The Scholastic Method: The good, the bad, and the ugly
- Thread starter Casey
- Start date
- Status
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
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.
Presbyterian Deacon
Puritan Board Graduate
the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly...
[video=youtube;ZKlxyoPNaFI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKlxyoPNaFI[/video]
[video=youtube;ZKlxyoPNaFI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKlxyoPNaFI[/video]
dannyhyde
Puritan Board Sophomore
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
Casey
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Senior
Turretin was a scholastic. How would you describe his method in his Elenctics?
greenbaggins
Puritan Board Doctor
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
Puritan Board Senior
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.
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.
- Status
Similar threads
