# The Scholastic Method: The good, the bad, and the ugly



## Casey (May 7, 2008)

The scholastic method -- what's good about it, what's bad about it? Why isn't it used today? Too tedious? Thoughts?


----------



## Puritan Sailor (May 7, 2008)

CaseyBessette said:


> The scholastic method -- what's good about it, what's bad about it? Why isn't it used today? Too tedious? Thoughts?



My 
You are asking about Protestant Scholasticism correct? 

What's good? It forced you to think. And it forced you to study the classics of both secular and church history. You knew your roots culturally and religiously. It well equipped you to deal with new heresies and doctrinal challenges because you had a firm foundation in Scripture and it's application through the centuries. 

What's bad? The tendency to dead orthodoxy and academic isolation. Theology without practice just puffs people up and makes theology irrelevant to the average Joe. That's why the best theologians in history were pastors first. 

Why isn't it used today? We are not educated the same way anymore. Classical education is rare among pastors. Historical theology is also rare. And we live in a culture that values sensation rather than thinking, the instantaneous rather the hard wrought. 

Only  but I don't think I'm too far off.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Casey (May 7, 2008)

I was talking about the method itself (is it neutral?), whether Catholic or Protestant. Thanks for your thoughts, Patrick.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (May 7, 2008)

*the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly...*



[video=youtube;ZKlxyoPNaFI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKlxyoPNaFI[/video]


----------



## dannyhyde (May 8, 2008)

CaseyBessette said:


> I was talking about the method itself (is it neutral?), whether Catholic or Protestant. Thanks for your thoughts, Patrick.



Hi Casey,

I'm not sure I know what you mean by *a* scholastic method, as there were at least the two major methods:

The _Quaestio_ method, used by Thomas, for example, which is more inductive:
Question/issue 
Objections 
Sed Contra (on the contrary)
Respondeo dicendum (I respond by saying...) 

The _Disputatio_ method, which is more deductive:
Exposition 
Proof 
Objections 
Refutation


----------



## Davidius (May 8, 2008)

I think the scholastic method refers to the medieval form of biblical interpretation which had 4 parts: literal, spiritual, allegorical, and something else...can't remember. Maybe I'm thinking of something else, though.


----------



## Casey (May 8, 2008)

dannyhyde said:


> CaseyBessette said:
> 
> 
> > I was talking about the method itself (is it neutral?), whether Catholic or Protestant. Thanks for your thoughts, Patrick.
> ...


This is good -- thanks! I recently had the _Quaestio_ method explained in class and the _Disputatio_ only mentioned in passing. And yes, this is what I'm talking about (particularly the first type).

I suppose I enjoy reading _Quaestio_ method arguments because, well of course everyone's biased, but if they're fair in their treatment of a subject then you've got a decent representation of arguments on both sides of the question.

I've found this to be quite helpful, sort of like the SIL exegetical summary books, in distilling the different views.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 8, 2008)

Turretin was a scholastic. How would you describe his method in his _Elenctics_?


----------



## greenbaggins (May 8, 2008)

Davidius said:


> I think the scholastic method refers to the medieval form of biblical interpretation which had 4 parts: literal, spiritual, allegorical, and something else...can't remember. Maybe I'm thinking of something else, though.



This is something distinct from the scholastic method. What you are thinking of here is the Medieval quadriga, or four-fold method of interpretation of Scripture. 

The scholastic method was just that, a method. I do not think it had nearly the impact on the content that some people today think it had. It certainly had NOTHING to do with a dry, dead orthodusty. a'Brakel was a scholastic, and a more practical systematic theology you will never find. The scholastic method has to do with a method developed in order to teach theology in a school. That is what a schola is, a school. In Turretin, for instance, you will find the statement of the question (including what the question is and what the question is not), the arguments for and against, and then a section on sources (which include biblical, patristic and other relevant sources). For the very best description of the scholastic method, you have to read Richard Muller's four volume Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics.


----------



## Archlute (May 8, 2008)

Exactly. It is just theology as taught in the academy, and therefore as a form has the potential to embrace both healthy and unhealthy theological ideas, but it is not inherently bad in and of itself (unless you are a pietist, Barthian, etc).

Along with Lane's recommendation of Muller's PRRD, I would direct you to the series of essays edited by Carl Trueman and Scott Clark entitled _Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment_.

If you have a lot of money, and you need to find a way by which to dispense of it, I would also recommend Muller's _After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition_ in the Oxford Studies in Historical Theology series (hence, the expense). Part one of that volume is especially helpful. 

Less directly related, but also of some value in broadening one's understanding of the discussion is Muller's _The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition_, also put out by the OSHT series.

I think I dropped about 85.00 on the last two volumes, so beware.


----------

