Gisbertus Voetius on Scholastic Theology

[Charles Johnson]

Hi friends, I have translated a section of Voetius dealing with scholastic theology for the first time. I feel that the scholastic/Aquinas retrieval movement has not been entirely honest about the reception of medieval scholasticism in the Reformed Church, especially when they make statements like that the Reformers adopted the method but not the contents of scholasticism, or that scholasticism is primarily the use of Aristotle's four causes and metaphysical categories for theology. As you can see, that is not how Voetius understood scholasticism, which he maintained a very negative view of. It just does not make sense to me that, since the Reformers had a similar idea about the attributes of God as Aquinas (all of which can be found in Augustine), they are "scholastic" and "Thomist," or that, because they used some Aristotelian logic, they are in line with medieval scholasticism (it seems to me that would make them Aristotelian, not Thomist.) I don't want to go to the other extreme either; yes, they general read Aquinas, and they positively referenced his discussion of certain matters, but I feel the point has been greatly over-exaggerated by some, while their animosity toward Papism has been greatly downplayed. Most of the guys who rant and rave about how Thomist the Reformers were won't talk about how they treated transubstantiation as idolatrous and heretical, or how they thought the Pope was the antichrist, or the criticism they directed toward scholasticism, both in its method and contents.
On a related note, Jason Papador (I forget his PB name) suggested I share a post I made about the reasons why Roman Catholic writings on the doctrine of God are not better or more profound than Protestant ones, since in certain circles that has been a popular line (Ryan Hurd especially has been pushing that idea).

 

[retroGRAD3]

Hi friends, I have translated a section of Voetius dealing with scholastic theology for the first time. I feel that the scholastic/Aquinas retrieval movement has not been entirely honest about the reception of medieval scholasticism in the Reformed Church, especially when they make statements like that the Reformers adopted the method but not the contents of scholasticism, or that scholasticism is primarily the use of Aristotle's four causes and metaphysical categories for theology. As you can see, that is not how Voetius understood scholasticism, which he maintained a very negative view of. It just does not make sense to me that, since the Reformers had a similar idea about the attributes of God as Aquinas (all of which can be found in Augustine), they are "scholastic" and "Thomist," or that, because they used some Aristotelian logic, they are in line with medieval scholasticism (it seems to me that would make them Aristotelian, not Thomist.) I don't want to go to the other extreme either; yes, they general read Aquinas, and they positively referenced his discussion of certain matters, but I feel the point has been greatly over-exaggerated by some, while their animosity toward Papism has been greatly downplayed. Most of the guys who rant and rave about how Thomist the Reformers were won't talk about how they treated transubstantiation as idolatrous and heretical, or how they thought the Pope was the antichrist, or the criticism they directed toward scholasticism, both in its method and contents.
On a related note, Jason Papador (I forget his PB name) suggested I share a post I made about the reasons why Roman Catholic writings on the doctrine of God are not better or more profound than Protestant ones, since in certain circles that has been a popular line (Ryan Hurd especially has been pushing that idea).

PB username = retroGRAD3. Hope all is well by you.

 

[Charles Johnson]

PB username = retroGRAD3. Hope all is well by you.

I tried searching. I could have sworn it had "cat" in the name. Turns out that was just the photo.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

I feel that the scholastic/Aquinas retrieval movement has not been entirely honest about the reception of medieval scholasticism in the Reformed Church, especially when they make statements like that the Reformers adopted the method but not the contents of scholasticism, or that scholasticism is primarily the use of Aristotle's four causes and metaphysical categories for theology.

This is a point that I've argued for some time, Charles, and I appreciate what you've translated here of G. Voetius.

While it is true that process and product may be distinguished in medieval scholasticism and that later-generation Protestants (after the 16th c. Reformers) who employed "scholasticism" did so by way of a process that came up with a different product (Turretini, e.g.) than the medievals, the Reformers could distinguish such as well (process and product), and their objection to the medievals was not only to the product of scholasticism but also to an overly speculative, highly philosophical process that yielded a product at variance with careful scriptural exegesis, of the sort that Calvin did. Historians who argue that medieval scholasticism was purely a matter of process, irrespective of product, over-argue their case, in my estimation.

It was right to recapture something of the genius of the Protestant scholastics but to do so at the expense of the 16th c. Reformed critique of medieval scholasticism (and as you point out the RCC as a whole) is a bit misleading, it seems to me.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Alan D. Strange]

@Charles Johnson

This is a side note, Charles (off-topic), but since you're in Peru, I can't resist! Last Tuesday, I enjoyed a magnificent recital here in Chicago by Juan Diego Florez, the outstanding Peruvian leggero tenor. I'll not say more, to abide by the rules, but note that Peru was well-represented there and a grand time was had by all!

Peace,
Alan

 

[Charles Johnson]

@Charles Johnson

This is a side note, Charles (off-topic), but since you're in Peru, I can't resist! Last Tuesday, I enjoyed a magnificent recital here in Chicago by Juan Diego Florez, the outstanding Peruvian leggero tenor. I'll not say more, to abide by the rules, but note that Peru was well-represented there and a grand time was had by all!

Peace,
Alan

Wonderful! I'm glad you enjoyed it. You'll have to try Peruvian food as well.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Wonderful! I'm glad you enjoyed it. You'll have to try Peruvian food as well.

I heartily endorse this. We have a decent Peruvian restaurant here in Phoenix called "El Chullo". I've been several times. Good stuff!

 

[Charles Johnson]

I heartily endorse this. We have a decent Peruvian restaurant here in Phoenix called "El Chullo". I've been several times. Good stuff!

My wife cooks it every day! No complaints from me.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Is the disputation a scholastic method of teaching? I think it might be helpful to be clear about the distinction between medieval scholasticism and post-Reformation Reformed scholasticism (as practiced by Voetius himself).

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Is the disputation a scholastic method of teaching? I think it might be helpful to be clear about the distinction between medieval scholasticism and post-Reformation Reformed scholasticism (as practiced by Voetius himself).

I would say "yes," but the question goes to the level, as the magister would prompt, of distinctions made.

The Protestant "scholastics" did employ the method of disputation but did not run it off the rails with endless distinctions as did some medievals: they hewed more to revelation, not letting philosophical speculation derail God's Word. Bringing it forward, this is the sort of argument, with which I agree, that Paul Helseth made with respect to the Princetonians: yes, they were partisans, of a sort, of Scottish Common Sense Realism, but they were too biblical and confessional to let that commitment drive them to rationalism, Sydney Ahlstrom notwithstanding (though I do think that the Princetonians could at times tend in that direction).

Peace,
Alan

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Wonderful! I'm glad you enjoyed it. You'll have to try Peruvian food as well.

I have and love it, though I've not had it in the beautiful land of Peru.

Peace,
Alan

 

[Charles Johnson]

Is the disputation a scholastic method of teaching? I think it might be helpful to be clear about the distinction between medieval scholasticism and post-Reformation Reformed scholasticism (as practiced by Voetius himself).

Hi brother, part of my point (see the post-script) is that Voetius did not call himself a scholastic, or a reformed scholastic. Unless scholastic is taken in the extremely broad sense of "having to do with a school," which I don't think is what anyone has in mind, it can only be applied to the Reformed and Roman Catholic authors equivocally. The idea of a "disputation" you mention is a good example of that. When people call the Reformed Orthodox "scholastics", the disputation is often something they have in mind, but the medieval scholastics, like Aquinas and Lombard, did not write in the form of disputations. Instead, they had a "scholastic" method of stating a question, objections, a response, and then solutions to the objections, that the Reformed did not imitate. Part of the danger, I think, in referring to a certain period of Reformed thought as "Reformed Scholasticism" is that it implies they are in the same category as Roman Catholic scholasticism, when they are not. So on the one hand it scares people off from these Reformed writers, because they're "scholastics" (in many historians, such as Justo Gonzalez, when they refer to "reformed scholastics" that has a negative connotation), and on the other hand, it drives people to Roman Catholic writers, because if they're able to get over the hurdle of reading the "Reformed scholastics," they often find themselves interested in more of this "scholasticism." I have known many guys that started reading Roman Catholic authors for that exact reason.

 

[RamistThomist]

Another problem tied with these debates is how metaphysical should our understanding of God be? This is similar to starting with pure and simple bible vs a God of being and essence. Or so the modern debate is framed. (Pascal is somewhat guilty)

 

[Charles Johnson]

Another problem tied with these debates is how metaphysical should our understanding of God be? This is similar to starting with pure and simple bible vs a God of being and essence. Or so the modern debate is framed. (Pascal is somewhat guilty)

Hi brother, I am alright with the use of certain metaphysical terms in discussing God, like "hypostasis," "essence," "substance," "form," and "simple." I can think of instances of the use of hypostasis, form, and simple even in the Scripture, even though they come from Plato and Aristotle, more or less. I would not call the use of these terms a scholastic distinctive, since they are found in the Fathers and the Reformed, and not just scholastic sources, although in our present age, in which Aristotelean thought have been widely rejected, they can certainly appear scholastic.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Hi brother, part of my point (see the post-script) is that Voetius did not call himself a scholastic, or a reformed scholastic. Unless scholastic is taken in the extremely broad sense of "having to do with a school," which I don't think is what anyone has in mind, it can only be applied to the Reformed and Roman Catholic authors equivocally. The idea of a "disputation" you mention is a good example of that. When people call the Reformed Orthodox "scholastics", the disputation is often something they have in mind, but the medieval scholastics, like Aquinas and Lombard, did not write in the form of disputations. Instead, they had a "scholastic" method of stating a question, objections, a response, and then solutions to the objections, that the Reformed did not imitate. Part of the danger, I think, in referring to a certain period of Reformed thought as "Reformed Scholasticism" is that it implies they are in the same category as Roman Catholic scholasticism, when they are not. So on the one hand it scares people off from these Reformed writers, because they're "scholastics" (in many historians, such as Justo Gonzalez, when they refer to "reformed scholastics" that has a negative connotation), and on the other hand, it drives people to Roman Catholic writers, because if they're able to get over the hurdle of reading the "Reformed scholastics," they often find themselves interested in more of this "scholasticism." I have known many guys that started reading Roman Catholic authors for that exact reason.

I'm not convinced. You write that the Reformed theologians didn't follow the pattern of the medieval scholastic method. But when I look at Turretin's Institutes or the Leiden Synopsis, that's exactly what I see. From the Introduction to the recent English translation of the Synopsis: "In arranging the material, the authors of the Synopsis commonly follow this Aristotelian pattern of topical questions: What does the term mean? Does the object exist? What is it? What are its parts? What specific aspects can be discerned? What are the causes of the object? What effects or consequences follow from it? To what other entities is it related? What things are the opposite or contradictory to it?" (p.5)

Slightly earlier in the introduction: "In fact, the 'question' structure, as the elementary tool of medieval scholastic inquiry, is recognizable in its application throughout the various genres of scholastic texts. Even when the 'question' structure is not followed explicitly, the techniques of definition, distinction, logical reasoning, and refutation of objections are typical of scholastic discourse." (p.4)

Like it or not, Reformed scholasticism was a real thing. They may not have identified themselves as such, but if walks like a duck, reasons like a duck...

 

[Charles Johnson]

I'm not convinced. You write that the Reformed theologians didn't follow the pattern of the medieval scholastic method. But when I look at Turretin's Institutes or the Leiden Synopsis, that's exactly what I see. From the Introduction to the recent English translation of the Synopsis: "In arranging the material, the authors of the Synopsis commonly follow this Aristotelian pattern of topical questions: What does the term mean? Does the object exist? What is it? What are its parts? What specific aspects can be discerned? What are the causes of the object? What effects or consequences follow from it? To what other entities is it related? What things are the opposite or contradictory to it?" (p.5)

Slightly earlier in the introduction: "In fact, the 'question' structure, as the elementary tool of medieval scholastic inquiry, is recognizable in its application throughout the various genres of scholastic texts. Even when the 'question' structure is not followed explicitly, the techniques of definition, distinction, logical reasoning, and refutation of objections are typical of scholastic discourse." (p.4)

Like it or not, Reformed scholasticism was a real thing. They may not have identified themselves as such, but if walks like a duck, reasons like a duck...

The loci communes structure was invented by a humanist and popularized by Melanchthon. I don't see how that is evidence of a common method with RC scholasticism. The manner of organization in those works is certainly influenced by Aristotle and his causes. There's no denying that. However, if you compare Lombard and Thomas, or their commentators, they did not order their material in that way. And of course, many writers organize things in the way of Ramist branching hierarchies, such as Polanus and the Westminster shorter catechism, which is still more different from the medievals.

 

[Guido's Brother]

The loci communes structure was invented by a humanist and popularized by Melanchthon. I don't see how that is evidence of a common method with RC scholasticism.

I didn't say anything about loci communes. Loci communes is one genre using the scholastic method. Lombard's Sentences would be an early example. Besides Melanchthon, this genre was also used by Musculus, Hyperius, and Vermigli. Disputations are another scholastic genre. The Leiden Synopsis consists of a series of disputations.

 

[Charles Johnson]

I didn't say anything about loci communes. Loci communes is one genre using the scholastic method. Lombard's Sentences would be an early example. Besides Melanchthon, this genre was also used by Musculus, Hyperius, and Vermigli. Disputations are another scholastic genre. The Leiden Synopsis consists of a series of disputations.

Alright, so they used topics or disputations. But the RC scholastics didn't use disputations, and just about every writer uses topics, because there are few thinks more basic to structuring a work than putting similar ideas together. And they sometimes phrases chapter titles in terms of a question. That simply doesn't appear to me to be a sufficient basis for claiming a common method between the reformed and medieval Roman Catholics, given how many things changed. With the Reformed, quodlibetals were out, Thomas's synthetic organization (question, objection, response, answers to objections) is out, commentaries on Thomas and Lombard were our, the very loose order of questions is out, the failure to ask "does it exist" and "what is it" at the beginning of every disputation is out, an organization according to causes is introduced, the branching hierarchy of ideas is introduced, the valid authorities for theology are changed, consideration of etymology and original languages is introduced, etc. Much more changed than stayed the same, as far as method is concerned. So why call them both "scholastic", besides that they were both taught in schools?

 

[Guido's Brother]

Alright, so they used topics or disputations. But the RC scholastics didn't use disputations, and just about every writer uses topics, because there are few thinks more basic to structuring a work than putting similar ideas together. And they sometimes phrases chapter titles in terms of a question. That simply doesn't appear to me to be a sufficient basis for claiming a common method between the reformed and medieval Roman Catholics, given how many things changed. With the Reformed, quodlibetals were out, Thomas's synthetic organization (question, objection, response, answers to objections) is out, commentaries on Thomas and Lombard were our, the very loose order of questions is out, the failure to ask "does it exist" and "what is it" at the beginning of every disputation is out, an organization according to causes is introduced, the branching hierarchy of ideas is introduced, the valid authorities for theology are changed, consideration of etymology and original languages is introduced, etc. Much more changed than stayed the same, as far as method is concerned. So why call them both "scholastic", besides that they were both taught in schools?

I'm not going to belabour this. I just want to say two more things and then I'll bow out. You may have the last word if you wish.

First, Roman Catholic scholastics did use disputations. Bellarmine is a good example of that. According to Pieter Rouwendal, "When Luther nailed those famous theses to the door, his intention was to enter into a theological disputation. The disputation genre had developed in the medieval schools and formed an important part of the scholastic method." (in Van Asselt's Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, p.56). One might also think of the Heidelberg Disputation in 1519 -- held in the context of Romanism, before Luther's excommunication. Disputations had been an essential part of theological training and discussion long before the Reformation. They continued to be for a long time afterwards, both with Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Second, for those who wish to dig deeper into this subject, let me recommend some resources:

William J. VanAsselt (ed.), Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism
Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin
Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, especially the first chapter in volume 1
Carl Trueman and R.S. Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment

 

[Charles Johnson]

I'm not going to belabour this. I just want to say two more things and then I'll bow out. You may have the last word if you wish.

First, Roman Catholic scholastics did use disputations. Bellarmine is a good example of that. According to Pieter Rouwendal, "When Luther nailed those famous theses to the door, his intention was to enter into a theological disputation. The disputation genre had developed in the medieval schools and formed an important part of the scholastic method." (in Van Asselt's Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, p.56). One might also think of the Heidelberg Disputation in 1519 -- held in the context of Romanism, before Luther's excommunication. Disputations had been an essential part of theological training and discussion long before the Reformation. They continued to be for a long time afterwards, both with Roman Catholics and Protestants.

Second, for those who wish to dig deeper into this subject, let me recommend some resources:

William J. VanAsselt (ed.), Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism
Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin
Richard Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, especially the first chapter in volume 1
Carl Trueman and R.S. Clark (eds.), Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment

Usually when we talk about RC scholastics we mean Aquinas, Bonaventure, Lombard, Lanfranc, Scotus, Biel, Ockham, Alexander of Hales, etc. Those guys write in disputations. Thomas has many, many volumes of works, but none follow a disputation format. That is what I am referring to, and that is the group Voetius has in mind, as well as the neo-scholastics Cajetan, Báñez, Suárez, etc. Bellarmine was a polemic writer in the Low Countries, so it's not a huge surprise he used a similar style of writing as the reformed in the Low Countries at the same time. But that still doesn't show a methodological continuity between the Reformed and Aquinas or other scholastics of that quality. If anything, I think your applying the label scholastic to Bellarmine illustrates my point that the term can mean anything.

 

[Ulster Fry]

I have just started reading Van Asselt’s Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism and think it might be useful here. He makes a distinction between orthodoxy, scholasticism, and Reformed. He thinks that orthodoxy is about content (which for the Reformed is found in our confessions) and scholasticism is about method. Scholastic methods were used by the RCs, Lutherans, and Reformed. But not all of the Reformed Orthodox wrote using the scholastic method, some being actively against it (though they may have been including the content when criticising mediaeval scholasticism). So 'Reformed Orthodoxy' is perhaps the more accurate term to be used for that period in Reformed history.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I have just started reading Van Asselt’s Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism and think it might be useful here. He makes a distinction between orthodoxy, scholasticism, and Reformed. He thinks that orthodoxy is about content (which for the Reformed is found in our confessions) and scholasticism is about method. Scholastic methods were used by the RCs, Lutherans, and Reformed. But not all of the Reformed Orthodox wrote using the scholastic method, some being actively against it (though they may have been including the content when criticising mediaeval scholasticism). So 'Reformed Orthodoxy' is perhaps the more accurate term to be used for that period in Reformed history.

"The Orthodox" and "Reformed Orthodoxy" (as you mentioned) appear to be the terms that both Muller and Turretin use in their writings.