Category for Non-Protestant Reformed Scholastic Theologians of the Post-Reformation?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Loganbaxter15

Puritan Board Freshman
First post, please deal graciously with me!

For a brief context, I have recently finished reading Volume I - Prolegomena - of Richard A Muller's PRRD.

One of the key arguments in the book is the presentation of protestant scholasticism not as an ideological position but rather as a methodology; distinct from, but in continuity with the lines of trajectory established by medieval catholic scholasticism.

Muller makes a strong case that the protestant scholastic method was employed not only by the codifiers of the reformation but also by the magisterial reformers themselves.

Reformed theologians of the Reformation and Post-Reformation epochs have at times been labeled as "scholastic" if the earmarks of the scholastic method are employed in their writings (Turretin Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Melancthon Loci Communes, Johannes Maccovius Distinctiones et regulae theologicae ac philosophicae, etc.).

Long story short...

I am wondering if there is a category/ label for theologians during this period who did not utilize the scholastic method in their writings.

In his edifying piece On the Character of a True Theologian, Herman Witsius (1636-1708) quotes William Twisse (1578-1646) who contrasts the two methods by observing that of Johannes Piscator (1546-1625) with the apparent protestant scholasticism of his day :

" 'As if the Father of mercies had wished to exhibit in this very age, so inquisitive in its character, and too desirous of confounding secular with sacred learning, a specimen of the proficiency we might reach in an exact and scientific knowledge of the things conducive to salvation, merely through the reading of the Holy Scriptures, assiduous meditation, and careful study, and in exclusion of the whole tribe of Summists, Sententiaries, and Schoolmen.'
Such were the feelings, such the judgment, of that mighty champion regarding the method of study we recommend" On the Character of a True Theologian pp.33.

So, is there a name for this approach as contrasted by scholasticism?

My primary interest is the name of this category for further research.

Thank you for your time!
 
Peter Ramus attacked Aristotle, but I'm not sure I would say he is non-scholastic.
Thank you for the reference to Peter Ramus on this subject. You used the term "non-scholastic," is this the category that characterizes the negative position of protestant scholasticism?
 
Isn't scholasticism just a way of approaching a category? Attempting to answer all possible objections?

I would say most modern books are not using the scholastic approach. It's more about feelings (post modernism).
 
Isn't scholasticism just a way of approaching a category? Attempting to answer all possible objections?

I would say most modern books are not using the scholastic approach. It's more about feelings (post modernism).
Yes, an aspect of scholasticism does seem to be a systematic approach with an eye toward stating one's position prophylactically against attacks.

I am wondering what the opposite of this method is called specifically as it relates to the Reformation/ Post-Reformation period.
 
Yes, an aspect of scholasticism does seem to be a systematic approach with an eye toward stating one's position prophylactically against attacks.

I am wondering what the opposite of this method is called specifically as it relates to the Reformation/ Post-Reformation period.

Yes. It is like "academic" today. We praise "academic standards," yet we sneer at abstract things as "merely academic."
 
Sometimes there's a contrast drawn between scholasticism and humanism, although this can be overblown and mis-stated (see R.W. Southern, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe). But summarists and sententiaries do have a different approach than someone like Calvin.

Criticisms of "the schoolmen" are not always methodological or stylistic; often it's their content that is more objectionable.
 
Sometimes there's a contrast drawn between scholasticism and humanism, although this can be overblown and mis-stated (see R.W. Southern, Scholastic Humanism and the Unification of Europe). But summarists and sententiaries do have a different approach than someone like Calvin.

Criticisms of "the schoolmen" are not always methodological or stylistic; often it's their content that is more objectionable.
Thank you for the reference to R.W. Southern; I'll be going to the library to pick it up later!

The contrast you highlight between scholasticism and humanism gets to the point well, but as you said, I get a sense that a demarcating line between the two can be overblown and misstated.

I wonder then, if not strictly humanism, what methodological name does someone like Calvin (who isn't strictly scholastic nor humanist) receive?

Is there a name for such a position? Or is the period in Reformed History distinguished simply, perhaps incorrectly, by scholastic theologians and humanist theologians?
 
Some people were both; some people were eclectic; some people were predominantly one or the other (some were neither, though the easiest way to do that is simply not to engage at a deep level at all). I think Calvin's methods and aesthetic sensitivities are humanistic (perhaps literary is the better word) rather than scholastic, but those matters are disciplined by his approach of submission to the word of God.

I think these labels are partly useful, but it's important to know in what frame of reference a word is used. Sometimes scholasticism is not a technical description of a method, but an aesthetic judgment that something is too cold, formal, and elaborated (that judgment could be right or wrong in any particular instance). If you look at Junius' autobiography in, A Treatise on True Theology, you can see that it's actually his humanistic side that is excessively mannered and over-elaborated.
 
Last edited:
There are as many scholasticisms as there are scholastics. Therefore, it's not the most useful term, but we keep using it for lack of a replacement. Voetius, who I keep saying men online praise as "one of the best of the Reformed scholastics", took a very negative view of the "Scholastics" in his disputation on them, and would not have appreciated being called that.
But when modern historical theologians refer to scholastics they usually just mean writers that made use of certain scholastic distinctions, like the four causes of Aristotle, and substance and accidents, etc. In which case, they're all scholastic. There is hardly a writer that doesn't use those terms. Only, they don't show up much in certain genres, like sermons and bible commentaries.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top