From Irritation to Outrage: The Reformed Scholastics in the Hands of Pigmies

[dildaysc]

Like a great many, in the course of my theological education, both within and outside of Reformed circles, I had picked up a decidedly negative view of these old School-men. I was told, and what concerned me most was, that the Scholastics were not so much Biblical scholars as logicians and philosophers, and consequently they were frequently guilty of empty proof-texting and Scripture-twisting. More than anything, I desired to be Biblical in my thinking about God, so I shied away from the Reformed Scholastics.

Some years later I was introduced to the work of Richard Muller, and through Muller to Van Asselt, Trueman, and others. I found their work on the history and theology of Reformed Scholasticism captivating. Although it took some time, it gradually became apparent to me that the old Protestant Scholastics had suffered horribly at the hands of later generations of liberal and neo-orthodox theologians...even at the hands of some of my Reformed teachers and compatriots. For example, the caricature of the Reformed Scholastic as a Biblically illiterate logician and philosopher was largely answered by the fact that most Scholastics began their careers in Biblical Studies, and only ascended to the chair of Theology after having demonstrated their great competence in Biblical Studies.

Having been directed away from some of the best material that the history of Christian thought has to offer, I was a little irritated.

My irritation has now passed into full-blown outrage. I have been working on a translation of Bernardinus De Moor's Dissertation on Ephesians 5:14. The dissertation deals with the difficulty in identifying Paul's source or sources for the quoted material. All things considered, this is a relatively small detail in the vast scope of Biblical Studies. However, his detailed, careful, and thoughtful interaction with the text, the textual tradition, the Church Fathers and their comments on the textual tradition and Apocryphal literature, the early versions, and his own Scholastic colleagues is staggering. And note: De Moor was not alone; he is constantly citing a wide variety of other Scholastics that had descended into this material.

Here is what I am starting to think: Protestant Scholasticism may very well represent the apex of Biblical Studies in the history of Christianity...and yet we are being directed away from this material. Rather, we need to recover this material for the use of the Church in this present age.

So, learn Latin. If you don't have time to learn Latin, support those that are endeavoring to translate this material for the contemporary English-speaking Church.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Well said. I've written a two-part blog post on a similar theme:

Ten Things I Learned from Reformed Scholasticism (part 1)
Ten Things I Learned from Reformed Scholasticism (part 2)

I appreciate your work in translating De Moor!

 

[dildaysc]

Thank you, Wes. In translating De Moor, I have found that the work is its own reward.

Concerning the grievous misrepresentation of the Reformed Scholastics, sometimes I wonder about this sort of thing. How are these sorts of mistakes made? Is it simply shoddy scholarship (because the Herculean efforts of the Scholastics in Biblical Interpretation is evident simply by glancing at a catalog of their books)? But these mistakes have been made by great scholars of undoubted ability. Are they intentional, perhaps the fruit of prejudice and a partisan spirit?

In any event, it appears that the wicked one has hidden from the Church one of her great treasures.

 

[greenbaggins]

I've thought about this question rather a lot. I think there are a variety of factors involved in this. Firstly, the Enlightenment (which I prefer to call the Endarkenment) brought about a state of affairs wherein precise doctrine was anathema. The fragmentation of the theological disciplines also came about largely due to the Endarkenment. The fragmentation of the theological disciplines meant that only those involved in the discipline of systematics would appreciate the fine distinctions being made. All others would shun the discipline almost entirely. This helped created a great deal of prejudice.

Secondly, there is plain old ignorance of what the scholastic method was all about. That it was something that described a method rather than content was a fact that escaped notice until Muller et al proved that there were scholastics in all walks of life and areas of teaching, not to mention various branches of Christendom. It was tied to school-teaching, not to a viewpoint.

Thirdly, the influence of liberalism told against a proper understanding of the scholastics. Here I am not talking so much about the idea of liberalism but rather one of the practical results of liberalism, which is a lack of interest in reading anyone or anything conservative in nature. Liberalism wants what is new and better. The scholastics were old, and therefore perceived as dusty, to-be-forgotten tomes best left in libraries.

There are probably other factors, but these come to mind as at least possibilities.

 

[Guido's Brother]

I wonder whether the use of scholastic as a pejorative (and the derision associated with it) in Reformed circles goes back to Calvin's use of the term. As an example, in Institutes 4.14.23, "But we must utterly reject that Scholastic dogma (to touch on it also in passing) which notes such a great difference between the sacraments of the old law and new law..." That kind of usage assumes that scholasticism is more than a method -- it includes (objectionable) dogmatic content.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

I believe we'll find various degrees of conformity to Scripture doctrine and implication among the "School-men". As Dr. Dilday said above, when they tie their arguments closely to the Scriptures, they can shed much light.