in the ANE in the last 150 years) prompts both. This is the case with Nestorius about whom there is evidence that when he read Leo's Tome in 449 fully agreed with it and thus proved not to be a Nestorian (though clearly Nestorianism was a heresy).

One must also hasten to add, however, that as pertains to heretics and heresies, the tenor of the times favors "tolerant" readings so that for some historians there are no heretics, only those who were on the short end of a power play. While this is not without truth (there were certainly some monumental power plays, Alexandrian patriarchs seeming to be particularly prone to this), much of this is post-modernism that rejects the possibility of knowing truth in favor of mere perspectivism. Some judgment reversals, in other words, are due to such philosophical (epistemological) considerations. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Prufrock (Aug 31, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Lecerf meant voluntarism


Though I would clarify (if this is referring to our conversation, that is) that I meant a slightly erroneous interpretation of 17th century voluntarism.


----------



## Philip (Aug 31, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> What is a Scotist? Is that one pertaining to the teaching of Duns Scotus? What did he teach?



He's most notable for his theory that all language is univocal and that individual things are composed of collections of universals (to oversimplify drastically---his explanations are much more subtle than this: there's a reason why his Latin title was "Doctor Subtilis").


----------



## py3ak (Aug 31, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Lecerf meant voluntarism
> ...



I did use my standard illocution for you when I'm not sure how anonymous you would like to remain. Now I shall have to find a new epithet. Yes, I should have been clearer.



Alan D. Strange said:


> One must also hasten to add, however, that as pertains to heretics and heresies, the tenor of the times favors "tolerant" readings so that for some historians there are no heretics, only those who were on the short end of a power play. While this is not without truth (there were certainly some monumental power plays, Alexandrian patriarchs seeming to be particularly prone to this), much of this is post-modernism that rejects the possibility of knowing truth in favor of mere perspectivism. Some judgment reversals, in other words, are due to such philosophical (epistemological) considerations.



Indeed: sometimes the reversal of historical judgments says as much about us as about the preceding historical judgment.


----------



## Philip (Aug 31, 2011)

Alan D. Strange said:


> This is the case with Nestorius about whom there is evidence that when he read Leo's Tome in 449 fully agreed with it and thus proved not to be a Nestorian (though clearly Nestorianism was a heresy).



After reading the _Bazaar_, I probably agree with you (though he's probably still fairly mistaken). It's also telling that a whole branch of the church ended up rejecting most of Ephesus because it believed that Nestorius had not been given due process.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Aug 31, 2011)

Neither Theophilus nor Cyril were exactly the poster boys of due process. I agree that Nestorius did have remaining problems, and dear Chrysostom had a few as well (though less serious), but neither of them received proper treatment at the hands of the Patriarchs of Alexandria. 

Peace,
Alan


----------

